Problems WIth Hands...

Bryce Wilson

I have always had, and most likely always will, have problems including hands in portraiture and getting results I am happy with. It seems that even a tiny little error with a hand can ruin an otherwise nice portrait.

Lately, I've been purposely including hands in some shots as a "trial and error" sort of thing to try and see what works and what doesn't. Here are a few failures.

Anyone that has either good or bad portraits with hands included, please feel free to add them to this thread. I know I would like to see other shots that work as well as those that don't as a learning tool. And look forward to any comments on any of the images posted.

Thanks!

1.
I think I would have liked this one a lot if I hadn't had the hand under the chin. I think the hand by the cheek works with this pose but the one under the chin is either too much or something.


2.
The hand on the left going into the hair just looks amputated to me. I hate it.


3.
I'm OK with the hands in this one. The pose might be a bit contrived and dated, but it ain't all bad.


Please post some of yours!

angevin1

Hi Bryce! One big problem with hands in portraiture is mass. I think I have a good way to show what the mass of the hand can do, and how to undo that: these two photos.

MASS is distracting



Mass hidden


Mass is one component. Also tone of the skin at the hand can distract, like it does with your photo#2.

And if I may, my biggest problem with hand/face portraiture is why. Why is her hand near her face. With the Rose that becomes obvious, and I think that is why it makes sense.

scotthofferphotography

best example i can think of.

zoomer

Nice portraits.
For me I pay 0 attention to hands, but then I do very little posing. As a result the hands end up in natural positions.
Posed hands generally look posed.

Sometimes people ask me "What should I do with my hands" I tell them to leave em on the ends of their arms...cause I am funny like that ha.

BrettDeutsch

I'm with Zoomer. If your goal is to pose people to look natural, then it's unlikely their hands are going to be near their faces in most situations. Ignore the hands and they should end up where they belong, usually.

D3Sshooter

Indeed the example shows the mass issue. Besides mass , it is often a matter of keeping the fingers somewhat straight/curved. Not bend , that causes a amputated look.
The best one can do is to have a look at all the classic master painters on how they did portrayed hands (Rubens, Leonardo D., Van Eyk etc,,,,)

Your # 1 is ok for me.
#2 is not (seen from a hands discussion), the left hand (viewer) looks awkward. Almost like an ear...
#3 would have been better if the leafs that cover the hands would have been pealed.

threecubed

For me, I'm too distracted by the old chipped nail polish on her fingers to notice whether they are awkwardly placed or not. Personally, I wouldn't include hands unless the nails look nice...

Hackbone

Besides checking out the masters hands you can even look at Mickey Mouse. He only has three fingers and a thumb. Always keep the middle finger and the ring finger together and you will be susprised how much that helps. In some of your shots the fingers are separated toooooo much. That tends to turn them into sausages. Keep them together more.

On the mass issue the back of the hand is its broadest point. So keep the edge of the hand facing the camera and it will then it won't be as massve.

On your first pose the hands would have been nice if she would have her right hand fingers in the palm of her left had.

#2 isn't bad but she appears to be crossed eyed. Watch out for that.

#3 has the finger separation going on.

Hope that helps.