[MoparFreak69]

So I have noticed my gradual transition from pointing and shooting, to really looking at locations and areas and finding the best "shot" I can see and hopefully get out of a certain location. I found a spot yesterday that to my eye at least, seemed like a perfect spot to try out some portrait style shots of my wife. The only lens I had on my was my 18-250mm Pentax, and I did everything handheld in fairly diminishing lighting, but I think the results came out quite well. Any opinions, hints, tips, tricks that you pros can give me to maybe improve this specific shot? I cropped it down to an 8.5x11 size which is probably what I will have it printed out at. I cut a bit off the bottom (only the rest of her shirt) and a bit off the top (some windows that had blown out sky in them). How is the composition? Any other suggestions for portrait photos you can throw out please do!
Does it work? Should I not give up my day job? In my eye its a very good shot, not great, but very good. Whats missing to make it great? Keeping in mind the artifacting and inherent blurriness from compressing it to attach. The original image is quite crisp and sharp.

Here is the shot info:
K20d
Pentax 18-250mm at 42mm
f4.5
1/160 sec shutter speed
ISO 400
Spot metering
0 exposure compensation
taken in JPEG
Auto WB
Sharpness at Hard

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by MoparFreak69; 08-26-2009 at 02:26 AM. Reason: Adding EXIF info.

[geauxpez]

It is a good shot -- but I do have a couple of basic points. I gather that you were using the background to frame your subject, but your portrait subject ended in a small corner of your photo with the background dominating. Sometimes that works, other times, not so much. I like the angle of the shoulders -- but zoom in on your subject and lessen the impact of your background. I'm not sure that you need that leading line of the railing to your right for a portrait -- if it's about your subject, your attention will go there immediately.

I do like her shoulder angle ans smile. Keep shooting!

Cheers,

Adam

[innershell]

The subject looks good and is in a good pose. But I would have framed her like this because there is too much background that there is a competition between the background and the subject for attention. At this point, I would consider the background the subject...

[alohadave]

It's a little hard to tell from the picture, but I think you focus is off just a little. Looking at the railing, it looks like the portion in front of her is in focus and she looks a little soft.

I agree about the framing. If you had her centered in the arch, you could use it to frame her, but otherwise it just competes for focus. As for the railing, if the fence was crossing in front of her diagonally and placed at the bottom of the frame it would anchor her nicely.

[Ash]

Framing as others have said.
Sharpness as Dave touched on (and you've explained).
Otherwise OK, but flat lighting which could be improved by an off-camera flash (or even fill flash).
Nice attempt.

[marcdsgn]

Otherwise OK, but flat lighting which could be improved by an off-camera flash

Speaking from an amateur-wannabee-expert POV: If time allowed, I'd also be setting an off-camera flash behind the arch wall (out of sight) and pointing toward that green foliage to brighten it up a bit. The shadows in the trees tend to "suck" the colour out of this shot and kill the definition of the subject's dark hair*. A typical problem with landscapes bathed in the light of an overcast day which can otherwise be quite ideal for close-crop portraiture.

*(Which could also be defined by a flash positioned behind her and directed up into her hair to add back-highlight. But it's tricky to get the position just right in an uncontrolled environment).

Don't be frightened of getting down lower, it's a simple and effective method of making the subject larger in the frame and reducing the size and impact of the background. It can also be more flattering as it reduces shadows.

[MoparFreak69]

Thanks to everybody who gave advice for setting up/getting the shot. I tried a little bit of PP (the first shot had none except shrinking) on a copy of the original. I made the picture (hopefully) a bit bigger and clearer and did a little bit of PP (dont have PS so can only do so much) and cropped it quite a bit tighter to the subject. As far as setting up the shot better, All I had with me was my camera w/18-250mm lens as I was just planning on shooting random scenery/tourist shots and didnt even think about the possibility of doing anything more structured (only been with my DSLR for 3 months so still a newb). I do now realize that overcast days are good for taking a lot of shots, and can even be good for portraits, I just need to isolate the subject a bit more away from a background that would be of very low contrast with the lighting. At this time I dont have the option of using a flash off camera, as I do not have that equipment. Would be nice, but so would having a Million $$$ lol.
Anyway enough rambling, thanks for the advice on the first shot and if you have any more comments on the updated one feel free to express it.

[K-9]

The background just isn't blurred enough. You need to use a larger aperture to set the subject apart more from the background and keep them the focal point. If it's an environmental portrait, you could use a smaller aperture and keep some of the "props" and background in focus with the subject, but straight portraits should keep the depth of field to a minimum.

Your subject seems to be quite far from the archway in the background, so just changing your aperture could have blurred the background a lot. Also watch for head placement in a portrait. Even in your crop, the pale gray line of something to the left of the stairway goes into the back of her head awkwardly. Keep linear things away from going through or into a subject's head. If you had moved to your right, you could have kept all green behind the head, or moved to your left and kept all gray of the stairs behind her head, either would have looked better than the half and half it's at now.

One last thing, if you are shooting against the foliage, pick a lighter or greener area, as the dark foliage blends into her dark hair where you have her placed now. There's no contrast or separation between her hair and the background.

[innershell]

^^^ Good feedback. All are things easily overlooked when first getting into photography. It took me 3 years to start looking carefully through my viewfinder before actually pressing the button. I spend almost 3-5 seconds composing a shot, whereas I used to take 5 pics within those 3-5 seconds and 'hoping' one turned out.

[marcdsgn]

As far as setting up the shot better, All I had with me was my camera w/18-250mm lens as I was just planning on shooting random scenery/tourist shots and didnt even think about the possibility of doing anything more structured.

Of course! And keep in mind that advice is offered in a "hindsight" context. With me, it's usually the case that I know exactly how to take a great shot, only long after the shot has been taken and it's too late to do anything about it! And you're working in the context of the equipment at hand, as opposed to being fully loaded with every gadget known to man - which is the best way to figure out how to take great shots anyway. The less equipment relied on, the more polished the photographer's craft.

Of course! And keep in mind that advice is offered in a "hindsight" context. With me, it's usually the case that I know exactly how to take a great shot, only long after the shot has been taken and it's too late to do anything about it! And you're working in the context of the equipment at hand, as opposed to being fully loaded with every gadget known to man - which is the best way to figure out how to take great shots anyway. The less equipment relied on, the more polished the photographer's craft.

Taking multiple shots at multiple settings, distances, perspectives and poses reduces the need for hindsight to some extent. The trick is to learn from the results.

[MoparFreak69]

As far as getting more background blur, that was my 18-250 wide open. It was f4.5 at about 45mm which is the largest aperture I could get. If I would have had my 50 1.7 with me, then I know I could have blurred the crap out of the background and had a pretty darn nice shot.