Chrissie Portrait

[limetreepictures]

This is one of my recent efforts, on loc in perthshire with professional model Chrissie Red.

Funnily enough, now that I am studying full time for my professional qualification, I have far less time actually using the camera- and lots more writing essays, reading up and post processing!! Should probably get used to that then....!



Mike

[arith]

How did you get her to sit in that. Portraiture is probably my greatest interest, just unavailable because of funds, and a lot of professionals doing excellent work in fashion using medium format.

I like the picture but thought she could be wearing something slightly lighter, and not quite as body hugging.

cheers

[Wirefox]

You have done really well to keep the subject the centre of attention here. The depth of field is really long for a portrait and I suspect the image would have benefitted from a wider aperture. I am intrigued as to where the main source of light is coming from. Is the strobe to the left? If so it is a little harsh resulting in deep shadow to the right (not helped by smaller aperture). Having said that I really like the overall concept and the technicalities often fade to insignificance if the overall image works

Steve

[Dave Humphries]

I see what you mean Steve, but the EXIF says f3.5, which if a kit lens is probably wide open

I agree the flash does look to be a bit "camera left" (not a criticism, just confirming Steve's thoughts).

I find the bright curving line on the model's footwear is a tad distracting.

I do like the subdued colours,

[taken]

this portait surely tells us how a soft,soothing light,with lovely soft tone colors,and fantastic background, totally over power the subject! here the model becomes the negative impact on a fantastic toned frame! shooting the model in such a colored back ground,from this top angle,is really distorting her to some extant! her posing style is not blending with the theme,or angle !

[William W]

Originally Posted by Wirefox

The depth of field is really long for a portrait and I suspect the image would have benefitted from a wider aperture. I am intrigued as to where the main source of light is coming from.

My guess is the EF-S 18 to 55F/3.5-F/5.6 was used on the 400D for this image: and as mentioned F/3.5 is wide open for that lens at 18mm.

I think a Camera Mounted Flash was used and it is from camera Left because of the camera's orientation.

It looks like it is nearly a full frame crop of the original frame - there is a little barrel camera top. If I am correct then the DoF would be about 8 to 11 ft.

I like the perspective contained in the image but I think concentration on the subject would be enhanced with a tighter Field of View. IMO the negative space camera left and the light stream camera top, (to a lesser extent) are distractions which are on the verge of overpowering the strong impact of the Subject’s face and facial features.

If the camera were kept in the same position but the FL = 30mm (approx) were used the FoV(h) would be about 5ft and the Subject would be framed more tightly: but still with enough surroundings to give both placement and meaning to the image.

Also at FL=30mm the DoF would be about 12inches which would allow the zone of sharp image to be placed across the face which is the predominate force in the image and (more importantly) render the remainder of the body (torso and legs especially) to segue into the surrounds.

I think the environmental style of portraiture lends itself to the wider field of view in surrounds which are less dominating and not competing with the main Subject – though this particular subject is strong IMO there is too much juxtaposition using the wide Field of View – and that is a loss to the overall impact of the image.

WW

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks Will,

I think you're more correct than my clumsy and cryptic analysis.

It made me think and learn

[William W]

Hi Dave,

Over the past two weeks I've been working closely with a 2nd year photography student. Her major work this year is two sets of four portraits. She has a 400D and an 18 to 55. For the Full Length Shots this student (for her practice shots) she used 18mm often - it took a time to understand that about 30mm or longer (on an APS-C body) usually gives a FoV and a DoF more suitable to portraiture which emphasises the subject.

This image just looked like the ones I had been reviewing and critiquing in detail these past two weeks . . .

The greats (Henri et al) use a 50 and an 85 on a 135 format camera . . . very rarely did they use the wide.

That is not to say WA cannot be used to capture great portraiture.

WW

[Wirefox]

I see what you mean Steve, but the EXIF says f3.5, which if a kit lens is probably wide open

Yelp...just crushed my fingers in "Exposure for Dummies" by way of penance. I did not look at the EXIF....Ouch, hitting ones self in the genitals with a Manfrotto monopod is not recommended. I feel Like Dobbie from Harry Potter. Every time someone mentions Mikes' portrait I get the overwhelming urge to do self-harm. I am still surprised by the depth of field of the kit lens when wide open...shows what I know

whoa...that 430 EXII in the eyes at six inches has given me arc-eye

Steve

[MrTee]

The whole thing works well but the shadow created by the flash from the left has slightly interrupted the soft moody feel a bit. Still a good portrait.