# Practising Portraits #1



## santoshrane (Sep 17, 2013)

I clicked few. Posted on FB and got lot of likes  I definitely don't wanna get carried away so I'm here and wanna know what I could have done better. 

I read few books n you tube n was working on the idea of locking lens at 50mm on a 18-55 and trying different compositions. 

I could have touched up the pic to soften the skin, but haven't done that. .this is it right from the camera. 

Request people to help me get better.  Please comment.  

Santosh Rane
Suunto Ambit 2
GNote 2
Samsung NX300
Merida TFS100


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 17, 2013)

This is a grab shot of a young woman somewhere in the open air, perhaps a street-side cafe.
It is in focus and well-exposed but there's not much more to say than that.
She is looking down into the corner, her hair on that side is pretty much completely without detail.

She has large eyes - and probably quite lovely - 
Try some shots with eye contact.


----------



## weepete (Sep 17, 2013)

Looks ok to me. Pretty well lit and no huge errors, nice shallow depth of field too. Normally these shots are composed the other way round though so the subject is looking I to space instead of out of the frame, it would have been nicer in portrait orientation and without the top of her head cut off, and I'd have liked to have seen her eyes.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 17, 2013)

Next time you're in a situation like this,I would encourage you to think "*vertical camera orientation*", so you avoid lopping off the top of the subject's head, AND you also create what is called a "base" for the portrait. In a close-range horizontal photo, one in which the head top is cropped off, there is almost always insufficient shoulder and upper chest area, and what is presented is basically what some people refer to as "a floating head".


----------



## Designer (Sep 17, 2013)

Why did you include the shrub?  Is it special?  Is the model's expression/pose in some unknown reaction to the shrub?


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 17, 2013)

> Next time you're in a situation like this,I would encourage you to think "*vertical camera orientation", so you avoid lopping off the top of the subject's head*


I disagree about the top.  Usually I prefer photos where the top of the head is slightly lopped off. It fills the frame and feels intimate.

However, I totally agree with Derrel about more shoulders on the bottom.  I would suggest keeping the top exactly where it is, but zooming out a bit to get more body context on the bottom specifically.  Or portrait, but either orientation can work.

Also, if you ARE going to go with horizontal, it would probably look better if the extra space were on the left, where she is looking. That way, when people follow her gaze, they stay in your photo, instead of leaving it.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 17, 2013)

I'm a heads chopped off guy as well.  I find I do it a LOT.

If this shot was vertical, it might not be as easy to tell she was sitting down for a cup of coffee at an outside patio...  If it were a headshot, sure, but this type of casual image I prefer horizontal in most cases.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 17, 2013)

eye contact is key for a portrait to work.


----------



## santoshrane (Sep 17, 2013)

Designer said:


> Why did you include the shrub? Is it special? Is the model's expression/pose in some unknown reaction to the shrub?



Thank you for the observation.

I realized my error. I should have framed the left side where she is looking and that way the shrub could have been avoided.

Will keep that in mind next time.


----------



## santoshrane (Sep 17, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> eye contact is key for a portrait to work.



Thank You - Will try and work on the eye contact next time.

Have been reading and it says that no white space on top and bottom of eyelid and make sure pupil is dilated JUST enough to get a good eye. ---- IS THIS CORRECT???


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2013)

Note - select posts removed. In future if members wish to debate opposing views and lines of advice please stick to informative posts that debate the subject and not starting to use childish insults or jabs. Debating is not about making the other party look stupid, its about presenting your viewpoint and information in a calm manner and then let others weigh up who to listen to.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 17, 2013)

Okay so in other words, the opinions of society and what they link to and share most heavily has nothing to do with whether photography is good?  An odd position to take, since society's tastes is what almost all photography is made to match. But okay, let's roll with it for a minute...:

Instead, Derrel proclaims that regardless of whether or not they are actually well liked or popular, ones that don't crop heads are still "better" because that's what they (allegedly) teach you... well, somewhere. That's interesting, because here is a sampling of National Geographic covers with cropped heads I found in 3 minutes or so:
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1258-6.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1218-3.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1219-3.jpg

Here are some Vogue covers with cropped heads I also foudn in 3 minutes:
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/172-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/100-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/148-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/200-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/204-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bestselling-magazines-2008/200-5.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/261-1.jpg
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/vogue/223-1.jpg

Life magazine:
http://www.dwhs.co.uk/wordpress/a2group2/files/2012/03/lifecovhudson021607.jpg
http://www.2neatmagazines.com/Life-Magazine-Covers/1961/Life-Magazine-1961-06-30.jpg
http://blogs.reuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Life Oct 2004a.jpg
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/info_resources/life_big_snoop/cover_240.jpg
http://images5.fanpop.com/image/pho...005-scarlett-johansson-29785472-1062-1280.jpg

Rolling Stone:
http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980w/public/2013/07/19/jim_morrison.jpg?itok=Pimi6nY1
http://cdn01.cdn.justjared.com/wp-c...uno-mars-covers-rolling-stone-may-2013-01.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/im...g-stone-cover-volume-927-7-24-2003-eminem.jpg
http://images.fineartamerica.com/im...er-volume-1071-2-5-2009-bruce-springsteen.jpg

Newsweek:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Rush-Limbaugh-newsweek-cover-8x6.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27qz195N91qzs5cqo1_500.jpg
http://media3.onsugar.com/files/201...na-Jolie-Beautiful-Newsweek-Cover-Picture.jpg

Or do the staff of these magazines still qualify only as "self-taught, unstudied newbies" by your standards?


----------



## HughGuessWho (Sep 17, 2013)

Now this is confusing. Every time I refresh this thread there are LESS comments than before. With the deleted comments I am totally confused and cannot follow the conversation. I guess I will just move on to a thread that isn't a slug fest. This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## weepete (Sep 17, 2013)

Cropping of heads is a personal thing I think. Some dont like it, some do. Normally I don't mind it at all, however because of her sticking up hair I don't think it works in this case.


----------



## sm4him (Sep 17, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> Now this is confusing. Every time I refresh this thread there are LESS comments than before. With the deleted comments I am totally confused and cannot follow the conversation. I guess I will just move on to a thread that isn't a slug fest. This is getting ridiculous.



Oh. Moving on to a different thread. Yeah, that might work. I started reading this, and quickly realized that parts had been deleted, and then those deleted parts referred to and like you, got totally confused.  But my solution was to just start drinking, in the hopes that once I've had enough to drink, it will at least make sense that nothing makes sense. :lmao:


----------



## MLCIII (Sep 17, 2013)

OP, don't let these guys neuter you. You apologized for the shrub and for the lack of eye contact, both of which add to the context of a fairly well taken photo. The world simply can't be filled with doe-eyed, slant-shouldered, full-domed, well lit, portrait-oriented head shots. I quite like this. She's a shy girl sitting down for a cup of coffee. It's nice.


----------



## DanOstergren (Sep 18, 2013)

MLCIII said:


> OP, don't let these guys neuter you. You apologized for the shrub and for the lack of eye contact, both of which add to the context of a fairly well taken photo. The world simply can't be filled with doe-eyed, slant-shouldered, full-domed, well lit, portrait-oriented head shots. I quite like this. She's a shy girl sitting down for a cup of coffee. It's nice.


Listen to this guy!


----------



## kathyt (Sep 18, 2013)

MLCIII said:


> OP, don't let these guys neuter you. You apologized for the shrub and for the lack of eye contact, both of which add to the context of a fairly well taken photo. The world simply can't be filled with doe-eyed, slant-shouldered, full-domed, well lit, portrait-oriented head shots. I quite like this. She's a shy girl sitting down for a cup of coffee. It's nice.


I agree. I chop heads all the time.


----------



## jenko (Sep 18, 2013)

MLCIII said:


> OP, don't let these guys neuter you. You apologized for the shrub and for the lack of eye contact, both of which add to the context of a fairly well taken photo. The world simply can't be filled with doe-eyed, slant-shouldered, full-domed, well lit, portrait-oriented head shots. I quite like this. She's a shy girl sitting down for a cup of coffee. It's nice.



If one takes all of the suggestions mentioned, they end up with a McPortrait. 

It's a decent foundation to build from, but hopefully one can also develop a style and voice of their own.

This one looks to me like a "lifestyle" portrait. Not quite posed or candid. Unrehearsed, yet the subject is aware of the camera. It's pretty nice for that genre.


----------



## santoshrane (Sep 18, 2013)

jenko said:


> MLCIII said:
> 
> 
> > OP, don't let these guys neuter you. You apologized for the shrub and for the lack of eye contact, both of which add to the context of a fairly well taken photo. The world simply can't be filled with doe-eyed, slant-shouldered, full-domed, well lit, portrait-oriented head shots. I quite like this. She's a shy girl sitting down for a cup of coffee. It's nice.
> ...



Yes the subject was not reharsed. I clicked few more but some went out of focus and didnt look good. 

Im posting another one which led to the shot that I posted earlier. 



Santosh Rane
Suunto Ambit 2
GNote 2
Samsung NX300
Merida TFS100


----------



## santoshrane (Sep 18, 2013)

On the above shot. The break in the wrist. The 45seg angle from the camera and both eyes seen was intentional.

But ive read that whites of the eye visible is not good.  But like I said this was not posted since I agree that lots better could have been done

Santosh Rane
Suunto Ambit 2
GNote 2
Samsung NX300
Merida TFS100


----------

