Beach portrait

JPar

Senior Member
I'm trying to learn the fine art of portraits a little more. I'm finding it a little challenging, as subjects move (especially babies) and the lighting is such a variance.

_DSC5243.jpg
 
Last edited:

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I'm fairly new at all of this, but my understanding beaches and snow are harder than typical from a light metering and white balance perspective. The EXIF data doesn't seem to be showing (at least not for me), but was a flash used on the second pic or were you using a reflector of some sort?
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I really like the second one. STM is a great beach photographer, perhaps he'll chime in with some pointers. One of the challenges to me is where the horizon cuts across.
 

JPar

Senior Member
I'm fairly new at all of this, but my understanding beaches and snow are harder than typical from a light metering and white balance perspective. The EXIF data doesn't seem to be showing (at least not for me), but was a flash used on the second pic or were you using a reflector of some sort?

Dang it. EXIF data got stripped. Will edit and upload the ones with EXIF.

The second pic will need to wait, as the one with EXIF data is at home. But it was done with the stock Nikon D7000 flash.

Pretty sure I need to upgrade to a big boy flash.
 
Last edited:

DraganDL

Senior Member
Both photos are suffering from the same mistakes: shot with relatively wide angle, both have very depth of field with lots of details in the background, interfering with the main object(s) and distracting the eye of the observer.

More precisely: on the first one, the woman's head should have been placed lower, so that this pier does not look like a knife piercing her head. On the second one, the people's heads in the distance, together with the horizon should have been placed higher...
 
Last edited:

JPar

Senior Member
Both photos are suffering from the same mistakes: shot with relatively wide angle, both have very depth of field with lots of details in the background, interfering with the main object(s) and distracting the eye of the observer.

Thanks, DraganDL.

Is it by rule that all portraits should have a shallow depth of field? (not being snarky... genuinely curious)

A challenge I have with shallow depth of field and portraits is getting the people in focus properly. I guess that has to do with using the proper aperture settings.
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
"Is it by rule that all portraits should have a shallow depth of field?"
Of course not. But, that shallowness is aimed at avoiding the aforementioned problem?. Right?
;)

 

JPar

Senior Member
"Is it by rule that all portraits should have a shallow depth of field?"
Of course not. But, that shallowness is aimed at avoiding the aforementioned problem?. Right?
;)


Well... yeah! :)

I think my intent was to get everything in focus so we could see the ocean and whatnot... but I do see your point about it being "busy."
 

DraganDL

Senior Member
"I think my intent was to get everything in focus so we could see the ocean and whatnot".
That's a GOOD point - by just "lowering women's heads" (shooting from a slightly higher position) you could have achieved that, without the need for a shallower DoF:eagerness:


 

STM

Senior Member
I'm trying to learn the fine art of portraits a little more. I'm finding it a little challenging, as subjects move (especially babies) and the lighting is such a variance.

View attachment 99653

This intimate portrait has good potential. If I might make just a few suggestions and some of these may just be personal preference. Make the crop much tighter. You can still tighten up the crop without losing a sense of "place". This is an intimate moment between mother and child, so make the image itself more intimate as well. I know it is difficult to do sometimes with DX format because your focal lengths are shorter and often maximum apertures are slow, but try to minimize the depth of field to separate the subject from the foreground as much as possible. Especially here since the rock jetty behind them is going right through the middle of her head. Below is a very quick and dirty Photoshop of what I am talking about. This day seemed to be either overcast or cloudy, which is good because it does not produce harsh shadows, but the contrast is a little on the weak side. Using fill flash properly balanced with the ambient light (no more than maybe 25% contribution) would have really made them "pop". The point was also made about sand and snow complicating things and this is a very true statement. Down here on the FL panhandle, our sand is nearly as white as snow and it can be a real bear sometimes to balance, but on the other hand it does provide a good reflector to open up shadows under chins, etc.



This image was taken under similar circumstances, it was late in the day and the sun was setting below the dunes. I used two strobes with about 20% contribution to up the contrast. It also put catchlights in their eyes and a little reflection on her lips. On camera flash might have worked here, but even during the day, you run the risk of "red eye". It will also kind of flatten things out somewhat, which is why I use two stobes, with one at half the power setting of the other. This was taken with a 105mm f/1.8 Nikkor @ f/2.8. I If you look really closely you can tell that his watch is slightly soft because it is just outside the depth of field of the lens. I try to go with the longest focal length I can get away with given the space I have to work. My 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor is usually my "go-to" lens for outdoor portraiture. Even with the sun down, I still had to use a 4x (2 stop) neutral density filter to keep the shutter speed below my wireless strobe capability (1/200 sec) at that wide an aperture. The background however is very soft, providing very good separation but you still have a sense of place. This of course was a staged shot, unlike yours, but even using balanced on camera flash could have improved the improved the contrast a good bit

 
Last edited:

JPar

Senior Member
This intimate portrait has good potential. If I might make just a few suggestions and some of these may just be personal preference. Make the crop much tighter. You can still tighten up the crop without losing a sense of "place". This is an intimate moment between mother and child, so make the image itself more intimate as well. I know it is difficult to do sometimes with DX format because your focal lengths are shorter and often maximum apertures are slow, but try to minimize the depth of field to separate the subject from the foreground as much as possible. Especially here since the rock jetty behind them is going right through the middle of her head. Below is a very quick and dirty Photoshop of what I am talking about. This day seemed to be either overcast or cloudy, which is good because it does not produce harsh shadows, but the contrast is a little on the weak side. Using fill flash properly balanced with the ambient light (no more than maybe 25% contribution) would have really made them "pop". The point was also made about sand and snow complicating things and this is a very true statement. Down here on the FL panhandle, our sand is nearly as white as snow and it can be a real bear sometimes to balance, but on the other hand it does provide a good reflector to open up shadows under chins, etc.

Thanks a ton, STM! I brought the photo back into LR and came up with this:

_DSC5243-2.jpg

I did take a few using a flash, but not on the overcast day. Includes the original one I posted, now with (more) EXIF data!

_DSC4999.jpg_DSC4954.jpg
 

STM

Senior Member
Thanks a ton, STM! I brought the photo back into LR and came up with this:

View attachment 99712

I did take a few using a flash, but not on the overcast day. Includes the original one I posted, now with (more) EXIF data!

View attachment 99713View attachment 99714

You are most welcome!

Much better, but the background is still rather sharp, I am not at all familiar with LR but I am sure you should be able to blur the background somewhat. When shooting at the beach or in the snow, a set of neutral density filters is more of a necessity than a luxury because it lets you open up the aperture for shallower depth of field. I have a set of three; 2x, 4x, and 8x in my camera bag all the time and they get lots of use.

Below is one of my favorite beach portraits and one that has been widely published both in color and black and white. I prefer the B&W version, but then again I think most things look better in B&W! It was shot with my 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor on a monopod and my wife walking beside her holding a strobe triggered remotely. It is a very long focal length but the lens is razor sharp even 1 stop down, which is what was used here, and the depth of field is very shallow, giving great separation without losing the sense of "place". Pay no attention to the EXIF data because I rarely put in the data in on the "Non-CPU" information when I shoot.

 
Last edited:

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
JPar, it's great to learn better technique, but if that's your wife and baby, then you will love these photos more each year for the rest of your life no matter what.
 

JPar

Senior Member
You are most welcome!

Much better, but the background is still rather sharp, I am not at all familiar with LR but I am sure you should be able to blur the background somewhat. When shooting at the beach or in the snow, a set of neutral density filters is more of a necessity than a luxury because it lets you open up the aperture for shallower depth of field. I have a set of three; 2x, 4x, and 8x in my camera bag all the time and they get lots of use.

Oh man. You just opened a Pandora's box for me... I never even thought to Google how to blur backgrounds in LR. That brought me to the "adjustment brush," which has all sorts of power!

Added some blur, toned down the saturation and highlights in the background, added some color to her lips and some vignetting... here's the result:

_DSC5243-5.jpg
 
Last edited:

STM

Senior Member
Thanks, DraganDL.

Is it by rule that all portraits should have a shallow depth of field?

Nothing is ever set in stone, there are times when it works. In this case it was inevitable because I used a 16mm fisheye Nikkor and since I could not use a ND filter, I was down quite a bit on the aperture. Depth of field was probably 2 feet to ∞. Amber was maybe 4 feet from me. Again, fill flash opened up the shadows and evened out the exposures

 
Top