My portrait skills suck!!!!

PaulStat · 6 Aug 2010 at 13:52

Looking at some of Nick's and Ray's pictures and thinking GOD I SUCK AT PORTRAITURE!

I think a lot of the problem is I still don't fully understand aperture when it comes to this type of photography. Also focussing, I only just this last weekend figured out the AF on my D300s with the Continuous Servo and 3D tracking gizmos which I have to say are awesome! But I still need a lot of practice.

This is probably the best portrait picture I've ever taken

And it's still lacking
- DOF too shallow?
- Shadow on the left side of his face
- Sharpness is not quite what I'd expect from the nifty fifty

Any tips? I'm going to try and get a lot more this weekend so we'll see how I progress.

Oh my arsenal for portrait photography consists of

Nikon 50mm f1.8D
Nikon 35mm f1.8G
Nikon SB-600 (which I have no idea how to use effectively)

ScarySquirrel · 6 Aug 2010 at 14:30

That is a lovely picture Paul, and it definitely doesn't suck!

The DOF is spot on, I'm a huge fan of shallow depth of field, and you've got it just right here, however for some reason the eyes don't feel like they are the focal point. It looks like focus is on the front of his hood and top of his top, which seems to be making the eyes look a little OOF.

Lovely natural light in this one as well, so I wouldn't say the right hand side of the face is too dark at all. It all depends what you're trying to achieve. If you're just using natural light don't underestimate the power of a reflector, you can get them cheap, and you can even use some white foam board or something, anything to reflect a bit of light and fill in the shadows can make a huge difference.

Sharpness looks good to me, however as mentioned it's just sharp in the wrong places. To increase your keep:throw ratio, trying shooting at a higher aperture, to make sure you get focus spot on. Once you feel more comfortable with that open it up a bit more and start nailing those high impact portraits where all focus is drawn into the persons eyes. This is of course just one type of portrait, and shots where the persons whole head are just as good, again it all comes down to what you're trying to achieve.

The processing is SO important. I can't right now, but I'll post some SOOC shots of mine, with the final version as well so you can see the difference. I don't know what your processing skills are like, but really try to get to grips with Photoshop. I can't really offer any specific advice, but if you have any questions just let me know. I am by no means an expert but I feel I know enough to get the best out of my photos (to a degree!)

Not sure any of this helps, I am just rambling really. Would love to see some more of your portrait work.

p0ss3s3d · 6 Aug 2010 at 14:35

Make sure your using a single focus point with no expansion and servo/continuos focussing should sort out the focus issues.

Rojin · 6 Aug 2010 at 14:53

p0ss3s3d said:
Make sure your using a single focus point with no expansion and servo/continuos focussing should sort out the focus issues.

I'd forgot I had enabled this for an airshow. The next day a whole set of portrait shots out of focus with the 85mm f1.8....! :eek:

It's not a bad shot at all Paul, it converts nicely to B&W

Mud · 6 Aug 2010 at 16:42

Did Lou O'Bedlam teach you nothing!? :eek:

I didn't find the big dumb rectangle (or whatever KR calls the 51pt 3D mode) very useful on my D300s. Stick it in 9 point or even single point AF, and aim for an eye. My preference is AF-C on the back button (disable AF on the shutter release button).

PaulStat · 10 Aug 2010 at 09:15

thanks guys. Sorry I didn't reply was away in Wales at the weekend.

I did take a few pictures but I wasn't feeling top notch so didn't spend much time on it.

I did actually use the single focus point on his left eye, perhaps I should have focussed on his right instead as it was the one slightly out of the shade?

And did I learn anything from Lou? Errrr no

, overrated by a fair margin that bloke

(in my opinion of course)

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 10 Aug 2010 at 10:02

Well actually aside form the baby looking unhappy I think technically its a lovely portrait. I wouldn't shoot yourself down. Not to say Raymond isn't a great photographer (because he's one of my faves) but you aren't going to get that shallow depth of field using a standard kit. He has invested 1000s for that and the rest of it is down to experience and execution.

I do see you have F1.8 lenses so shoot them wide open (focus on the eyes)

Regardless of all this above its light that has the ultimate say in photography so experiment looking for natural light, your own light sources and combined. Look for spots of light to place subjects in.

martinturner · 10 Aug 2010 at 11:44

Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
Well actually aside form the baby looking unhappy ....

lol, seriously, that is not an unhappy looking baby! My son (when he was a baby a couple of years ago) had moments where he would go purple in the face and completely stop breathing! The delay before the cry was epic!

Absolutely nothing to add to the thread though, other than to say I too have issues with portraits with the 50mm (although mines a 1.4). Whenever I autofocus I almost always get the focus on the tip of the nose or forehead - the camera always seems to say no to focussing on the eyes. I land up setting manual focus and doing it manually. I am sure its something I am probably doing as I see many others not having the same issues.

Raymond Lin · 10 Aug 2010 at 12:07

The "problem" with the shot, in my opinion are

It's frammed too tight, and the composition is awkward. This is difficult with new born as they can't sit up so it's always lying down and that is just not flattering. The best baby portraits I'ev come across for this age are artistic ones where you use REALLY shallow DOF and focus on their hands (yes hands), or feet, and sometimes the eyes looking at an object (you might want to take a wide shot so you frame the object too)

It is also very cluttered, the clothes and layers makes it distracting. That can't be helped in your case here. But i wuold have removed that hat and show his face more.

I also think it is a bit flat too, the lighting isn't great and it could be brighten/exposed about 1/3 a stop more.

Technically speaking, natural light portraits are not that difficult to get it right. Using single focus point and make it land on the eye and you are half way there. The difficult part since baby can't pose as such, you are relying on timing and your composition and angle to make the best of I and shallow DOF does help (blur out crap in the background). So in this case, something like a 85/1.8 does help. Or for kicks, 35/1.4, close up with really shallow DOF and get some context in. Kit lens at F/4 at that focal legnth is not shallow enough unfortunately, it is one example where gear does give you nicer photographs in the same situation.

That’s my 2 cents.

dannyjo22 · 10 Aug 2010 at 12:30

martinturner said:
lol, seriously, that is not an unhappy looking baby! My son (when he was a baby a couple of years ago) had moments where he would go purple in the face and completely stop breathing! The delay before the cry was epic!.

I agree, last year when I got my first Slr I discovered how quick things can go wrong. I lent over my boy and took a few quick shots. Happy as could be until the click of the shutter upset him. I have these 5 snaps in a custom frame in his nursery to remind me how quick it can all go wrong

I wish I was a bit more advanced when my son was born as now he's on the move it's a lot more challenging to get him to sit still to keep my keepers at a high enough rate with a shallow DOF

I still like your picture Paul but as with all baby shots they are for the family album and people rarely get what you are trying to get across and they don't know the personalit of the baby/child. If that makes sense

PaulStat · 10 Aug 2010 at 12:40

^^^ lol, love it

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 10 Aug 2010 at 12:40

Couldnt agree more. The best shots are the details of a baby. Best ones are on a solid lost black canvas.
Feet in the hands of the dad.
Tiny hands.
feet by contrast.

Also with kids I always find that a journalistic candid approach is the only way to go 80% of the time.

martinturner · 10 Aug 2010 at 14:34

Loving that set dannyjo22!

ScarySquirrel · 10 Aug 2010 at 15:45

HAHAHAHA! Dannyjo that is awesome.

Seasaw · 10 Aug 2010 at 15:49

dannyjo22 said:
I agree, last year when I got my first Slr I discovered how quick things can go wrong. I lent over my boy and took a few quick shots. Happy as could be until the click of the shutter upset him. I have these 5 snaps in a custom frame in his nursery to remind me how quick it can all go wrong

I wish I was a bit more advanced when my son was born as now he's on the move it's a lot more challenging to get him to sit still to keep my keepers at a high enough rate with a shallow DOF

I still like your picture Paul but as with all baby shots they are for the family album and people rarely get what you are trying to get across and they don't know the personalit of the baby/child. If that makes sense

Great set!

Mud · 10 Aug 2010 at 16:11

PaulStat said:
And did I learn anything from Lou? Errrr no , overrated by a fair margin that bloke (in my opinion of course)

Heh, he was a lesson in philosophy over gear-lust...wish I could be happy with just a polaroid/5dmki and a 50/1.4!

PaulStat · 22 Aug 2010 at 21:40

slight bump, 98% of the time I'm still getting below par results. I am however getting the odd one or two I'm very pleased with, such as:

My sis with my little lad

I'm sure it could be improved upon but still

At The Gates · 22 Aug 2010 at 21:56

As a few people have said the hard things with new babies is they only lie down. So you need a really low DOF and some sort of focal point. Also some amount of PP helps. For focusing stick to one AF point and don't track. Seems to help.

I'm no expert, but here's a few of my new girl i'm quite happy with:

mcc49 · 22 Aug 2010 at 22:01

Paul do you post process? That last picture to me as a green cast to it which a dash of magenta would get get rid off, also if you improved contrast slightly using curves and maybe hit it with a slight sharpening it'll definately 'pop' more.

koolpc · 22 Aug 2010 at 22:44

Raymond Lin said:
The "problem" with the shot, in my opinion are

It's frammed too tight, and the composition is awkward. This is difficult with new born as they can't sit up so it's always lying down and that is just not flattering. The best baby portraits I'ev come across for this age are artistic ones where you use REALLY shallow DOF and focus on their hands (yes hands), or feet, and sometimes the eyes looking at an object (you might want to take a wide shot so you frame the object too)

It is also very cluttered, the clothes and layers makes it distracting. That can't be helped in your case here. But i wuold have removed that hat and show his face more.

I also think it is a bit flat too, the lighting isn't great and it could be brighten/exposed about 1/3 a stop more.

Technically speaking, natural light portraits are not that difficult to get it right. Using single focus point and make it land on the eye and you are half way there. The difficult part since baby can't pose as such, you are relying on timing and your composition and angle to make the best of I and shallow DOF does help (blur out crap in the background). So in this case, something like a 85/1.8 does help. Or for kicks, 35/1.4, close up with really shallow DOF and get some context in. Kit lens at F/4 at that focal legnth is not shallow enough unfortunately, it is one example where gear does give you nicer photographs in the same situation.

That’s my 2 cents.

Brilliant advice there.