Hard Work

[Icebear]

Man, portraiture is hard work. So many of you seem so natural at it, but I find it hard to pose a person, so's not to get double chins, weird head angles, etc. I fear that my insecurity about my technique will transfer to my subject. I do mostly architectural photography, and seldom have to worry about interacting with my subject, but every so often a designer or architect will ask me to do a business portrait for them, for their web site or a publication. Yesterday I did a session with the young design assistant of one of my clients, and it took me two and a half hours to get the attached images. I think I'm generally happy with them, but I'd really appreciate y'all's criticism. Can you believe that young woman was patient enough to put up with my bumbling for that long?

#1

http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861270-L.jpg

#2
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861452-L.jpg

#3
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861638-L.jpg

#4
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861816-L.jpg

#5
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/220022637-L.jpg

And yes, that's pretty much her skin.

[gefillmore]

I would think she would really like these-

I'm not one to c&c portraiture, but I think they're pretty nice-

[photogmomma]

I think the color might be different in each - the first looks green to me. But other than #3, I really like them! I'm not good at posing or lighting posed portraits so I can't comment that much....

But in #3, I don't like somethign about it. I'm thinking maybe a tighter crop? But I'm not sure. The rest are flattering.

Nice of her to put up with it, but she got some great shots out of it!!

[JimW]

Icebear,

I think you did great. These portraits may look simple, but I know they're not easy. In #1, I wish she was looking in the lens with those great eyes. Otherwise really an outstanding photo. #2 looks absolutely perfect to me, great job on the skin. #3 the hairlight is right on the part in her hair, also the pose doesn't seem as natural. #4 is beautiful, but you might clone out those stray hairs at the top, but it's a minor point. #5 seems to need a little red to match 2-3-4, but nice.

You must have said the right things, because her expression is alive and engaged.
Nice job.

Jim

[Icebear]

Thank you George, Andi and Jim. Your observations are spot-on.

George, I've seen enough of your photography to have a lot of respect for your opinion. If you say they're nice, it means a lot to me.

Andi, your stuff blows me away all the time, so I really appreciate your criticism and kind words. Yep, #1 needed a bit of balancing. We were close to some big windows, on a variably cloudy day, and the light was constantly changing. The overheads, were fluorescent - bleghh. I didn't want to keep running back and forth with my Expodisc. I've touched it up in pp now. Same with #5. Too blue. Fixed. See, now, #3 was my personal favorite, so when you said you liked it least, I knew I had to do something. How about this crop?

http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/220507367-L.jpg

I do like it better tighter. Thanks Andi. And Jim, thanks for the hint about the hair light. I dont have a snoot or diffuser grid. I had an SB600 up there, dialed down as low as could be, and it was still a bit much. For this latest crop, I just cloned in a bit of hair in "darken" mode. Best I can do.

[mrpilles]

Man, portraiture is hard work. So many of you seem so natural at it, but I find it hard to pose a person, so's not to get double chins, weird head angles, etc. I fear that my insecurity about my technique will transfer to my subject. I do mostly architectural photography, and seldom have to worry about interacting with my subject, but every so often a designer or architect will ask me to do a business portrait for them, for their web site or a publication. Yesterday I did a session with the young design assistant of one of my clients, and it took me two and a half hours to get the attached images. I think I'm generally happy with them, but I'd really appreciate y'all's criticism. Can you believe that young woman was patient enough to put up with my bumbling for that long?

#1

http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861270-L.jpg

#2
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861452-L.jpg

#3
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861638-L.jpg

#4
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/219861816-L.jpg

#5
http://portfoliofotos.smugmug.com/photos/220022637-L.jpg

And yes, that's pretty much her skin.

Gorgeous shots...

[Scott_Quier]

We were close to some big windows, on a variably cloudy day, and the light was constantly changing. The overheads, were fluorescent - bleghh. I didn't want to keep running back and forth with my Expodisc.
It sounds like you need to get some better control over your lighting situation. If you are shooting with strobes (and I see catchlights in your model's eyes, soooo), I have some suggestions (if not, you can safely ignore this entire post :D):

Close the blinds on the windows. If you can, block all light from the windows unless you are planning to use only the window light for a shot. This will help you keep the number of different colors of light to a minimum.
Turn off the flourescent lights. You want only enough light to focus by. The rest of the light in the studio should be designed to the requirements of the photograph.
Keep your shutter speed high. 1/200 works quite well. This will virturally eliminate the influences of ambient light if the above recommendations are followed.

If you do the above, you will only have one light source - your strobe(s). Now you can shoot one CWB frame and go from there. The light temperature will not vary significantly over the duration of the shoot.

[Icebear]

I wish!
Thanks Scott. You're dead on. No blinds on the windows. North facing, on a cloudy day. I was able to keep the fluorescents off 'till it got too dark to focus:rofl . Really only in shot #4 did I have any issues with that, and you can see a bit of green in the hair.

I think the best hint you gave me is to use 1/250 as a shutter speed. I was trying to use as much ambient as I could, and I now think that was a mistake. May as well work on getting better with the strobes. If I use the higher shutter speed, I can hand hold too, which I think would give me a more personal relationship with my subject than the tripod, no? I found she was flicking her eyes back and forth at times, between the lens and my face, beside the camera. You can see the result in one of the shots, and JimW even commented on it.

I didn't mention it before, but I used a collapsable stand I fabricated out of 1" pvc to hold the 54" roll paper. I'm pretty happy with its portability. And it was about $13.00 worth of pvc.

Thanks again for the advice. I promise, it's valued. This portrait stuff ain't like architectural photography, where anything like 1/30 sec is a blindingly fast shutter speed!

[Scott_Quier]

I wish!
Thanks Scott. You're dead on. No blinds on the windows. North facing, on a cloudy day. I was able to keep the fluorescents off 'till it got too dark to focus:rofl . Really only in shot #4 did I have any issues with that, and you can see a bit of green in the hair.
What I've used is a single, very low wattage tungsten light way in the back of the camera room. This provides enough light to focus, but it's so dim that it's about 4 to 6 stops less light than the strobes, so no contribution to subject illumination.
Thanks again for the advice. I promise, it's valued. This portrait stuff ain't like architectural photography, where anything like 1/30 sec is a blindingly fast shutter speed!
Glad to help.

[mrpilles]

[quote=gefillmore]I would think she would really like these-

I wouldn't change a thing!

[Photosbychuck]

Hi, Icebear

I think all of these look good.
In the #1 shot the eyes don't pop but some people like that.
I think you did a good job and she should be happy with these.

Take Care,
Chuck,

[ajdocnhailey]

I really like the 2nd one! I'm sure she will be happy with all of them though. Great job!

[Icebear]

Now my challenge is to find another subject as photogenic as she was.