Portraits?

[nwafan20]

So... Ive been doing photography for a while, and obviously i'm not the best, but one thing I have struggled with always is portraits.

Could you guys tell me what you think, both composition wise, and post-editing wise of this portrait shot I took today? Criticism highly welcome:

BEFORE:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p75/nwafan20/ChurchpropertyWedEncounter056-1.jpg

AFTER:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p75/nwafan20/ChurchpropertyWedEncounter056.jpg

[pgengler]

While I'm by no means a portrait photographer myself, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (and I've done some reading on the subject). This basically means that I'm ill-suited to telling you what you did right, but I can point out a few things that I understand are wrong. Please don't think I hate you or the picture, because I don't; it's just easier for someone like me, who hasn't done much (ok, any) portrait work to point out the negatives than to find the positives.

First, I'd say you definitely should have used some fill lighting on the face. Since you're not trying to use flash as the dominant light source, the on-camera flash would probably have sufficed. (With Canon cameras, SLRs at least, using the flash in Tv or Av (and M?) mode will use the flash as fill.) This would brighten up the face in comparison to the background. It does look a bit better with postprocessing, though.

Second, owing in large part to the lack of fill light (probably exacerbated by the glasses), the eyes are dark. I've always read that the eyes were pretty much the most important aspect of a portrait; they should be in focus and not dark.

Third, the background is a little distracting, especially the blue rope. A quick peek at the EXIF for the original tells me it was at f/4. Going to f/2.8 would have done a better just blurring the background, though I suspect you might be limited by the lens. I'm not sure this would have helped with the rope, though, as it seems closer than the rest of the background and is also a much different color than anything else, so it kind of stands out.

Fourth, the sky. I see that you said you took it today, and I know there wasn't any sun or blue sky, but the clouds make it look like you had the wrong exposure and blew out a blue sky. There's not really much you can do about this in post-processing; the best options when shooting, I think, are to either wait for better weather or to keep the sky out of the shot.

The work on his face looks pretty good; the only thing that bothers me a bit is that there's no really detail on the neck anymore. It doesn't look natural, and it also loses most of the distinction between head and neck that the original shot had.

[nwafan20]

While I'm by no means a portrait photographer myself, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (and I've done some reading on the subject). This basically means that I'm ill-suited to telling you what you did right, but I can point out a few things that I understand are wrong. Please don't think I hate you or the picture, because I don't; it's just easier for someone like me, who hasn't done much (ok, any) portrait work to point out the negatives than to find the positives.

Any help is appriciated, I understand you don't hate the photo, I asked for help and what you gave below helped a lot.



First, I'd say you definitely should have used some fill lighting on the face. Since you're not trying to use flash as the dominant light source, the on-camera flash would probably have sufficed. (With Canon cameras, SLRs at least, using the flash in Tv or Av (and M?) mode will use the flash as fill.) This would brighten up the face in comparison to the background. It does look a bit better with postprocessing, though.


Ok, never thought of that, Thanks!



Second, owing in large part to the lack of fill light (probably exacerbated by the glasses), the eyes are dark. I've always read that the eyes were pretty much the most important aspect of a portrait; they should be in focus and not dark.


I will try to remember that.



Third, the background is a little distracting, especially the blue rope. A quick peek at the EXIF for the original tells me it was at f/4. Going to f/2.8 would have done a better just blurring the background, though I suspect you might be limited by the lens. I'm not sure this would have helped with the rope, though, as it seems closer than the rest of the background and is also a much different color than anything else, so it kind of stands out.


Yeah, at that focal legnth, f/4 was the lowest it would go. I agree its a bit distracting.



Fourth, the sky. I see that you said you took it today, and I know there wasn't any sun or blue sky, but the clouds make it look like you had the wrong exposure and blew out a blue sky. There's not really much you can do about this in post-processing; the best options when shooting, I think, are to either wait for better weather or to keep the sky out of the shot.

Actually, out in Michigan where I am, we had a ton of sun and blue sky :).



The work on his face looks pretty good; the only thing that bothers me a bit is that there's no really detail on the neck anymore. It doesn't look natural, and it also loses most of the distinction between head and neck that the original shot had.

Yeah, I agree, I didn't like the neck but it was 2 AM and didn't feel like re-doing it. Its not like its going to be sold so it isn't too important.


Thanks for your help!