C&C on a couple of portraits?

dlscott56 · November 26, 2009

I'm trying to learn something about lighting, posing, and shooting portraits so your C&C are greatly appreciated. I don't have a backdrop and with all the family here for the holiday the only place in the house I could find to set up had a bad background. So, I set exposure to eliminate ambient light and started from there.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Nikolai · November 26, 2009

Dave,
framing and sharpness seem to be fine.

All look a bit dark and underexposed, which is probably due to the lack of proper lighting gear.

My biggest nit is I wouldn't spend a second more to look at them. They are most likely of decent interest to the family members, but "art work" they are not.

I can't imaging any of those gracing covers of Time, Esquire or NG.
Compare these to a portrait of a complete stranger:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=150907
and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Mohamed.Ghuloom · November 27, 2009

I agree with Nikolai

adbsgicom · November 27, 2009

You need to get more light into the scene in some way, as his face is underexposed by quite a bit. Looking at the first one, there is 0/0/0 black already in his face, which shouldn't happpen out the chute, and the whites are also pretty dark (around 220). So just bumping the levels (pullling the white point down) and bumping the greypoint a bit, (couldn't move the black point at all) you can end up with:

p1.jpg

I also think your color balance is a bit off. This fellow is looking a bit reddish, and the third one is a bit off as well. If you have a grey card to calibrate against, that would help you out.

Looks like you are working with one light off to camera right. If you want to lessen the shadow a bit, even a piece of white poster board will help bump the light coming back on the shadow side as well.

Hope that helps.

Swartzy · November 27, 2009

It does appear you have a small "kicker" to camera left but they are all underexposed. Underexposure can be a good thing if one is going for a lowkey lighting look...but.....other areas of the frame need to have the "right" light. For portraiture it's essential to have adequate lighting. Lighting the bg will afford some separation between the subject and backdrop. It doesn't need to be much but a little will add depth and dynamics to the shot.

There are those (including client requests) that want the bg going black but typically in those cases the subject needs more light overall.

As photographers, we spend most of our time studying light, the subtleties of such and experiment constantly because, really, it is always about the light. Pick up books, read on line, look at 1000's of shots and try to figure out how they were lit. Save some that catch your eye and determine what draws you to them. Chances are it will be how they are lit in conjuction with the pose/angle/vantage point/look. Keep learning...never stop learning.

divamum · November 27, 2009

I think these are a good start. The comments you've had are valid, but for what sounds like "grab shots" with limited equipment, good for you thinking on your feet and using the light to "make" a background for yourself

I'll be interested to see where you go with this in the next round.....

dlscott56 · November 27, 2009

adbsgicom wrote:

You need to get more light into the scene in some way, as his face is underexposed by quite a bit. Looking at the first one, there is 0/0/0 black already in his face, which shouldn't happpen out the chute, and the whites are also pretty dark (around 220). So just bumping the levels (pullling the white point down) and bumping the greypoint a bit, (couldn't move the black point at all) you can end up with:

p1.jpg

I also think your color balance is a bit off. This fellow is looking a bit reddish, and the third one is a bit off as well. If you have a grey card to calibrate against, that would help you out.

Looks like you are working with one light off to camera right. If you want to lessen the shadow a bit, even a piece of white poster board will help bump the light coming back on the shadow side as well.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Andrew. I do seem to have a problem with underexposing in general. I far too often take a quick look at the lcd without looking at the histograms and end up way to the left side. Not my cameras fault. I understand what you mean about the 0,0,0 areas but when you say the whites are around 220 what do you mean?

Anyway, thanks for your comments they are very helpful.

dlscott56 · November 27, 2009

Swartzy wrote:

It does appear you have a small "kicker" to camera left but they are all underexposed. Underexposure can be a good thing if one is going for a lowkey lighting look...but.....other areas of the frame need to have the "right" light. For portraiture it's essential to have adequate lighting. Lighting the bg will afford some separation between the subject and backdrop. It doesn't need to be much but a little will add depth and dynamics to the shot.

There are those (including client requests) that want the bg going black but typically in those cases the subject needs more light overall.

As photographers, we spend most of our time studying light, the subtleties of such and experiment constantly because, really, it is always about the light. Pick up books, read on line, look at 1000's of shots and try to figure out how they were lit. Save some that catch your eye and determine what draws you to them. Chances are it will be how they are lit in conjuction with the pose/angle/vantage point/look. Keep learning...never stop learning.

Thanks Swartzy. It would be tough to hang around DGrin without learning something new daily. I'll keep at it.

dlscott56 · November 27, 2009

divamum wrote:

I think these are a good start. The comments you've had are valid, but for what sounds like "grab shots" with limited equipment, good for you thinking on your feet and using the light to "make" a background for yourself

I'll be interested to see where you go with this in the next round.....

Thanks Divamum!

dlscott56 · November 27, 2009

Nikolai wrote:

Dave,
framing and sharpness seem to be fine.

All look a bit dark and underexposed, which is probably due to the lack of proper lighting gear.

My biggest nit is I wouldn't spend a second more to look at them. They are most likely of decent interest to the family members, but "art work" they are not. I can't imaging any of those gracing covers of Time, Esquire or NG.
Compare these to a portrait of a complete stranger:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=150907
and you'll see what I'm talking about...

Thanks Nik, I figure I'll keep at it and hopefully get better.

adbsgicom · November 27, 2009

dlscott56 wrote:

Thanks Andrew. I do seem to have a problem with underexposing in general. I far too often take a quick look at the lcd without looking at the histograms and end up way to the left side. Not my cameras fault. I understand what you mean about the 0,0,0 areas but when you say the whites are around 220 what do you mean?

Anyway, thanks for your comments they are very helpful.

So I went into CS4 and pulled up a Levels Layer. Whites didn't start clipping until I got to 215 (and that was just the T-shirt). There wasn't any clipping in the face region until I got down to 190. Those numbers are out of 255 (max value for 8-bit color). If you are looking in LR2, then those numbers are percents, but if you play with the exposure slider and hold down the ALT key, it will show you when you start to cause clipping and where that clipping is occuring. If you play with the black level (either in LR2 or CS4) then you'll see you already have places in the face clipped to black, so increasing the black point only adds more blacks where you don't really want them.

dlscott56 · November 28, 2009

adbsgicom wrote:

So I went into CS4 and pulled up a Levels Layer. Whites didn't start clipping until I got to 215 (and that was just the T-shirt). There wasn't any clipping in the face region until I got down to 190. Those numbers are out of 255 (max value for 8-bit color). If you are looking in LR2, then those numbers are percents, but if you play with the exposure slider and hold down the ALT key, it will show you when you start to cause clipping and where that clipping is occuring. If you play with the black level (either in LR2 or CS4) then you'll see you already have places in the face clipped to black, so increasing the black point only adds more blacks where you don't really want them.

Now I understand, thanks Andrew.

C&C on a couple of portraits?

Comments