Congratulations to DanielScott for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 2 votes - View Previous Winners
I've been inside too much over the last year so it felt good to get outside and photograph someone this week. The lighting on this particular day was really amazing for portraits. The sky was overcast, but the cloud cover was thin and allowed the sun to shine through it. I also used a white reflector for some fill light. I honestly didn't realize how much I've actually missed using natural light.
So far this is my favorite shot. I used an original Canon 5D with a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro usm lens attached set to f/4.5, 1/160th sec, ISO 320..
I am torn by the nose stud. It creates some asymmetrical tension (which is sometimes a good thing).
~but~ it also dates the image (not in a good way, IMO).
Catchlights are *epic*
Anyway, very nice work!
g
Details like this are always polarizing. I tend to go with personal details enhancing a portrait, and that to me is a personal detail that enhances the portrait. I don't remove piercings or scars, and for simple portrait shoots like this I like to let the models wear the piercings that they want to.
DanielScott wrote:
Details like this are always polarizing. I tend to go with personal details enhancing a portrait, and that to me is a personal detail that enhances the portrait. I don't remove piercings or scars, and for simple portrait shoots like this I like to let the models wear the piercings that they want to.
I think that is wise. I would also present one without the piercing if it were my shot. As I look at his eyes, my eye is drawn *away* from the eyes and to the bright nose stud... which diminishes his eyes, and the overall impact of the image IMO.
Anyway, I am probably in the minority here, but it is a great shot nonetheless.
A small technical point - is the left eye less sharp than the right? Given that they should both be roughly in the same focal plane, might the lens be decentred?
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Daniel, outstanding portrait.
A small technical point - is the left eye less sharp than the right? Given that they should both be roughly in the same focal plane, might the lens be decentred?
Thanks Rajan. Perhaps it is, thanks for taking the time to critique.
I'm pretty terrible about actually replying to anything on the boards these days but wanted to jump in and say that I very much enjoy seeing your images, and this one is no exception.
It's easy (for me) to get caught up with all the latest gear, but your photos are an excellent reminder that lighting, composition and connection with your subject are what make great portraits.
So thank you for posting your work, and even if I don't reply I always make a point to click when I see you've posted a new image.
formula4speed wrote:
I'm pretty terrible about actually replying to anything on the boards these days but wanted to jump in and say that I very much enjoy seeing your images, and this one is no exception.
It's easy (for me) to get caught up with all the latest gear, but your photos are an excellent reminder that lighting, composition and connection with your subject are what make great portraits.
So thank you for posting your work, and even if I don't reply I always make a point to click when I see you've posted a new image.
Oh wow, thank you so much! Those are photographic principles that I very much agree with, although soon enough I'm likely going to be forced to upgrade this 15 year old DSLR when the shutter inevitably reaches the end of it's lifespan, or when some other important aspect of my camera stops working. I'll be very sad when it happens because I love this old 5D a lot.
AGeoJO wrote:
Well-captured and powerful portrait, Daniel! Personally, I believe this would be a candidate more for low-key rendition-wise. But just my opinion.
Joshua
Thank you. I appreciate the suggestion, and to be honest I've been considering this as well.
Daniel, I think the issue on the left vs. right eye is not a matter of sharpness, per se. Rather, it is a matter of contrast, in that each eye is in different lighting, one being on the key side, the other on the fill side ... rendering the pupils darker, thus the contrast to the sclera being greater ... and the corresponding perception of "sharper".
That said, it's only offered up as an explanation, not an expectation to change anything. I suppose that you could look at applying some selective contrast (likely not sharpening) adjustment to one / other of the eyes to match them up. Again, not a big deal, but if it gets to where you can't "unsee it", that'd be what I might take a stab at.
As to the nose stud ... it looks blown. If you could recover it some, that might make it more harmonious to the persona of the image, rather than a "bright spot" on his nose. Just a nit.
And, as always, your use of lighting in such a simple manner is an exercise that many of us would do well to emulate.
+1 for explore to move it down the spectrum > > > low key and see how it plays along the way. Good as is, might be a different vibe hiding in there, too. May be just a tiny smidge, may be a really big smidge ... explore it.
RustyBug wrote:
Daniel, I think the issue on the left vs. right eye is not a matter of sharpness, per se. Rather, it is a matter of contrast, in that each eye is in different lighting, one being on the key side, the other on the fill side ... rendering the pupils darker, thus the contrast to the sclera being greater ... and the corresponding perception of "sharper".
That said, it's only offered up as an explanation, not an expectation to change anything. I suppose that you could look at applying some selective contrast (likely not sharpening) adjustment to one / other of the eyes to match them up. Again, not a big deal, but if it gets to where you can't "unsee it", that'd be what I might take a stab at.
As to the nose stud ... it looks blown. If you could recover it some, that might make it more harmonious to the persona of the image, rather than a "bright spot" on his nose. Just a nit.
And, as always, your use of lighting in such a simple manner is an exercise that many of us would do well to emulate.
+1 for explore to move it down the spectrum > > > low key and see how it plays along the way. Good as is, might be a different vibe hiding in there, too. May be just a tiny smidge, may be a really big smidge ... explore it.
ogerisg321 wrote:
That original 5D has a look to it that is so unique.
I agree, it has a very flattering way of rendering portraits in particular, in my opinion. I also really love the way the MKII renders portraits, which will likely be what I replace my original 5D with when I finally upgrade my camera.
