well, i got a question: what would make this a better (or good?) portrait? more specifically, how would a "professional" have approached this (lighting, exposure, etc...)..go ahead, tear it up, i wont get all whiney or anything..thanks (i hope the url works out). hazard01@earthlink.net), May 01, 2000

Answers

Once again, I have to preface this by saying without a context it's pretty difficult to make very meaningful suggestions. However, assuming this is supposed to be an example of a contemporary fashion shot (or a portrait trying to look like a fashion shot), a few things are obvious. The model needs makeup (all models need makeup; however she does not have good bone structure, so you are limited in what the end result will be); her hair is flat and dull, the light is too low (the shadows of her shoulder and her nose on her face are very distracting); the wrinkles in her skin by her armpit could be minimized by a different pose (but some may have to be eliminated digitally); the feather merges into the shadow (it took me a while to figure out just what it was); there is a sickly greenish/yellow cast to the skin tone on her shoulder; the overall composition (which is very noticeable because of the black background) is ok, but not inspired. This is a good "first draft." Time to review and revise.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 01, 2000.

I would like to critique your photographic decisions. Diffuse the light, and it will more closely match the attitude of your subject. Light from above camera axis, unless you want your subject to look like Bela Lugosi (50's horror movie star). If you want one side of your subject to be in black shadow, and still want an air of "romance", you'll do well to and a little light on a suitable background that supports/creates an appropriate context. And you've got to use a more diffuse light for this mood to be present.

Her tattoo adds to her mystique, but it's (hopefully) not her best attribute. People are like birds and fish, we look at the bright spots. Make your point of greatest interest the place we look first, by setting a hierarchy of attractive points with lighting and pose in descending order by illumination and placement. Top priority = brightest, least important = darkest.

Study Masters of portrait painting (Vermeer, Caravaggio, Titian) to learn compositional techniques that subconciously seduce the human senses. And light that enchants.

Bone structure, makeup, wrinkles and props are not issues for you, yet. Photograph anyone who is willing to sit, and be kind to them, they are your best and most scarce resource... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

thank you for tearing up my photo! really, thanks for the input, some things i may not have thought of (obviously). er- i mean, i think i have a fair "assesment" of my work on my own, (so, i wasnt really surprised by the response), but thanks for pointing the things i wouldnt have thought of. take care. J

-- Jerry Hazard (hazard01@earthlink.net), May 02, 2000.

By the way, here's an example of a single light (umbrella) with no fill against seamless black bacground.

http://www.visto.com/?club=/visto/groups/fashion.jkantor&service=filep hoto&method=view&tx=n1y&filename=photo/John+Kantor/017.JPG

(Make sure to delete any spaces you get when you copy and paste this.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 02, 2000.

a Reply to portrait critique (ut-oh...)

Hmm... Tom said many wise things, as usual... I'll second that the main points are 1) don't merge your subject with background - if the subject is dark, the background should be lighter (and vice versa. 2) most important part should be lightest, usually face... 3) use fill light - pretty good lighting is possible with two lights, one above the camera (fill) and main light roughly at 45-45 degrees (45 degrees to left or right and 45 degrees up. 1,5 stops contrast between the lights is a good starting point.

and- use some film, make many variations and, most important, let us see some more results!

Sakari

-- Sakari Makela (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), May 03, 2000.

Actually, a lot of work is being done today with very high contrast and no (or very subtle fill). I think you have the right idea, just keep experimenting.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 04, 2000.

Here's the one I should have posted. (I'll try getting it to appear.)

It has some problems. The model isn't the greatest (although she posed for free). The pose is a bit awkward and she was a bit stiff, since she hadn't done this kind of work before.

However, this was done with one medium PhotoFlex louvered softbox, with 2 gold inserts against black seamless. Shot on E100SW for even more contrast!

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 05, 2000.

Your model is fabulous, John, the personality is obviously well developed (no pun, dammit), available and photographically appropriate. I'm sure there's tremendous potential in letting this woman be herself and you being ready with appropriate light for her. Let's see more of her face and the attitude this picture hints at... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), May 07, 2000.

I'm responding to your second photo, but I can't see it anymore as I type this. How about a reflector on the left, and maybe a snoot behind her to highlight her hair?

-- Mark E. Mease (tripletall@aol.com), June 03, 2000.