Square cropped portraits (SCPs) - please post them here

[Antonio Correia]

Hi,

I agree Peter's image is very nice but I think it is slightly spoiled by the too shallow depth of field as only one eye is in focus - her right eye is significantly out of focus... I guess it won't make any difference if printed small size but a blow up would really show the softness up I think.

Best regards,

Anton

Indeed Anton. I saw it when I looked at it the first time.
I consider this not to be a problem.

May be because the mouth of "my" young man previously posted is not in focus I am trying a good excuse for myself ...

I think it is because the young girl moved a bit after focusing or Peter focused her right eye with the central point and then moved the camera to the right.
Sometimes this small parallax error is enough when working with shallow DOF.

A great image any way Anton ! and here you do agree don't you ?

[Antonio Correia]

From last Sunday, the 5th July 2009

EXIF

Anton, Peter, Alis, Colin, etc ... What about this ?

[aia21]

Sure I do agree the image is very good. I was just pointing out it would have been even better with a less shallow DOF...

Best regards,

Anton

[peterb533]

Indeed Anton. I saw it when I looked at it the first time.
I consider this not to be a problem.

May be because the mouth of "my" young man previously posted is not in focus I am trying a good excuse for myself ...

I think it is because the young girl moved a bit after focusing or Peter focused her right eye with the central point and then moved the camera to the right.
Sometimes this small parallax error is enough when working with shallow DOF.

A great image any way Anton ! and here you do agree don't you ?

Hi Anton,

Thanks for your comments. Not sure why the left eye is not in focus as parts of her hat and hair that are nearer the camera are in focus. You may be right about the parallax, hadn'y thought of that.

Peter

[peterb533]

From last Sunday, the 5th July 2009

Anton, Peter, Alis, Colin, etc ... What about this ?

It looks good to me, although as you said to me could do with the eyes being slightly brighter.

Peter

[Antonio Correia]

It looks good to me, although as you said to me could do with the eyes being slightly brighter. Peter

You know Peter, I am afraid sometimes to overdo the brighteness making the image a bit unreal. In this case the eye.
May be what I have to do is just a little bit, very tiny that's all.

But you may be right.
I have to try and see what I can get.

Thanks.

[Antonio Correia]

Let's not forget that this is important about DOF.

I saw the other day something more specific about the parallax but I can't find it now...

[peterb533]

Peter I think you image is very very nice.
You used light from bellow which gave the face a very good emphasis filling in the shadows.
I do like it.

If I may suggest, you could apply a little vignetting. Small, just a tad.
Oh and brighten also a tad her eyes. Just a bit nothing strong and/or artificial...



EXIF ?

I may have overdone this but what do you think?

EXIF: F5.6 1/160sec, ISO 200, Canon 5D mk2, 85mm F1.8 USM

[Antonio Correia]

So, you have a great modern camera and a great lens.
I have simulated the DOF and I made a crop of this one from the screen. Not from Cambridge in Color (which I should study because it is very sophisticated) but from DofMaster and I calculated in meters.
I could have done in feet but ...
As we can see the DOF is only 0.18 meters. Sufficient, more than sufficient for a face. May be you have focused on the wrong place or the young girl moved a "great" bit.

Why don't you try again - it seems I am a teacher which am I not in fact and don't intend to be - making an Adjustment Brush (LR) or an Unsharp Mask (CSn) locally, only on her right eye ?




I have done this table once to be used with the 20D.

I have even "built" this round table which could be used on the crime scene !

And you know what ? I have never used it !!!!

[Antonio Correia]

EXIF

[Alis]

From last Sunday, the 5th July 2009

Anton, Peter, Alis, Colin, etc ... What about this ?

Hi Antonio,

IMHO, in this one, looks like you have done a lot of PP (to compensate for the blown out areas on the nose and left cheek?) and also I think the dark area on the right side of the forehead does not look natural.

All in all, it could have been a perfect picture if I have posted it but we now hold you to a much higher standard and it is your own fault that we do so

Cheers!

[Alis]

EXIF

So, on this one I have a question I always ask myself: is it ok to have more than one catch light in the eyes? I think I see at least two in this one, and it is not exactly on the pupil.

[Admins: I had to include the original picture so it is clear which one I am talking about! Sorry about that]

[Antonio Correia]

Hi Antonio, IMHO, in this one, looks like you have done a lot of PP (to compensate for the blown out areas on the nose and left cheek?) and also I think the dark area on the right side of the forehead does not look natural. All in all, it could have been a perfect picture if I have posted it but we now hold you to a much higher standard and it is your own fault that we do so Cheers!

Alis, You are right about the quality of this picture. As you can understand all my pictures are not excellent or even good.
To show here some bad images makes part of the game and I do accept your critique.
I have indeed made a lot of post processing: This has been shot inside a church - in spite of the hat - and with artificial light, tungsten one and the camera was not adjust to.
Moreover I was using high ISO... Well, just excuses...

I do agree with you in your critiques and I am not going to erase the picture because it is not as good as some of the others.

So, on this one I have a question I always ask myself: is it ok to have more than one catch light in the eyes? I think I see at least two in this one, and it is not exactly on the pupil...

I don't know any rule about that. The 2 light spots on his eyes don't bother me, I mean they are not important for me. However, I have to agree with you again that only one would be better.

Thank you so much for commenting.

Later today I hope to be able to post a better SCP.

[Alis]

...I am not going to erase the picture because it is not as good as some of the others.

To be honest, I would love to see some not-so-excellent pictures from you from time to time. Although I think even those are far better than the average images on this forum, what it does for me is to make me feel a little bit better about my pictures and also myself!

So, you should not take them down and I encourage you to post some more of those with problems. I guess we cal learn alot from those and as I said, it will give me (at least) a lot of self-confidence

[Antonio Correia]

To be honest, I would love to see some not-so-excellent pictures from you from time to time. Although I think even those are far better than the average images on this forum, what it does for me is to make me feel a little bit better about my pictures and also myself! So, you should not take them down and I encourage you to post some more of those with problems. I guess we cal learn alot from those and as I said, it will give me (at least) a lot of self-confidence

I don't mind if ever you are teasing me That is if you are
The fact is that I am not ashamed to take bad pictures.
On the contrary, I try to do better and better every time, considering the responses I have and the comments I read about them.

I told the young man to move back and forward to avoid shadows on the wall. It was the only control I was having on the "light".

Yourself, you are taking nice pictures.
I now post the original photography converted from the RAW file without any "treatment".
I made this just for you Alis

Thank you again for commenting.

I forgot to tell that the photo is full of noise and I don't know how to remove it. Yet.

[Antonio Correia]

And how about this one, Alis ?
The situation is similar to the one when I shot the young man I posted before.
Lots of Sun, lots of light. I moved the young boy to the shadow and made some shots with the available light and some flash on ETT as I usually do, while I was under the Sun.
I was with other photographers (amateurs) who were doing pictures under the harsh light.
I have not seen their pictures so far.

We can easily understand that the young was rather upset by the intense light coming from the open area in front of him and behind me.
Want to see the original ?

EXIF

.

[Antonio Correia]

Overcoming harsh light !
Run from it or face it !
No flash

EXIF

.

[Alis]

I don't mind if ever you are teasing me That is if you are

No, I am not. The reason I can comment about your pictures is that they are almost perfect which makes it easier to see a problem from time to time. And I agree with Colin here that your pictures are consistently high quality.

Yourself, you are taking nice pictures.

Not sure about nice, but I have to say I have improved tremendously by reading this forum.

I now post the original photography converted from the RAW file without any "treatment".
I made this just for you Alis

Thanks, I think this is actually a great way to learn, by comparing the jpeg directly from the RAW or with minimal processing and the final product. Post more of these, if it does not give away your secrets

Now, about the guy with the hat, if you want to work on this picture, would you get rid of the shadow from the hat on the forehead?

Cheers!

[Antonio Correia]

... Now, about the guy with the hat, if you want to work on this picture, would you get rid of the shadow from the hat on the forehead? Cheers!

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean.
Which young man are you referring to ?
Do you mean to get rid of the shadow of the hat on his forehead on this one here ?

Please look again at post 197
It's the after and the before. (It should be the other way around )

[Alis]

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean.
Which young man are you referring to ?

On both posts # 190 and #192, there is a shadow around the area where the hat touches the forehead. Not sure how it got there if you used flash but probably it the angle of the light that caused it.