# Getting into portraits cc please!!



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

Shot this last night Nikon D60 50mm f1.8 iso 100. I like this photo but feel like something is off.









Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 30, 2016)

focus is off.  not enough depth of field for enough to be in focus, possibly a missed focus as well.  
not a fan of chopping the tops of heads off.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

So since she was laying on the couch how could I bring more depth of field? I figured the focus was off. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 30, 2016)

SGerrish2 said:


> So since she was laying on the couch how could I bring more depth of field? I figured the focus was off.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk




what aperture was this shot at?


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

1.8

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## ronlane (Aug 30, 2016)

f/1.8 is really, really shallow. You can bring in more depth of field by going changing the f-stop. f/4 or maybe f/2.8 would help this.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 30, 2016)

SGerrish2 said:


> 1.8
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk



try something more around f/4. 
most of my portraits are between f/4 and f/5.6
you might have to up your ISO, or preferably, add light.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

Ok. sorry for my ignorance but when would you want a shallow depth vs non shallow. Further distance between subject and background?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 30, 2016)

Not a fan of the crop on the right arm. Since it is dark near the edge of the frame, it appears to be amputated. Its actually somewhat difficult for me to look at. 
Just my opinion as a non-portrait photographer.

BTW, welcome to the forum.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

Thank you for the welcome. I think the crop was what put me off on the photo the most 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## ronlane (Aug 30, 2016)

Brian Peterson likes to ask this question. "when is the best time to take a vertical shot?" His answer, "right after taking a horizontal one." In this instance taking both portrait and landscape images would have allowed you to choose the better framing/cropping.

Some on here will say that vertical is named portrait for a reason. But it only cost a little time to do both to see which fits better.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 30, 2016)

Not a fan of armpits


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

So I need to work on cropping, no arm pits, depth of field and better focus. Thank you for the replies keep them coming....is there any good in this photo?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## KmH (Aug 30, 2016)

Depth of field (DoF) isn't just about the lens aperture.
Indeed it's more about the point of focus distance (PoF), the focal length of the lens used, and the size of the image sensor in the camera.

Using the D60 and 50 mm lens @ f/1.8 and a PoF distance of 3 feet the total DoF is only 0.07 feet deep (about 7/8").
At f/3.5 (2 stops smaller aperture than f/1.8) & a 3 foot PoF distance the DoF would be 0.15 feet (1.8")
At f/5 (3 stops smaller aperture than f/1.8) & a 3 foot PoF distance the DoF would be 0.21 feet (2.5")
At the same aperture setting, as the PoF gets closer to the subject the DoF gets even shallower. At the same aperture setting, as the PoF gets further from the subject the DoF gets deeper.

Few 50 mm f/1.8 lenses deliver their sharpest focus when used wide open.
So the main benefit of stopping down 2 or more stops is getting the 50 mm f/1.8 lens into that part of the aperture range than delivers the sharpest focus.

Online Depth of Field Calculator
f-number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Online Depth of Field Calculator

Note too the distribution of the DoF changes as the lens aperture is stopped down.
At f/1.8 the DoF distribution is pretty much even with 50% of the 0.15 feet being in front of, and behind the PoF.
But at f/5 the distribution is 48% _in front of_, and 52% _behind_ the PoF.

There are many ways to isolate your subject from the background. A shallow DoF is just one way, but it's also a way that requires an in-depth understanding of how to control the DoF.
Frankly a better way to isolate the subject from the background is to do so using light.

The quality of the light in your shots leaves quite a bit to be desired, as does the white balance. But the light direction was OK.
Usually, light direction and quality are what separate OK photos from very good photos.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Aug 30, 2016)

mrpink said:


> [QUOTE="SGerrish2, post: 3667463, member: 216251]....is there any good in this photo?



your watermark isn't overdone.

p!nK[/QUOTE]
Thanks 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrpink (Aug 30, 2016)

SGerrish2 said:


> ....is there any good in this photo?



your watermark isn't overdone

p!nK


----------



## mgblunt (Sep 1, 2016)

The problem with 1.8 f stop is that the entire face wont be sharp this close up even well focused on the eyes.


----------



## cauzimme (Sep 1, 2016)

I often shoot 1.8, 2.8
You have to be sure the focus to be on the eyes, get closer, focus, lock it.
I'm not a big fan of the arms positions. Armpits are no no, crop in the middle of the arm makes your model looks like she was amputeed. I personnaly don't mind the top of the head crop.
Also because of how she is laying, she have less of a neck.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Sep 1, 2016)

so how are these?
?


----------



## Mardon (Sep 2, 2016)

I agree with some of the other members here. Not a fan of cutting top of the head and right arm. If those are not cut, probably you would have had enough room for making depth of field, I guess.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 2, 2016)

If you are getting into portraits, you need to educate yourself on the subject. 

https://www.amazon.com/Direction-Qu...72821621&sr=1-6&keywords=portrait+photography

https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Po...72821701&sr=1-2&keywords=portrait+photography

As for your photo, there is so much wrong with it to be honest, I can hardly find anything that is right (OK, there is eye contact). 
Wrong depth of field, soft focus, awkward pose that makes her neck look unflattering, cut limb, random light, tight crop, hair is a mess, two straps on her left shoulder do not look good, red spots on her nose must be removed, some skin cleaning is desirable in post production, and what is that blue thing in her ear? Is it necessary? And did I say the light direction and quality could be better?

She has beautiful eyes and lips and deserves better. Her bright blue vest matches her tattoo, but fails to complement her eyes and hair. It just distracts.

Sometimes good portraits are a result of a lucky combination of light, pose, mood and details, but it is a rarity. Usually you need to work on all these components before pressing the button. 

I think at this stage you just need to understand that a decent portrait demands great attention to small detail. I think you need to start getting into it with reading on the subject and looking at great portraits and figuring why they are great. A forum critique on its own will not help. 

Sorry for the harsh critique, but I hope it will help.


----------



## SGerrish2 (Sep 2, 2016)

sashbar said:


> If you are getting into portraits, you need to educate yourself on the subject.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Direction-Qu...72821621&sr=1-6&keywords=portrait+photography
> 
> ...


Thank you! Not taking anything personal...just trying to learn and get better. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## KmH (Sep 2, 2016)

+1 regarding light direction and quality and that a portrait photographer has to be aware of, and manage, lots and lots of details.

Post #19, in the top photo her eye sockets are dark (raccoon eyes) but the white balance looks OK.
A 20x30 piece of inexpensive white foam board works pretty good as a reflector, but a couple of light stands with 45" umbrellas and a couple of hot shoe flash units is much more versatile and allows many more options for flattering supplemental  lighting.

In the second photo her eye sockets aren't so dark as to be called raccoon eyes but her face is underexposed.
What camera light meter mode did you use?
For portraits I used a hand held light meter so I could meter incident, reflected, and flash lighting.
The light meter in the camera can only meter reflected light.

On-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
Off-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Photographers

As important to have as a good portrait lens:
New Sekonic L-478DR-U Pocket Wizard Lightmeter


----------



## SGerrish2 (Sep 2, 2016)

KmH said:


> +1 regarding light direction and quality and that a portrait photographer has to be aware of, and manage, lots and lots of details.
> 
> Post #19, in the top photo her eye sockets are dark (raccoon eyes) but the white balance looks OK.
> A 20x30 piece of inexpensive white foam board works pretty good as a reflector, but a couple of light stands with 45" umbrellas and a couple of hot shoe flash units is much more versatile and allows many more options for flattering supplemental  lighting.
> ...


I believe the metering mode was on spot   I have since changed that setting on the camera to a matrix mode. I can not afford a light meter or think I am ready for another piece of tech equipment that i don't understand. I am currently saving for a stand, speed flash and umbrella 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrpink (Sep 3, 2016)

SGerrish2 said:


> Thank you! Not taking anything personal...just trying to learn and get better.



Just shoot what and how you like (unless you are planning a career in photography).  Not a fan of rules and guidelines in art.  Some of my favorite shots have countless "errors".


p!nK


----------



## PersistentNomad (Sep 3, 2016)

SGerrish2 said:


> Ok. sorry for my ignorance but when would you want a shallow depth vs non shallow. Further distance between subject and background?



I use some fairly wide open apertures for macro shots, which give VERY shallow depths of field when I'm so close, like in this frog (shot at 60mm f2.8):

You can literally see how shallow the depth of field is. This is when I first got my macro and was playing around, and this frog lived in my orchid plants, so he let me get VERY close. He jumped away when my lens touched him.

Shallow depths of field tend to work better when you are further from your subject when taking the photo. Had I been further away when I shot this, I would have gotten a bit more (not a whole lot) of his face in focus. Largely, if I've got an aperture wider than f5, I'm either pretty far away from my subject and or in terrible lighting, or my macro subject is very flat / I'm trying to provide a dramatic effect like in these blue berries (shot at 60mm f4):

Here, I had a less open aperture than the frog and I was a bit further away (I think an additional 8 inches over the frog distance), so my depth of field is increased a bit more.


----------

