Portrait in Black and White

skipper954 · 03-04-2007, 19:18

I rather like this because the near eye is blurred and the far eye is sharp. That is a bit unusual, I think, and draws the viewer into the photo.

skip

Geoff Semmens · 03-04-2007, 20:57

Agree totally. I like the composition in that it makes the viewer work to fill in the edges. If the photo was not arresting in the first place one would not care.

What is she thinking?
Is there a smile or a calculation?
What is over my shoulder that has caught her attention?

This is my kind of portrait.

Geoff TWO

skipper954 · 03-04-2007, 20:59

Thanks Geoff....I like your interpretation.

Tatiana, the model wasn't that fond of this shot. She thought that I should have cropped to the eye or included her mouth. This image is as framed in camera. As you say, I like the viewers imagination to fill in.

Interestingly enough, this is the first shoot in which I personally gave the cd of the proofs to the model and we went through them on the computer right then. The model feedback was invaluable. I am going to try to do that more often, but there are time constraits...it took nearly 2 hours.

From a technical standpoint, I took this with my 50mm lens at 3.2. I would have expected more dof, but perhaps with this lens it is narrower? I don't know.

skip

Charlotte · 03-04-2007, 23:00

Yes Skip, this is an unusual composition for a portrait. Didn't much like it at first glance, but it's growing on me the more I see it. I initially thought it looks quite harsh, because of the clear visibility of all the little flaws, pores, lines + bumps in her skin because it's such a close-up. Also, there's a blown highlight below her left eye, which is very noticeable because this is the eye which is in sharp focus, + my eye is drawn directly to it once my attention reaches the eye itself.

The reason you got less DoF than you expected from this lens is because you are standing so close to your subject - DoF decreases the closer you get to the subject

skipper954 · 03-04-2007, 23:04

Thanks, Charlotte

I tried to fix the highlight, but couldn't do it realistically. Anyone have a thought about how to do it?

You should have seen her pores before I used the healing brush and a lot of noise reduction, which is presently my preferred method of glamourizing skin.

The camera sees everything, even what our brain refuses to process.

So I could have increased the dof with a zoom from a distance. Thanks for the info.

skip

skip

**Dabhand16** · 03-04-2007, 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipper954

So I could have increased the dof with a zoom from a distance. Thanks for the info.

skip

skip

Or a longer prime, or even your nifty fifty. When you think about it macro photography has the smallest DoF, and as you increase the distance to your subject the DoF at any given apature will incerease. If you are shooting a landscape you can often set the focus at infinity, and everthing will be in focus from a point that can be quite close depending on the focal length of the lens. There will also be more in focus 'behind' the point of focus than in front.

The doF in your portrait could also have been greater if you had stopped down a bit. I suspect you are using your nifty fifty, and revelling in it's available light capabilities and are probably using it wide open a lot of the time.

I like the portrait, but wonder if it could be improved by cropping the bright RHS to her hair?

Charlotte · 03-04-2007, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipper954

Thanks, Charlotte

I tried to fix the highlight, but couldn't do it realistically. Anyone have a thought about how to do it?

Bit of cloning + dodging

Cloned over the blown highlights (there were 2 on cheek, but I now see another under her nostril which I missed). Dodged just under her eye to banish the dark circle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skipper954

So I could have increased the dof with a zoom from a distance. Thanks for the info.

Yep + you're welcome

skipper954 · 03-04-2007, 23:52

Good job charlotte, and yes, Graham, I think a right crop would add to the effect. Thanks. And how did you know I was going wide open (or nearly so) on the 50??? Been there, done that? lol. And thanks for more info on dof etc. That is why this site is so cool.

skip

Charlotte · 04-04-2007, 00:33

My pimp was a very rough go just on the affected cheek - a quick test of the theory of cloning out the blown highlights before suggesting it to you Skip, but you get the idea + you could retouch the whole face that way if you were willing to spend the time on it

Just find a bit of smooth, clear skin the right tone to clone from. Tip: I did vary the opacity + flow of both clone + dodge tools for smooth blending into the surrounding skin. Of course it has left the cheek a bit flat looking, but it was only a quick go

I see the top part of her hair is also blown, leaving a wedge-shaped gap of nothingness, which you could fix by cloning out the bit of hair which appears to grow out of mid-air

Graham knew you used a wide aperture from the resulting shallow DoF

nicklovick · 04-04-2007, 09:11

I love this shot skip but I personally would crop in closer to remove the white area on the right. My eye tends to get drawn past the eye and into the bright background.

skipper954 · 04-04-2007, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

I see the top part of her hair is also blown, leaving a wedge-shaped gap of nothingness, which you could fix by cloning out the bit of hair which appears to grow out of mid-air

Graham knew you used a wide aperture from the resulting shallow DoF

Thanks Charlotte. You are looking for the really small things now, and I appreciate that. It is all in the details.

In terms of the wide open lens, Graham and I were referring to ALL the shots with the nifty 50, not just this one. It is just such a cool lens that probably we are all tempted to use it wide open when that may not produce the best image. As will all new toys, there is a learning curve.

skip