My portrait shots went up a notch today

[Rick M]

Excellent shots Lawrence! Keep up the great work!

 

[Rick M]

May I be so bold as to suggest cloning out the hair-band on her wrist? I like the shot... Very nicely done.

Lol, have you been moonlighting on DPreview???

 

[Lawrence]

There's one thing I don't care for...you used a wide angle lens, and the leg closest to the camera has a tiny bit of perspective distortion going on. The leg looks like it is slightly elongated because of the lens and because the leg isn't exactly parallel to the camera. And not too fond of her foot being cut off.

Not sure where you got the idea that I used a wide angle. it was my 35mm. Any distortion may be as a result of me being quite a bit lower than the hay bale she was on.
As for chopping off her foot ... I was stymied because I was backed up as fas as I could go with a big tractor behind me!
I did try bringing that foot back into frame by asking her to bend the knee towards her chin but that made her long leg look fat and stubby and it hid the back leg.
I may try cropping this another way.
Thanks for input

 

[hark]

Not sure where you got the idea that I used a wide angle. it was my 35mm. Any distortion may be as a result of me being quite a bit lower than the hay bale she was on.
As for chopping off her foot ... I was stymied because I was backed up as fas as I could go with a big tractor behind me!
I did try bringing that foot back into frame by asking her to bend the knee towards her chin but that made her long leg look fat and stubby and it hid the back leg.
I may try cropping this another way.
Thanks for input

Yes, I know you used a 35mm lens. That is still considered to be wide angle. Just because you are using a DX body doesn't turn that 35mm lens into a 50mm lens. A 35mm lens on a DX body gives you the field of view of a 50mm lens; however, you still get the perspective distortion of a 35mm lens. And that means objects closer to the camera can appear elongated and fatter than they are to the naked eye. Although a 50mm lens is considered normal, even that can be affected by perspective distortion if you shoot too close to the subject. And the closer you are, the more distortion you will notice. That's one reason why I didn't like DX. I learned photography on a 35mm film camera.

All-in-all, I still like the shot. Please only read my comments as constructive criticism. You have grown tremendously in your ability...I'm just pointing out some small details for you to keep in mind as you continue on your photographic journey, Lawrence.

 

[RON_RIP]

Well I liked it and think it may be one of the best of this series. More pics, we want more pics!!!

 

[Blacktop]

I was going to point that out as well.

While I suppose there could be exceptions, I've been taught the rule: Do not to crop at joints. Cropping at a joint, even small ones like the knuckles, creates tension.

The other thing I keep in mind regarding joints is they need to be bent to look their best. There are probably exceptions but the rule I've been taught is:If it's a joint, bend it. And that means right down to the fingers. It doesn't have to be much of a bend, just enough to break the line, but it needs to be there.

Or pass it around. (just sayin')

 

[Lawrence]

Or pass it around. (just sayin')

Which will definitely anhance the distortion ... (just saying)

 

[Lawrence]

Yes, I know you used a 35mm lens. That is still considered to be wide angle. Just because you are using a DX body doesn't turn that 35mm lens into a 50mm lens. A 35mm lens on a DX body gives you the field of view of a 50mm lens; however, you still get the perspective distortion of a 35mm lens. And that means objects closer to the camera can appear elongated and fatter than they are to the naked eye. Although a 50mm lens is considered normal, even that can be affected by perspective distortion if you shoot too close to the subject. And the closer you are, the more distortion you will notice. That's one reason why I didn't like DX. I learned photography on a 35mm film camera.

All-in-all, I still like the shot. Please only read my comments as constructive criticism. You have grown tremendously in your ability...I'm just pointing out some small details for you to keep in mind as you continue on your photographic journey, Lawrence.

First of - i do not take offence in anyway to criticism. I have learnt much from what I prefer to call advice.

Had to smile at the "wide angle' definition. My wide angle definition starts at 10mm and ends at 34 mm.
Why?
Because I can and choose to.

 

[Blacktop]

Even a 50mm lens can cause some distortion. Depending on the angle you're shooting from. Personally I didn't see see any distortion until someone pointed it out. Even then it is hard to tell. Maybe she has long legs. Long cool woman in a black dress type of a thing.

 

[Lawrence]

While waiting for this joint to be passed around I processed a few more just for @RON who, like me, doesn't seem to tire of pretty ladies.

 

[cwgrizz]

I like the third one of the three in this last post best, but... get rid of the wrist band (just kidding). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I really know nothing about portrait photography. I just like when good looking people are captured well.

 

[Ironwood]

Because I am not a people shooter, I wont give any CC, I'll just say I like them all.
Don't let that joint slow you down Lawrence, keep them coming

 

[RON_RIP]

The third one of this group seems to make the most impact. So lay off the wacky weed and keep on shooting. Maybe a tiny bit too much shadow on left side of her face but that is just being picky. Maybe, though, a reflector could have bounced a bit more light there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lawrence]

Definitely too picky - this old fart is not going hiking with a reflector when there is a pretty girl about.
I can only describe Arlen as "pretty" - she is so photogenic.

 

[RON_RIP]

Maybe she can carry it. They do have little fold up ones. As pretty as she is, I am surprised you remembered to take your camera.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wev]

Definitely too picky - this old fart is not going hiking with a reflector when there is a pretty girl about.
I can only describe Arlen as "pretty" - she is so photogenic

She is indeed. The crop, however, is not.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

While waiting for this joint to be passed around I processed a few more just for @RON who, like me, doesn't seem to tire of pretty ladies.

View attachment 196690

View attachment 196691




View attachment 196692

Like all three love #1. I am out of town but will be back late Sunday. Message me about the distortion. I have something I would like to try on that photo if you don't mind. No computer with me now though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawrence]

She is indeed. The crop, however, is not.

Expand please ...

 

[Blacktop]

She is indeed. The crop, however, is not.

What's the matter with the crop? :indecisiveness:

 

[wev]

Expand please ...

This is, of course, entirely subjective and presupposes you have more image to work with. By shifting her body left, you have created a right hand band of background roughly equal to the mass of her body. Against the dark side of her body, it has too much visual weight, overloading the image and creating the effect that she is falling backward, which I don't think was your intent. Her left side, that she is turning away from, is the more interesting, but needs more background to play against; the visual tension created by the forced imbalance does not enhance the point of the image, but distracts from it. I do not know if the top of the hat was cut off in camera, but if done in crop, it serves no purpose except to allow an easy way for the eye to leave the picture. I keep wondering why it was sliced off.

I have taken the liberty to re-frame the shot , albeit crudely without the original.

This is, as said, simply my opinion and I am a fairly boring fellow, so I fully expect folks to disagree.

I will add, without fear of contradiction, that whatever the preferred surrounding, the capture of her is first class.