MC #6 "Senorita"

lizzard_nyc · December 1, 2009

Hi everyone,
This is my first mega challenge--EVER.

I feel out of my element and excited, so I figure I better hit this challenge early to give myself time to try different things, if possible.

I'm not comfortable with portrait work and I rely on b&w grainy work when I do try portraits---so I figure this will really push me---any thoughts?
This is just natural light from the window---ceiling light and a table lamp, plus she has white cardboard on her lap for some reflection--I only have my built in camera flash so I did not want to use that.

The title so far is "senorita" or "Latina" or "Viuda" (I'll have to check the spelling, but it means "widow")--
Thanks for looking and please give me your opinions.

1.

2.

3.

I have a few more, but these are my favorites, so far--all SOOC.

anonymouscuban · December 1, 2009

I like the pose in #1, especially with the title "viuda"... and you did spell it correctly.

It seems a bit soft though and the light a bit flat. I would try a bit more short lighting on the face to add more drama. Also, I don't think you should shoot the back of her hands. I only know this because I've been reading about portrait photography.

Really nice concept though. Hermosa latina too.

lizzard_nyc · December 1, 2009

anonymouscuban wrote:

I like the pose in #1, especially with the title "viuda"... and you did spell it correctly.

It seems a bit soft though and the light a bit flat. I would try a bit more short lighting on the face to add more drama. Also, I don't think you should shoot the back of her hands. I only know this because I've been reading about portrait photography.

Really nice concept though. Hermosa latina too.

Hey thanks Cuban for the quick reply.

I didn't know about not shooting the back of the hands, I will take that into account for my reshoot---but it leaves me wondering what is wrong with the back of our hands?

I think I can play with pp so it won't look so flat--but I will likely reshoot anyway to also work on the "soft" focus.

I am just happy to have an idea and to try it out--so it looks like I might be going with this concept unless I see a lot of portraits popping up in the challenge.

So you think it's ok to go with "viuda" even though it's in Spanish?

I'm happy to have my sister around for these challenges and for portrait practice--now I just have to tell her I need to reshoot:D .

nightpixels · December 1, 2009

Hi Liz,

I took a look at your Exifs and there are a few problems here. First, I noticed that when you shoot, your ISO is stuck on 800 (sometimes 500) majority of the time. From your previous challenge entries I have noticed that you like that grainy/B&W look so if that is the look you are going for here, then that is totally fine, it is a good ISO setting (perhaps even higher ISO depending on how well your camera does noise reduction), but if you are going for a cleaner/noise-free look which seems to be the case here based on what you said, that ISO needs to come down. You are not using flash, so you are not freezing the action, meaning that you will need a fairly fast shutter speed to avoid that soft, blurry look which is what I see in these photographs. You have a couple of solutions here. Take the model outside where there is plenty of sunlight so you can increase that shutter speed for sharper look. I would be careful with harsh sunlight though. I would stand the model in the shades and use a reflector to cast some soft sunlight on her. If you are going to do it inside and there is not enough sunlight coming in, you will need to use flash. Most people prefer off-camera flash which I assume you are not set up for (?). I think you can do pretty well with your on-camera flash, but I would add additional lighting to make the lighting more interesting. See my lighting setup for my shot "Sumptuous". Bottom line is if you want a sharper/noise-free look, either increase your shutter speed and lower your ISO (outside) or use flash inside (Assuming you aren't getting enough light inside). You can also do things like adding a diffuser on your flash or bounce the flash off the ceiling in order to soften the light coming out of your flash, assuming your flash is capable to doing that.

Last but not least, don't forget about the eyes! If the eyes aren't sharp enough, the portrait isn't all that powerful.

pyroPrints.com · December 1, 2009

I like #2 a lot, but I would really lose the soft focus. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm not really digging it. I would go sharp, and punch up the shadows a bit

lizzard_nyc · December 2, 2009

nightpixels wrote:

Hi Liz,

I took a look at your Exifs and there are a few problems here. First, I noticed that when you shoot, your ISO is stuck on 800 (sometimes 500) majority of the time. From your previous challenge entries I have noticed that you like that grainy/B&W look so if that is the look you are going for here, then that is totally fine, it is a good ISO setting (perhaps even higher ISO depending on how well your camera does noise reduction), but if you are going for a cleaner/noise-free look which seems to be the case here based on what you said, that ISO needs to come down. You are not using flash, so you are not freezing the action, meaning that you will need a fairly fast shutter speed to avoid that soft, blurry look which is what I see in these photographs. You have a couple of solutions here. Take the model outside where there is plenty of sunlight so you can increase that shutter speed for sharper look. I would be careful with harsh sunlight though. I would stand the model in the shadows and use a reflector to cast some soft sunlight on her. If you are going to do it inside and there is not enough sunlight coming in, you will need to use flash. Most people prefer off-camera flash which I assume you are not set up for (?). I think you can do pretty well with your on-camera flash, but I would add additional lighting to make the lighting more interesting. See my lighting setup for my shot "Sumptuous". Bottom line is if you want a sharper/noise-free look, either increase your shutter speed and lower your ISO (outside) or use flash inside (Assuming you aren't getting enough light inside). You can also do things like adding a diffuser on your flash or bounce the flash off the ceiling in order to soften the light coming out of your flash, assuming your flash is capable to doing that.

Last but not least, don't forget about the eyes! If the eyes aren't sharp enough, the portrait isn't all that powerful.

Allen,
Wow, that's one hell of a reply, thank you so much!
You are right I'm so used to doing the portraits in the b&w grainy, I went with close to the same settings.
Plus I tried some soft focusing things and it didn't work--sharp is probably a whole lot better.

FYI--when I shot these I was thinking of your "sumptuous" shot, when I shot these, but my South facing window was no help and I think I had the table lamp too far off.

I will see if I can find a better place outdoors without distracting background--if not, I'll plan for a better time to get good light in the window--I will also play with my little pop up flash. I just really hate using it.

I appreciate the detailed feedback.
I will also try it out with a lensbaby to get the face in total focus and have maybe the veil blurred out--

lizzard_nyc · December 2, 2009

pyroPrints.com wrote:

I like #2 a lot, but I would really lose the soft focus. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm not really digging it. I would go sharp, and punch up the shadows a bit

I'm definately going to lose the soft focus on these--I usually like the way they look, but they are just not working here, these really need to be sharp--but it makes the skin look so nice

.

I will punch up the shadows as well.

Thanks for taking a look and commenting.

dlscott56 · December 2, 2009

Yep, #2 is really nice. I have to say I kind of like the soft focus on this one. Guess I'd have to see it shot differently, as others have suggested, to compared it with.

Halite · December 2, 2009

You have the start to a really great concept here, but I agree with the others about the flatness of the lighting and the softness of the focus detracting from your story. Your sister is a beautiful and credible model. So I hope you can convince her to do a reshoot.

You definitely would benefit from more light to execute your idea, but on-camera flash should be a last resort. Ideally, the light would be part of the story you are trying to tell. For example, as a widow, she could be lighting candles in memory of her loved one. Or sitting in a church with high, slanting light catching her face and bouncing off a hymnal or bible. Or she could be just inside the doorway of a church, looking out into brighter light with deep shadows behind her. If you can't get this look with natural light, you could work with a halogen work light, your white board as a reflector and other cardboard as a gobo to simulate a window frame and panes.

As for sharp versus soft, if you are using Photoshop for pp, there are ways to selectively sharpen or soften parts of your image.

Good luck!

lizzard_nyc · December 2, 2009

Halite wrote:

You have the start to a really great concept here, but I agree with the others about the flatness of the lighting and the softness of the focus detracting from your story. Your sister is a beautiful and credible model. So I hope you can convince her to do a reshoot.

You definitely would benefit from more light to execute your idea, but on-camera flash should be a last resort. Ideally, the light would be part of the story you are trying to tell. For example, as a widow, she could be lighting candles in memory of her loved one. Or sitting in a church with high, slanting light catching her face and bouncing off a hymnal or bible. Or she could be just inside the doorway of a church, looking out into brighter light with deep shadows behind her. If you can't get this look with natural light, you could work with a halogen work light, your white board as a reflector and other cardboard as a gobo to simulate a window frame and panes.

As for sharp versus soft, if you are using Photoshop for pp, there are ways to selectively sharpen or soften parts of your image.
Good luck!

A candle to light! Why didn't I think of that? Great idea.
Also I like the idea of a church, though I don't know about taking a camera into a church--There is a gorgeous Catholic church close by, maybe I can go on off hours and try to take shots by the doors.

Very helpful Halite, thank you.

I don't have PP so the sharpening is out the door--I do have access to the free PP stuff on smugmug, picnik and this is what I wound up doing. I really like the slight Sepia tone for this concept--I will reshoot again but I'm playing now with PP to see if it works, I think it does--keep in mind, I will reshoot. What do you all think of the PP photos--the others I posted were SOOC.

4.Sepia-ish.

5. desaturated

tinamarie52 · December 2, 2009

Liz, I like them each for different reasons. I'd like #3 the best without her hands.

I'm more of a beginner than you, so take my comments with a grain of salt! This is my first mega, too and I don't have a wisp of an idea yet. So, you go girl!

As for the details... fix her nail polish or don't shoot her nails and sharpen her a bit.

Really lovely concept. I can't wait to see your finished entry.

Good luck..... Chris

lizzard_nyc · December 2, 2009

tinamarie52 wrote:

Liz, I like them each for different reasons. I'd like #3 the best without her hands.

I'm more of a beginner than you, so take my comments with a grain of salt! This is my first mega, too and I don't have a wisp of an idea yet. So, you go girl!

As for the details... fix her nail polish or don't shoot her nails and sharpen her a bit.
Really lovely concept. I can't wait to see your finished entry.

Good luck..... Chris

Chris,
I'm in good company it seems:)

I will reshoot and keep all comments in mind. I will try and not show the back of the hands too as per an earlier post--still trying to figure out why that is a no no though.

I see already that there will be other portraits in the contest, and the other one kicks ass! so I dunno.
But that also is making me want to try harder and reshoot--I hope I can pull it off--
If not then I will try and work on other ideas as well.

Get moving!:D

tinamarie52 · December 2, 2009

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Chris,
I'm in good company it seems:)

I will reshoot and keep all comments in mind. I will try and not show the back of the hands too as per an earlier post--still trying to figure out why that is a no no though.

I see already that there will be other portraits in the contest, and the other one kicks ass! so I dunno.
But that also is making me want to try harder and reshoot--I hope I can pull it off--
If not then I will try and work on other ideas as well.

Get moving!:D

I haven't a clue about the backs of hands. I wish someone would explain that. My comment was focused on the chipped nail polish.

You have a great head start on your portrait. Keep honing it!

I'll get started soon! Thanks for the nudge!

Chris

nightpixels · December 2, 2009

lizzard_nyc wrote:

still trying to figure out why that is a no no though

This is art and there is no right or wrong. Do what you think looks best.

lizzard_nyc · December 2, 2009

nightpixels wrote:

This is art and there is no right or wrong. Do what you think looks best.

Allen,
You are right of course, and in the end one does what looks best to them, but I was honestly curious about the rule--so I googled it and found some portraiture rules.

You don't photograph the back of women's hands, the sides are much more graceful thean the back of the hands.--

Chris---now we know.

dlscott56 · December 2, 2009

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Allen,
You are right of course, and in the end one does what looks best to them, but I was honestly curious about the rule--so I googled it and found some portraiture rules.

You don't photograph the back of women's hands, the sides are much more graceful thean the back of the hands.--

Chris---now we know.

I can hardly get through a single thread without learning something new. Thanks! My only problem is that I forget half of it as soon as I pick my camera up.:D

tinamarie52 · December 3, 2009

Liz-- thanks for letting us know. I'll keep that in mind. In fact, I'll deliberately try to practice shooting that sometime this week for my own learning.

Chris

lizzard_nyc · December 3, 2009

tinamarie52 wrote:

Liz-- thanks for letting us know. I'll keep that in mind. In fact, I'll deliberately try to practice shooting that sometime this week for my own learning.

Chris

So happy to pass it on--usually I have all the questions:)
I'm with Dave though--I can retain it for so long and then I forget some of the rules right when I pick up the camera.

anonymouscuban · December 3, 2009

nightpixels wrote:

This is art and there is no right or wrong. Do what you think looks best.

I agree with Allen here. I was the one that made the original comment about shooting the back of the hands. As I mentioned in that post, I have been ready and learning about portraiture and that is a rule or guideline I found from many different sources. The rule states that you should avoid shooting the back of the hands on women and try to shoot the sides or front. It seems like a lot of the rules around shooting the female figure is all about elongated, delicate shapes.

But as Allen pointed out, photography is art. Art is all about creative interpretation and I think adhering to a set of rules 100% only stifles the creative process. It's funny because I often see a wonderful picture posted by someone on Dgrin who is very happy and proud of the shot and then a few people nit pick it on some technical "flaws" and the OP's loses confidence in their work. That is unfortunate. I think you need to shoot the way you want and as long as your happy with the results, then that's all that should matter.

nightpixels · December 3, 2009

anonymouscuban wrote:

I agree with Allen here. I was the one that made the original comment about shooting the back of the hands. As I mentioned in that post, I have been ready and learning about portraiture and that is a rule or guideline I found from many different sources. The rule states that you should avoid shooting the back of the hands on women and try to shoot the sides or front. It seems like a lot of the rules around shooting the female figure is all about elongated, delicate shapes.

But as Allen pointed out, photography is art. Art is all about creative interpretation and I think adhering to a set of rules 100% only stifles the creative process. It's funny because I often see a wonderful picture posted by someone on Dgrin who is very happy and proud of the shot and then a few people nit pick it on some technical "flaws" and the OP's loses confidence in their work. That is unfortunate. I think you need to shoot the way you want and as long as your happy with the results, then that's all that should matter.

Very well said, Alex! I have seen some amazing portraits where the back of the hand was right on the face and it still looks amazing. Rules don't make much sense to me when it comes to Art. It's all about your own personal interpretation and how you, the Artist, like it.

lizzard_nyc · December 3, 2009

Alex & Allen,
Point well taken and I agree 100%.
I'm not a very tech oriented person anyway and shoot mostly by feel as I tend to forget the rules, I'm also not detailed oriented.
I was just honestly curious about the rule--just seemed absurd--not your opinion, just the rule itself, so I had to find out why.
Funny thing is--now that I look at my shot, her hand does look meaty

, so perhaps something to be said for that rule.

But yes, I usually go by my untrained instinct--but I try and keep the basics in mind too.

Thank you both for commenting.

Halite · December 3, 2009

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Alex & Allen,
Point well taken and I agree 100%.
I'm not a very tech oriented person anyway and shoot mostly by feel as I tend to forget the rules, I'm also not detailed oriented.
I was just honestly curious about the rule--just seemed absurd--not your opinion, just the rule itself, so I had to find out why.
Funny thing is--now that I look at my shot, her hand does look meaty , so perhaps something to be said for that rule.

But yes, I usually go by my untrained instinct--but I try and keep the basics in mind too.

Thank you both for commenting.

These rules are offered up by experts or teachers as ways to achieve certain goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. They are typically the result of much careful observation, analysis and work. Trouble is when they get touted as a kind of orthodoxy, they require everyone to fall in line lockstep on the same path, resulting in a lot of the same type of work conforming to a narrow definition of beauty.

All creative rules should be approached the way you, Liz, approached the rule about shooting hands. Our artistic self should be like a two-year-old, constantly asking "Why?" Only then can we really know whether adhering to a rule is useful for the purpose of our particular creative endeavor. Playing around with following and ignoring the rules, and carefully observing the results, is a great way to train our instinctual approach to creativity. That way we develop beyond hit-or-miss results without falling into the rut of conformity.

lizzard_nyc · December 4, 2009

Halite wrote:

These rules are offered up by experts or teachers as ways to achieve certain goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. They are typically the result of much careful observation, analysis and work. Trouble is when they get touted as a kind of orthodoxy, they require everyone to fall in line lockstep on the same path, resulting in a lot of the same type of work conforming to a narrow definition of beauty.

All creative rules should be approached the way you, Liz, approached the rule about shooting hands. Our artistic self should be like a two-year-old, constantly asking "Why?" Only then can we really know whether adhering to a rule is useful for the purpose of our particular creative endeavor. Playing around with following and ignoring the rules, and carefully observing the results, is a great way to train our instinctual approach to creativity. That way we develop beyond hit-or-miss results without falling into the rut of conformity.

Thanks Halite,
I hope never to lose that two-year-old curiosity. But yes in the end I do my own thing after I consider the advise. Sometimes I find the advise spot on, sometimes it doesn't work for me. Either way, I've learned something.

adbsgicom · December 4, 2009

Of the poses, I like the second one best to match your work. I like the stronger piercing pose you were going for in #2 (needs sharpness, but you know that). Though, as I mentioned to you, that you indicate that 1 or 3 is your winner....

AndMan · December 6, 2009

Late to the party but #1 for me as far as the poses go, with the backs of the hands (for me they are part of the story).

MC #6 "Senorita"

Comments