Senior

<ed>

Hi all,

Thought I would post a pic.

Tried something different for a change landscape mode can be challenging let alone going for pano mode with a single person although I was pretty pleased how this turned out the selective color was for her more than me ...


Canon 5DmkII
Canon 24/--105L @ 24mm / f/4
ISO 50
2 remote Nissin Di866 strobes at about 1/4 power [edit] Main light with soft box

<ed>

adbsgicom

Nicely set up image, and welcome to dgrin.
I wonder about the decision on selective color. Ususally (my understanding) you selectively color what you want drawing the most attention (like eyes, or the model). Here you leave the leaves colored which compete for my attention.

<ed>

adbsgicom wrote: »

Nicely set up image, and welcome to dgrin.
I wonder about the decision on selective color. Ususally (my understanding) you selectively color what you want drawing the most attention (like eyes, or the model). Here you leave the leaves colored which compete for my attention.

Thanks for your reply, yes I agree it does in fact compete with the subject to some degree,at least for me I start with the main subject the follow the image I guess,and every one is different also we know this But for a pano style image - I was at a loss as to what I could do with the other 90% of the photo lol

Mike J

Putting aside the selective color, the brightest things in the photo are the trunks of the tree she's sitting in. To me, she kind of gets lost in between these. Maybe dodge them a little bit?

Hackbone

Very nice idea. Watch out for the broad lighting on her face. Tends to make the face broad, a no no with ladies.

zoomer

I really like this shot.
Maybe crop 20% off the left.
Loving the pano.

NeilL

My first reaction was that I like it. The pano widescreen look works well. I think the selective colour is so minor compared with the total area that this sprinkling of pale gold and green is an attractive decorative touch.

I have been tussling with the obviousness of added light recently. With images shot in a studio the strong obviousness of the artificial light is both hard to avoid and more acceptable, if not positively desirable. I've been squirming a bit, though, when it's the lighting as an element in the image which is the most dominant, when you see the lighting as the subject of the image almost, and the real subject seems to be there just so the light can be seen. If you know what I mean. I wonder if this is a good technique. Thinking about it I would say that the subject is better presented when the lighting is in collaboration with the subject, when the subject is dominant because the lighting is so sympathetic to the subject, or idea of the subject, that is being portrayed.

That's a long way round to saying that when I look at this image I see first the lighting (I am assuming that there is artificial light being used?) and then the face and my attention is in a struggle between the two. Well, I am overstating it, it's not so dramatic, and I am supersensitive to this issue just at the moment, and it's not fair that I should be picking on this image quite so hard. However, I do find myself wishing that the lighting was more softly there, and "in" the face rather than "on" the surface of it. Especially since this is not in a studio. I hope you can see my point. I'm thinking maybe if the keylight were a little higher and more to the front and closer and lower in intensity?

I don't mind the brightness of the tree trunks. I think they add variety to the tones in the image which would otherwise be somewhat tonally flat, and might even draw our eye to the subject in a similar way to good framing. It might be a problem if they are picking up too much of the light on the subject, and if so snooting the light might produce a nicer and more focused look.

I also very much like the relaxed and contented feel to this portrait.

Neil

PS Oh yes I see that you do make a note about strobes used!

<ed>

Neil , thank you for your comprehensive look into this one, as a note I tend to be lured to high contrast especially in B/W maybe it's a faze i'm going through ~ I know where your coming from on the lighting scenario as well I think, on one hand you want as some say just a "kiss" of added light then you see a photo that is all added light,and it still has that wow factor of well done and creative,but in some cases neither work,me I always try to push it too far - i'm a sports shooter by nature not a portrait artist lol but I still find myself trying to fill that void off creativeness with people. I think it's an art in it's own right that few can really achieve "perfect" I am assuming you are trying to perfect your lighting when you say "tussling with obviousness of added light"

CASowers

I like it as is. There is a lot going on (as is stated well and to the point in the above posts), but it just all seems to work. Nice shot.

NeilL

<ed> wrote: »

Neil , thank you for your comprehensive look into this one, as a note I tend to be lured to high contrast especially in B/W maybe it's a faze i'm going through ~ I know where your coming from on the lighting scenario as well I think, on one hand you want as some say just a "kiss" of added light then you see a photo that is all added light,and it still has that wow factor of well done and creative,but in some cases neither work,me I always try to push it too far - i'm a sports shooter by nature not a portrait artist lol but I still find myself trying to fill that void off creativeness with people. I think it's an art in it's own right that few can really achieve "perfect" I am assuming you are trying to perfect your lighting when you say "tussling with obviousness of added light"

Understand. Yes, a lot is taking note for myself when I crit!:D High contrast punchy tones have their niche, sure. I thought the whole feel of this image was more moderate, natural, and it is except that the light on the girl's face announces itself as artificial and so you begin to wonder about that instead of seeing the face. Thinking more about the image in the meanwhile, and coming back to it now, I think the 24mm view is possibly distorting the girl's head (unless you have done correction of that). Distortion would be greatest approaching the edges of the frame and that is where her head is heading (unless you have cropped out the bordering areas). Does it seem so to you? I mention it because wide focal lengths are tricky to use with people, though the attraction of using them as you have done here is strong. The distortions they produce are sometimes consciously sought, but once again one of the best things about your image here is its naturalness, which is emphasised by the inclusion of a big serve of nature!

I want to add too, that I find the absence of the girl straining to pass as a Hollywood starlet (many senior portraits go down that well worn way, or in the case of boys, the football jock petrol head suburban frontiersman) is so refreshing!<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/rolleyes1.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >thumb<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Neil
</ed>

&lt;ed&gt;

Chris thank you - I myself was pleased to pull this off lol - Good enough for me at the moment


Neil, Moderate / natural - are infact the 2 elements I am trying to merge but at times a little more than that only to find I went to far ...

"I want to add too, that I find the absence of the girl straining to pass as a Hollywood starlet (many senior portraits go down that well worn way, or in the case of boys, the football jock petrol head suburban frontiersman) is so refreshing!" I agree Neil , but I think it was her mother forcing her to wear the choice of clothing and a sweater I know was not the girls idea I did over hear that lol .

As for the 24 mm I try to stay away from that end of the lens "24-105L" but going for a pano shot I was aware of the distortion so notably shot wide for cropping out the outer most area of the image . The lighting may be leading you to think her head is distorted as well ,I guess in ways I intentionally lit her from the side as to exaggerate and separate from the B/G a little more than I felt I would get with a more frontal approach,to me flattens to much - probably why I try to shoot more high contrast images - still learning to blend it all together mind you

NeilL

Yep understand. And if any of this was easy, why, who could be bothered discussing it? And "blending it all together" is perennial, it moves as you do, always ensuring that you're on some kind of learning curve!

My lighting suggestions were meant to find a way to de-emphasise it. By bringing the light more front you would narrow the head because a lot of the *side* of the head-hair is lit at the moment. By bringing the light closer you would soften the edge of the shadows as I'm sure you know, and by lowering the intensity you would of course help the light to more gently illuminate rather than bounce off. By having it higher the light could more resemble the natural light sources of sun and sky, since nothing usually shines low on a face but artificial light.

The challenge in this is to get lighting which is the opposite of blah but which is not ballistic!:D

Am I up to it?





Neil

Albert Dickson

Ed, I like the shot. I've shot numerous portraits at that same tree over the past few years. Your Comp. is wonderful and I like the tones of your B&W conversion. A very attractive portrait that I am sure you client loves. Here is the last shot I used that location for. Yours is much better in my opinion.

&lt;ed&gt;

Hi Albert, Yours must have been taken close to the same time as mine looking at the foliage,I have shot there a hand full of times "at that park" and this was my first time seeing this darn tree and it's a perfect prop

Well I like your image over all Albert, if I had to pick it apart which I am not going to, I would just want the young ladies finger tips to show,but I know with some crops it's difficult to include all some times.