Judge my 1st street portrait

narancs

Here it is


excuses: it was cold, really cold. And the sun went down in lik 5 minutes. test pic's were shot @ iso200 and looked great, this one about 5 mins later @ 800 and looked dark.. :rolleyes
anyways, comment it please.

oh, the bookeh didn't look nice enough so I modified it with alien skin software: bokeh. Isn't it over the top a bit?

jnsuffolk

I don't think its too dark.I like it alot

narancs

jnsuffolk wrote:

I don't think its too dark.I like it alot

thanks!

AndMan

jnsuffolk wrote:

I don't think its too dark.I like it alot

Qarik

the exposure is okay but the colors are pretty blah. I think BW is apprpriate here. Even then she is bit expression less.

narancs

Qarik wrote:

the exposure is okay but the colors are pretty blah. I think BW is apprpriate here. Even then she is bit expression less.

good call, I give it a try

narancs

I dunno

AndMan

Definitely the colour version
Whilst the colours are muted rather than vibrant I think that they work in this instance.

Cameron

I like the color version myself, but I think it'd grab me a bit more if you brightened the eyes a bit.

sara505

What makes this a street portrait? Except for the lights in the BG, there is nothing going on here, no story, just a pretty girl.

Mr. Quiet

I was not going to say it, but...Shouldn't this be in People?

rutt

Mr. Quiet wrote:

I was not going to say it, but...Shouldn't this be in People?

Not if you want a critique from B.D.

InsuredDisaster

Also not really sure how this is street stuff.


Might be my personal preferences, but maybe try balancing the ambient with the flash a bit more?

Richard

There have been a number of submissions that are probably better placed elsewhere. For the time being, I am not going to intervene much, as I prefer discussions of photography to arguments about how Dgrin should be organized. After we have been in business for a few months, we'll look at the question again.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

Not if you want a critique from B.D.

Well, forgive me
- but Sara's absolutely correct - this belongs in People; it's a simply a posed photo of a young woman. Without making any comment about it - why is it in this forum? I know we are still debating what should be here - what is a street photo, etc, etc, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious what shouldn't be: not only isn't this a "street photo," it's not even an environmental portrait.
What I find fascinating, frankly, are the previous responses to it - this got more comments, faster, than some quite interesting streetish submissions.

HoofClix

I like the bw verson better, first because I like the lights that came through in the conversion, expecially the way they angle down and light up a sidewalk. Second because, where there is a lack of a lot of color in the original, in the bw you just substitute contrast, and so now the image really pops.

Perhaps should have been in People, but no problem here for me.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Well, forgive me
- but Sara's absolutely correct - this belongs in People; it's a simply a posed photo of a yooung woman. Without making any comment about it - why is it in this forum? I know we are still debating what should be here - what is a street photo, etc, etc, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious what shouldn't be: not only isn't this a "street photo," it's not even an environmental portrait.
What I find fascinating, frankly, are the previous responses to it - this got more comments, faster, than some quite interesting streetish submissions.

Thank you, thank you and, on the last comment, for christ's sake thank you.

narancs

Well, it is a street portrait bc it was shot on the street?
As I stated the 1st post its dark, not the girl, the background. On the test shots you can see the sdiewalk, lamps, trees etc.
But I see your point.


Edit: did a litle research I think I missed the point of a street photography. Its a simple portrait. Sorry
At least I know what to do next time

narancs

InsuredDisaster wrote:

Might be my personal preferences, but maybe try balancing the ambient with the flash a bit more?

what do you mean?

1/25 @ iso 800, f5.6@55mm (kit lens) and the flash was set to TTL and I believe on full power.
Or did you mean flash the background with a 2. flash?

michswiss

narancs wrote:

what do you mean?

1/25 @ iso 800, f5.6@55mm (kit lens) and the flash was set to TTL and I believe on full power.
Or did you mean flash the background with a 2. flash?

You're going to find a larger group of people that can help with flash techniques in the People forum (not that they don't frequent this forum as well.)

I'm curious about something between the colour and B&W versions. Why the heart shapes in the lights in colour and just lights in B&W?

thoth

michswiss wrote:

I'm curious about something between the colour and B&W versions. Why the heart shapes in the lights in colour and just lights in B&W?

The OP admitted to altering the bokeh in his first post.

michswiss

thoth wrote:

The OP admitted to altering the bokeh in his first post.

Looking back, yeah I see that. But no mention of adding hearts or is that seriously an option of the software the OP mentioned?

InsuredDisaster

narancs wrote:

what do you mean?

1/25 @ iso 800, f5.6@55mm (kit lens) and the flash was set to TTL and I believe on full power.
Or did you mean flash the background with a 2. flash?

Well, see, the shot may be a "street shot" and there are a few elements in the background, but what it really seems like is basically a face, properly exposed, peeking out of the black.

What I mean is to rely less on the flash, and instead use manual exposure mode, with a slower shutter speed and wider aperture to expose more of the background, (probably bump the ISO up a bit since I'm guessing your lens was wide open) and this in turn will require less flash of course, probably handled automatically via the TTL system of your camera. You'll get a lot more of the environment this way. The shot just sorta seems rather, automated to me.

Tina Manley

michswiss wrote:

Looking back, yeah I see that. But no mention of adding hearts or is that seriously an option of the software the OP mentioned?

Yes, with AlienSkin Bokeh you can choose lots of "interesting" bokeh shapes, like hearts.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

narancs

michswiss wrote:

Looking back, yeah I see that. But no mention of adding hearts or is that seriously an option of the software the OP mentioned?

Yes, as Tina said, you can give the bokeh a hearth, circle or the usual polygon form (triangles, quad 5,6...)

narancs

InsuredDisaster wrote:

Well, see, the shot may be a "street shot" and there are a few elements in the background, but what it really seems like is basically a face, properly exposed, peeking out of the black.

What I mean is to rely less on the flash, and instead use manual exposure mode, with a slower shutter speed and wider aperture to expose more of the background, (probably bump the ISO up a bit since I'm guessing your lens was wide open) and this in turn will require less flash of course, probably handled automatically via the TTL system of your camera. You'll get a lot more of the environment this way. The shot just sorta seems rather, automated to me.

I thought so..
Damn Sun went down quicker than I expected, and my camera isn't quite useful above iso 400 (I used 800..) and any slower shutter speed (I used 1/25) would cause blur. This is all I could do

sara505

narancs wrote:

Well, it is a street portrait bc it was shot on the street?
As I stated the 1st post its dark, not the girl, the background. On the test shots you can see the sdiewalk, lamps, trees etc.
But I see your point.


Edit: did a litle research I think I missed the point of a street photography. Its a simple portrait. Sorry
At least I know what to do next time

Don't be sorry. It's been said that we learn more from our mistakes than from what we do right.
Besides, it initiated more conversation RE street photography.

InsuredDisaster

narancs wrote:

I thought so..
Damn Sun went down quicker than I expected, and my camera isn't quite useful above iso 400 (I used 800..) and any slower shutter speed (I used 1/25) would cause blur. This is all I could do

Well, you did the best you could in a difficult situation. However, experiment with really slow shutter speeds and flash anyway. Set your flash to rear sync (will generally keep blur more natural) and even if part of the photo is a bit blurry, the parts illuminated by the flash will be very sharp, due to the nearly instantaneous duration of the flash. I've stopped moving fan blades with very slow shutter speeds, simply by using the flash. Give this a try if you can, I think it will amaze you.

The only thing is, if you use rear sync flash, there will be two flashes, a "monitor pre-flash" and the main flash at the end of the shot. Warn your subject that the photo isn't over until the second flash.

D'Buggs

bdcolen wrote:

Well, forgive me
- but Sara's absolutely correct - this belongs in People; it's a simply a posed photo of a yooung woman. Without making any comment about it - why is it in this forum? I know we are still debating what should be here - what is a street photo, etc, etc, etc. But I think it's pretty obvious what shouldn't be: not only isn't this a "street photo," it's not even an environmental portrait.
What I find fascinating, frankly, are the previous responses to it - this got more comments, faster, than some quite interesting streetish submissions.

I agree.

I think if I wanted BD's thoughts on a portraiture of mine, I'd PM him a request and a link????

I'm still trying the waters on this genre and think that I'm beggining to grasp it and feel that the above photo, IMO, is clearly in the wrong forum.... If it were in people; I'd have posted a comment when I first opened this thread, when there weren't any responses.