# Wide aperture portrait



## Zoolfoos (Mar 20, 2008)

Hm... I guess I don't have much to say. I shot this photo with a really wide aperture (f/2 or f/2.8 I believe... it's been a little while). 

It's not really "conventional," although I certainly didn't take the picture just for the sake of being unconventional. I decided to include it in my portfolio for school reviews. I think most of them liked it.

I haven't shot black and white 35mm in a while, but I'd like to start again. It's one of my favorite mediums (or used to be anyway). I haven't shot anything but digital in a little while. I don't really have access to a dark room anymore, but I think I can convince my boss to let me set one up with his old equipment. 

At any rate, I thought I'd pull out some of my slightly older work and see what you all think of it. Just curious, I guess.

Be honest, please.

/*EDIT - Wow, I actually did have a lot to say. I didn't mean to! */


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 20, 2008)

Why do you think it's unconventional?


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 20, 2008)

His eyes are in shadow and the depth of field is so short that his eyes are in focus, but his chin is not.

Maybe "unconventional" is the wrong word, but it's certainly not in the style of traditional portraiture. By that I mean that no paying client at the studio (I work there, but not my studio, I'm not even a photographer there) would ever get something like this unless they specifically asked for it.

It was my personal work anyway, so I guess that's kind of irrelevant.

In the sense that it is a head-shot, it is conventional, I suppose.


----------



## B-9 (Mar 23, 2008)

Looks almost like something out of a Holga.


----------



## thatguyyoudontlike (Mar 23, 2008)

What a stupid photo. 
You give yourself way too much credit dude.
Your not unconventional.
If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.


----------



## terri (Mar 23, 2008)

thatguyyoudontlike said:


> What a stupid photo.
> You give yourself way too much credit dude.
> Your not unconventional.
> If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.


And you are giving yourself too much credit if you think TPF needs membership so badly the staff is going to tolerate your presence.    You've already been warned once.    Lose the attitude.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Mar 23, 2008)

I'm not sure there's anything unique about the photo. That isn't to say that it's bad. I mean, I rather like the shot. But I'm not sure I would have submitted it as part of a portfolio, but to each their own. That being said, I don't think it's a bad shot, I just don't think it would be a fair representation of the skills that you may or may not have. You know?


----------



## nagoshua (Mar 23, 2008)

i wouldnt say it's unconventional, yeah a client at a portraiture studio wouldnt ask for it but something of a similar style could fit into a documentory or editorial piece. 

I think you should work on your composition and the picture could use some eye contact and also some more detail in the shadow areas.



thatguyyoudontlike said:


> What a stupid photo.
> You give yourself way too much credit dude.
> Your not unconventional.
> If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.



Honestly man, dont say anything at all if it isnt contructive or helpful, i mean what advice have you given him to help his pictures??

Id like to see some of your work.. im sure theres plenty we could find wrong with that.


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 23, 2008)

thatguyyoudontlike said:


> What a stupid photo.
> You give yourself way too much credit dude.
> Your not unconventional.
> If a photo sucks you cant just call it unconventional and expect that to make it good.



I'm not trying to give myself undeserved credit, and I've already explained my use of the term "unconventional" once. I'm not trying to be "unconventional" because I think that makes me special or in any way compensates for shortcomings - it's just not something I would normally try to sell to a client. It's in my portfolio anyway, and I just wanted to know whether other people think it could belong there, or how it could have been done better. You answered NONE of those questions. What the hell is your problem?

And to everyone else who responded - thank you. I am trying to build a strong portfolio, and as it goes, I would like to rebuild it with some of my more recent work. I guess that at the moment I'm not entirely sure what I should keep or replace, and what to replace it with.

Trenton Romulox - 
I don't know if I'd say it's totally unique either. I mean.... it's a head shot. I do like it personally, but I understand what you mean. I definitely want to use my portfolio to demonstrate the skills that I have. I'm a student, and I have a lot to learn still, but I don't want to come off as totally new to photography. I can tell schools that this is something I take seriously, but I'm sure they'll be more apt to believe it if my work shows that practice has taught me something. That is something I will keep in mind.

nagoshua - 
Thanks for the advice. More often than not eye contact does make a photo so much stronger, so I can definitely see where you're coming from.


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 23, 2008)

I hope that everyone understands what I meant when I said it was unconventional. It wasn't meant to sound cocky.


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 23, 2008)

Perhaps a poor choice of words...


----------



## Bobby Ironsights (Mar 26, 2008)

Ah yes, the classic, "up the nose, thank god it's blurry, and out of focus" portrait.

Was it Mathew Brady that first pioneered this style in the late 19th century...I forget? Didn't he also exhibit some seminal "halfway through a sneeze" portraits?

Well, whatever he did, I'm sure you'll come up with some interesting stuff yourself ZoolFoos. Have you ever thought of doing some work in Dental X-Rays?


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 27, 2008)

Bobby Ironsights said:


> Ah yes, the classic, "up the nose, thank god it's blurry, and out of focus" portrait.
> 
> Was it Mathew Brady that first pioneered this style in the late 19th century...I forget? Didn't he also exhibit some seminal "halfway through a sneeze" portraits?
> 
> Well, whatever he did, I'm sure you'll come up with some interesting stuff yourself ZoolFoos. Have you ever thought of doing some work in Dental X-Rays?



I don't really see the point in this post. Thanks for the absolutely useless criticism. So far nearly half the responses I've received on this thread have been total crap.

Ok. You don't like it. That's fine, but please tell me how you think it could be improved. If you don't have anything useful to say, then please say nothing. I can hardly think of a way that I could have offended you.

I don't know what makes you think that if you see something you don't like you should immediately respond by verbally attacking someone.


----------



## Puscas (Mar 27, 2008)

Zoolfoos, you've somehow landed in a bad spot with this one. And I don't know why. I also don't get why some people react this way. Sure, your approach is nothing we all haven't seen before, but I get it; that's not what you are saying. 
I think you should keep it in your portfolio. Why not show a variety of styles, right?  The only thing I see is that the bright area on the right side is maybe too large. A crop might help, although that would probably ruin the ratio.





pascal


----------



## Bobby Ironsights (Mar 27, 2008)

Since you quoted my previous comments, there is no point in trying to edit them out of this thread. 

So...I don't like this portrait and here are my reasons.

*- The viewer is looking up the subject nose, not something the subject would want, and seldom something the viewer wants*

*-The eyes are mostly invisible, not good in a portrait of a persons face.*

*- The constrast is excessive, and harsh*

*- There is obvious motion blur *

*- The plane of focus is not only overly shallow, it lies asymetrically on the lower cheeks of the subject leading the focus of the viewer astray*

*- The subject has a fairly tight and deep neck and prominent chin, his posture emphasizes his worst qualities, instead of de-emphasizing them. The resulting portrait seems to make a young man who should be easily photographed handsomely, look chicken-necked with a jaw like Jay Leno*

There are other deficiencies, but the only really positive thing I can say about this photograph is that it very loosely obeys the rule of thirds.


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 27, 2008)

Thank you Puscas. You're not the first person who's mentioned that I could crop in on this one. Someone once told me it looked like I was leaving room for text.  I see what you mean though, and I agree, that it is definitely a possibility for improvement. 

Thanks again for the support and the advice.



Bobby Ironsights - Thank you for finally enlightening us in regards to your opinions. I usually try to take criticism well, and you have some valid points.

But, firstly, you know nothing about what the subject would want. I wasn't particularly concerned with that when I took the photo - as I have said before, this was my personal work. Not for a client. And he does like the photo, actually. Whether or not the viewer would like that is subjective, and you have every right not to. Fair enough.

I agree. There is a lot of detail missing in the eyes. In some way I actually like that aspect of this photo.  I wouldn't usually expose a photo of someone this way, I was trying something new (for me - and it was a while ago).

The contrast is harsh, but that was intentional.

There is no motion blur. It was a while ago, but I am certain that I exposed at f/2 or f/2.8 and a shutter speed of no less than 1/125 of a second. He was moving pretty slowly, so, no motion blur. I don't see it, there are parts out of focus, but I don't see the blur. If I've missed something, then congratulations for noticing. You win the golden ticket.

In regards to the plane of focus. It was intentionally short. I would say that more than anything the large white space is distracting, but I don't think I ever felt that the plane of focus was problematic. It very well could be that I look at this differently than other people seeing as it is my photograph. That's very possible, and so I will keep it in mind for the future.

I was not trying to make him look handsome. That was not the idea at all. There actually wasn't much of an "idea" to be honest, but that DEFINITELY wasn't it.  It's not that he isn't or couldn't be photographed that way. He's actually quite photogenic for such a tall skinny guy, but that just wasn't the idea I had.



I don't want to discourage other people from giving me advice or comments. I really do appreciate it most of the time.


----------



## Roger (Mar 27, 2008)

well I like this photo for all the reasons others don't, it breaks a number of rules and does it with presence. The photo for me has impact and is bold, keep it in your portfolio.....the posts here show that some will be impressed and I reckon that's fine....I meant to add I agree with puscas about a slight crop on the right.


----------



## O'Rork (Mar 27, 2008)

OP just types "be Honest". OP does not ask for CC.
Honestly the photo is void of all things good in Photography.

just my 2 cents, honestly.....I'm Frank


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 27, 2008)

Thanks Roger! It's appreciated. I'll try that.


----------



## Zoolfoos (Mar 27, 2008)

Re-cropped.


----------

