Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Photo Critiques (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/photo-critiques-83/)
-   -   Portrait (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/photo-critiques-83/portrait-53611/)

RodneyBlair Apr 25, 2005 2:41 PM

This is just a candid portrait I shot. I thought I'd share it here. All natural light with no fill flash or reflectors.

Rodney

pianoplayer88key Apr 25, 2005 7:52 PM

how on earth do you get such excellent candid natural-light portrait poses? I can never get anything good with my Canon S1 IS at 380mm (and at shorter focal lengths the "trying to get away from teh camera" is even worse!) - I either get severe motion blur of them turning their head away, or the person's hand in front of her face, or other major problems, including, but not limited to, incorrect focus point cause I didn't have time to set up the camera, extreme overexposure or underexposure, severe noise (try shooting at ISO 6400 on a dSLR or ISO 800 on an ultracompact to see what I mean), and other things. On many of my portraits, even with my aperture opened up to F/3.1, they are still way to noisy (ISO 400), too motion blurred (1" or slower shutter speed), and a few stops underexposed. Or, even when the lighting is good (1/125" shutter speed, F/8.0, ISO 50, I often cut off part of the subject's face or soemthing. :(

mactek Apr 25, 2005 8:40 PM

I don't particularly like the subject here as he seems uncomfortable, but the lighting, focus and DOF are excellent!
May I ask what lens you used and how close you were?

mactek

RodneyBlair Apr 26, 2005 3:47 AM

pianoplayer88key wrote:
Quote:

how on earth do you get such excellent candid natural-light portrait poses? I can never get anything good with my Canon S1 IS at 380mm (and at shorter focal lengths the "trying to get away from teh camera" is even worse!) - I either get severe motion blur of them turning their head away, or the person's hand in front of her face, or other major problems, including, but not limited to, incorrect focus point cause I didn't have time to set up the camera, extreme overexposure or underexposure, severe noise (try shooting at ISO 6400 on a dSLR or ISO 800 on an ultracompact to see what I mean), and other things. On many of my portraits, even with my aperture opened up to F/3.1, they are still way to noisy (ISO 400), too motion blurred (1" or slower shutter speed), and a few stops underexposed. Or, even when the lighting is good (1/125" shutter speed, F/8.0, ISO 50, I often cut off part of the subject's face or soemthing. :(
I shot this shot iso 200, f/6.3, 1/640s. You should be able to obtain good shutter speeds using iso 100 when shooting in natural light.

Thanks for the comments.

Rodney

RodneyBlair Apr 26, 2005 4:27 AM

mactek wrote:
Quote:

I don't particularly like the subject here as he seems uncomfortable, but the lighting, focus and DOF are excellent!
May I ask what lens you used and how close you were?
mactek
A friend purchased the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II and asked me to test it out for him. He wanted this range and Macro ability but didn't want to spend a lot of money. So far, I've been impressed at how well it is. I haven't noticed that the images I've captured with it require any more sharpening in post than with my other glass.

I'm not sure how far away I was from the subject. I didn't zoom in close and the only cropping I did was to obtain an 8x10 ratio so I must have been within 20ft.

Rodney

RodneyBlair Apr 26, 2005 4:37 AM

Here is what I intended to do with this shot. I love b/w and toned images.

Rodney

pianoplayer88key Apr 26, 2005 8:08 PM

problem is a lot of my shots are taken either in double-digit stops less than natural light, or at absurdly long focal lengths so it's near impossible to keep the camera trained on the subject. For the dark shots, using the flash is a no-no cause it would alert the subject, and for the daylight telephotos getting closer is also a nono for the same reason.

vIZnquest Apr 26, 2005 10:55 PM

I see the eyes have that look of being the center of interest and it looks somewhat unnatural to me. The reflective look to them or the sharpness is a bit pronounced here for my liking but the rest of the picture here is great.

RodneyBlair Apr 27, 2005 12:48 AM

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:

I see the eyes have that look of being the center of interest and it looks somewhat unnatural to me. The reflective look to them or the sharpness is a bit pronounced here for my liking but the rest of the picture here is great.

I guess the eyes look unnatural to you because you've seen too many bad candids floating around on the forums. You are confusing scattered reflections with sharpness. Find someone who is willing to sit for you and place them under a a tree or shaded area with the sun behind them. Look at their eyes to see how they look in such a situation.

If I had attempted a more professional shot, I would have probably used a reflector to create specular highlights or anoff camera flash as the key light which would have produced a single well defined catch light(reflection) on each eye.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Rodney

Westcoaster May 2, 2005 5:02 AM

I thought a candid shot was one where the subject has no idea of his or herself being photographed. This doesn't look like it's candid to me. Strange looking person. Scary to be more concise. WC.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.