|
Portrait photography is everywhere. Our lives usually revolve around other people, so it's no wonder that nearly everyone who picks up a camera will snap a photo of someone else. And that person will probably hate the photo when they see it. It's a fact. At one time I had a newspaper clipping with statistics that claimed the vast majority of people hated to have their photo taken. A surprising number would rather visit the dentist than be a part of a family portrait. We portrait photographers have our work cut out for us. Making other people look good isn't easy. Our subjects are fat, have skin problems, and probably don't even want to be here. Unlike still life photographers, we can't go shopping for that perfect apple, and unlike landscape photographers, we can't drive around the mountains until we find that perfect vista. We have to work with what we've got. That's where this thread comes in. Portrait photographers, rejoice, for here is a repository of knowledge for you. This is a place where you can ask "how can I make this 300lb woman look good", and a place where your peers will give you pointers on how to improve. Over my years as a portrait photographer, I've picked up a ton of tips and tricks on how to make portraits easier and look better. I'll be posting those as I finish writing them. Here's a few of my portraits just to kickstart things.       The Only Posing Guide You Will EVER NeedThe clothing recommendations are a bit dated (the guy was in his prime in the 70s) but this guide is comprehensive, well-explained, and far, far, far better than anything I have been able to write so far. Thanks to Kazy for re-hosting the guide, it went down at some point and I didnt' know! ConfusedUs fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jun 1, 2010 |
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
nonanone posted:
I have no problem lumping fashion photography in here--it's basically just portrait photography with an added emphasis on the clothing. More or less. And yes, interacting with your subjects is a major point and one I intended to address.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 08:44
|
|
|
GestureSignalThreat posted:Kind of echoing the issues in Paragon8's post, I love the street fashion photography of people like Scott Schuman's The Sartorialist. I would love to take protraits of random people I see that I think look interesting and/or are dressed well - how is it possible to be able to do such a thing with out coming over all I think you'll be surprised at how many people agree if you look the part, act confident, and just ask. Having a business card or other 'official' documentation will allay most people's remaining fears.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2009 17:40
|
|
?
|
Important Elements within a Portrait The eyes are the most important element of any portrait. Eye direction should always be deliberate. That does not mean always straight to the camera, or even open, but the positioning of the subject's eyes is critical. A portrait's focus should always be at its sharpest at the eyes, too. Hands are a close second behind the eyes. If the subject's hands are visible in the portrait, pay special attention to them. Keep the fingers together unless the pose requires it. Watch where you crop, too. Avoid chopping people's limbs off at major joints. It gives an amputated look, not good. Also try to avoid just barely touching people with the edge of the frame--it looks like a mistake. Compare these two portraits:   The first has some major problems. The focus is on the arms/knees, not on the face (though you may have to view it larger to notice). The eyes lack that critical focus, and the hair is casting shadows across the left eye. The hands look awkward and unattractive. The second image is much stronger for many reasons, not the least of which is that I paid more attention to the subject's eyes and hands. ConfusedUs fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 17, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
I'd typed up several hundred words on posing and was proofreading it when I stumbled up on this link.The Only Posing Guide You Will EVER Need The clothing recommendations are a bit dated (the guy was in his prime in the 70s) but this guide is comprehensive, well-explained, and far, far, far better than anything I have been able to write so far. I've been doing portraits for five years and I learned a few things from this site. Read it. He describes portrait lighting too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 02:30
|
|
|
Acc-Risk posted:I agree about the hair in photo one, and the hands are weird, but I didn't notice it until it was pointed out. I think her hands in the second photo look too posed. If I chose the same pose, I'd have her lay her arms on top of each other, rather than wrapping around each other, and I'd adjust my main light a bit so that the air did not cast shadows. For an alternate pose, I'd have her lean on her left arm and curl her legs up to the side, and leave the bag in the same place. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 03:26
|
|
|
Acc-Risk posted:It's a great shot. Imagine it without the purse. Fashion shoot. The purse was mandatory. The hands-on-hips pose is actually a crop of a full length with the bag.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 03:32
|
|
|
nonanone posted:
You say that like two of my last three self portraits didn't involve knives, somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2009 05:23
|
|
|
dakana posted:At first, I was thinking the same thing, but then realized that it's simply a cumulative learning process. You don't have to keep all of the rules straight all of the time; rather, the more you shoot while trying to think about them, the more you know when to follow them. It's the same thing as juggling shutter speed, aperture, flash power, light size, background visual noise, composition, colors, etc. You continually gain more control of each photographic element, and add it in as you learn. Pretty much. I don't even really think about a lot of stuff any more. I always (and without thinking about it) make a quick scan of the subject looking for creased clothing, necklace clasps, curled collars, upside down rings, bra straps, and other things that take away from the portrait. It's instinctive at this point. I do the same thing with posing. I check the eyes to see if they're visible and lit, check the hands to make sure they're posed in an attractive manner, check the subject's posture (more on this in a second), and then arrange the subject to shift their weight and make minor adjustments until they look nice. Again, I don't really run this list in my head, I just do it. Warning: subject change Posture can make or break a portrait. In most cases you want the subject to sit or stand to their fullest height. It's more attractive by a long shot. You know the phrase "the camera adds twenty pounds", right? It's not the camera. It's posture. A slouched figure looks much heavier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 03:03
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I mean this in the nicest way possible, but it would be amazing to me if anyone could keep all these rules and guidelines straight in their head during a shoot. Jesus. And I mean this in the nicest way possible: the ability to remember these rules (and to know when to break them) is the difference between some guy with a camera and a master portrait photographer. Any amateur can pick up a camera and take a good portrait through trial and error, or luck. Any professional can get a good portrait with minimal fuss and bother. But a true master can take any subject and make a compelling portrait. This is the difference between me and, say, Annie Liebowitz. Look at this Liebowitz group portrait.  I can take a flattering picture of just about anyone, but there's no way I could have put this portrait together, even given her budget and crew. Her grasp of the rules of portraiture (lighting, posing, & composition) is leaps and bounds ahead of mine. Any individual person in that picture is posed and lit in a way that tells a story, gives the subject a personality, and that compliments the others in the scene. I couldn't do that. Not yet, anyway. The attention to detail in this picture is astounding, and you can bet that all of it is deliberate--and that much of it was done without thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 03:24
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:yeah, except thats probably 5 different portraits comped into one Well yeah, but even if they're comped, that's still a level of attention to detail that I just don't reach yet. Details are everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 03:45
|
|
|
HPL posted:Exactly. With that link that ConfusedUs posted, I had about fifteen lights going on in my head for every page I read. I've been doing portraits for five years and I still had lights going off in my head. That link is awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
Acc-Risk posted:That's exactly where I'm at now. I know what I like and not, but not really "why" Can you post a couple of your pictures? Both the ones you liked and the ones you didn't. I'd be happy to throw in my two cents. That offer's open to anyone, really.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:What I don't really get right now is the difference between a portrait of a person and a fashion photo. What is the distinction in posing and composition to capture someones likeness versus promoting qualities of a product modeled by a person? I'm not sure I can really explain the difference well, but I'll give it a shot. Fashion photography really isn't my thing, and I've only done one fashion shoot. A portrait is a picture of a person, who is the subject and focus of the picture. Fashion photography is a picture of clothing, which happens to be on a person. In this photo, I posed her much more square to the camera than I would have normally, and the lighting is not nearly as...glamorous?...as I would have chosen for a woman with such narrow features. Because this is a picture where she didn't need to outshine the outfit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
I went and shot my sister-in-law's wedding this last weekend, and did a portrait session for her a couple days before the ceremony. It was a ton of fun and we got some gorgeous pictures.     
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok, so my wife got dressed up, we went downtown, and I did told her to stand around while I took pictures of her before dinner reservation. I stole the bag on the steps idea from ConfusedUs. I hope he doesn't mind. I like these the best. I am going for the fashion look to show off the outfit and the bag. I don't like the construction stuff in the second and third at all, but the biggest problem is her expression. She looks unhappy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Any thoughts on this shoot I did for my friends' band? Honestly, if anything good came out of it, it was purely by accident. I didn't really have any direction in mind, they didn't either, and because of time restrictions we pretty much shot between 1PM and 4PM, which isn't exactly a super time for natural light. Of the three group shots, this one is the best, except for the left-most guy's expression, which is   I like the composition and the expression on this one, but the other individuals don't do much for me.  The white balance seems off on all the pics not taken against the blue wall, too. Really, you stated your own biggest problems. Harsh light and no clear direction. Without light and an idea of what you want to accomplish, you don't have a leg to stand on, and you will always fall short.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 04:48
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:I wouldn't be so short if I had legs! Do you get what I'm saying, though? It's hard to put together a coherent portrait set without at least some idea of what you want it to look like before you start. Even if it's something generic like "I want them to look tough" or "I want pretty mountains as scenery," at least that's something to build on. You have a foundation. Somewhere to start. You can get as detailed as you want when it comes to conceptualizing your portrait shoots, but if you don't even have the slightest clue where to start, you're screwed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
unprofessional posted:Any good tips or resources on self-portraits? If you're using a delayed timer, make sure you give yourself plenty of time to get into the pose you want. It may help to put a clock or a stopwatch nearby so that you know when your camera is about to fire. If you're using a release cable, be sure to hide it (and the fact that its in your hand) from view.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2009 15:36
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Ok I'm back this time with more smile. These were done around 3pm making the sun was pretty harsh, so I brought the sb-600 for fill. I learned a lot. The idea this time was just focusing on good portraits. Any crits? The first is significantly better! The second is a great example of why redheads should not wear pink. Also her eyes are lidded.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:How can you diminish a subject's scars and poor complexion while taking a portrait? Aside from the obvious cleaning up in post -- any lighting, etc. technique? Sorry, I'm not really up to snuff yet on lighting. Overexposing the skin a little helps clear things up a bit. Soft light helps hide wrinkles and the like by preventing any hard edges. Otherwise, yeah, makeup and post-processing are it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 03:33
|
|
|
Toupee posted:I found this video very helpful I found that video absolutely useless.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 20:32
|
|
|
PlasticSun posted:I took a few shots of my boss today for some corporate headshots. Overall I was fairly pleased with the results but I did find out half way through the shoot that my Tamron 17-50 2.8 was front focusing. There's a big difference between the camera auto-focusing on a point closer to the camera than you might wish and front-focusing
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2009 02:21
|
|
|
bung posted:My wife wanted some headshots for her facebook profile and for her corporate profile. This desperately needs a longer lens. You're close enough to stretch her features a little, even at 50mm. Also look into short lighting for anyone with even a couple pounds of extra weight. Especially women. I'm not calling her a fatty, but the lighting you used with that angle of her face adds pounds.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How does it feel posting from 1989? I head it was a nice time, but I'm not sure if I could go back to using 640x480 monitors I'd just shoot a bunch of headshots. Your lighting is plain, but more than adequate. However, the pose is awkward as hell. Good rule of thumb: your pose should make logical sense. If someone's leaning, show what they're leaning on. An elbow, a wall, an arm, a desk, whatever. If someone's body is going to be tilted like that, it needs a base, and right now you don't have a base. Also, chin up, and check for details. His collar is uneven. His shirt is twisted under his left arm. There's a bright dot on his right shoulder, I assume it's a shaft of light through a tiny hole in the blinds. That kind of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 22:26
|
|
Seriously though, the photo I posted is only 427x640 so I don't know how it manages to break tables.
|
wizard sticks posted:everytime I look at that picture it just screams that he has a poo poo eating look on his face. Why is his mouth doing that? He's trying to look cool, in that annoying ironic hipster way. I'd put money on it. Either that or he really did just fart.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Shooting people isn't all that easy, is it? Sure it is. Posing is simple, use your ABCs Avoid bored expression. Build from the base. Check for details. SUCCESS!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:- Camera is on a tripod and there's no noisy background so you can use a smaller aperture for better image quality (f/5.6 or f/8). You're crazy. Reading this is like watching someone who's seen the end of True Lies try to teach others to do the tango. In this case, I'd actually recommend going WIDER on the aperture, not smaller, to blur the wall/background behind the subject more evenly. As it is, there's just a hint of detail. Unless the sun is literally straight out the window (rising sun out an east-facing window, for example), windows are essentially a huge softbox without any diffusion necessary. If the sun IS directly out there, then you can use something to diffuse it, like you said. Nothing about his clothing is distracting except the sloppiness of it--the wrinkles and uneven collar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 01:29
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:You can only teach tango once you've seen Scent of a Woman. True fact. You don't have to further diffuse a window to get great light. Period. End of story. Glass optional. All that matters is that the only light coming through is not direct from the sun. Your light source is now large (the size of the window/other opening) and therefore, diffuse. EDIT: I should clarify that the diffusion material will become necessary IF the sun is shining directly into the window. It is not necessary in any other circumstance. As far as the other stuff goes, I feel that portrait is plenty sharp enough for the use he intends. The collar thing is just ridiculous. ConfusedUs fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Dec 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:I fear interrupting, but I shan't let that stop me. Don't even bother with a DIY background unless you know how to make it look good. Unless you know how to blur it, make it pure black or pure white, or are really good at getting rid of wrinkles, any cobbled-together thing is probably going to look terrible. My advice? Find a nice outdoor location, or do a google image search for "window lighting" and try to copy some of the angles you find that minimize walls/room presence.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
I've got one from a wedding that cracks me up every time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Would like some critique on these. The first one I was going for a businessy website-profile look. The left side of his face is too dark for me and I'll add a reflector next time. Also his collar is ballooning out a bit and I need to remember to check that over. The first picture is the picture I take day in and day out, and it's probably the most important picture you'll take from a technical lighting point of view. If someone needs a super fast, simple headshot, what you did in that photo is what I would do. It's quick. It's easy. It looks good on nearly every facial type. Your shadow side is, maybe a bit dark, but not by more than a third of a stop. If that. Practice this picture. Once you can set it up and shoot it instinctively, without hassle or fuss, you have the basics of almost all portrait lighting. You might want to add a hair light for some. A kicker for others. Some rim lighting or a background halo. But if there is a portrait lighting standard, this is it. Learn it. Love it. Then break the mold when the opportunity arises and you have the time. His expression is a bit dour. The collar issue, you noted. Both, easily fixable. The second pic is good. The contrasty black and white fits the expression.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
dakana posted:I'm doing school pictures for a preschool next week. Feed me your best stupid kid jokes. Ugh, pre-schoolers are hard. Mostly because they're shy. If you can get them to start participating as a group, it'll roll pretty easy. If not...ugh. I usually lead with this joke: "Say turkey!" "Did you just call me a turkey?!" *click* Also, monkey works in place of turkey. You can also try some slapstick. Have a kid give you five, then use the 'recoil' to smack yourself lightly in the nose. Works best on kids in a group to warm them up, since it's hard to do that AND take a picture at the same time. If one laughs, have him do it next. Mix high fives and low fives. Instead of smacking your face, stumble like they knocked you over a bit. Kids eat that stuff up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Trying new stuff, Lighting-wise, as well as PP-wise. I like the lighting, especially in the second, but I've never been a fan of the Dave Hill-esque HDR stuff for portraits. It's distinctive, which is good. There's a unified color palette, which is also good. If you're aiming to create a specific "look" for yourself, you haven't done a bad job! Try to watch your shadows. The first has a huge, curved, stripe of a shadow across his forehead. The third has stripey shadows around her camera-right cheekbones.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
MrOpus posted:I had a photo shoot last night. Other than dealing with my tiny living room and cutting off limbs because I just couldn't back up any further, I felt it went extremely well. She had never modeled before, but you'd never have known it from the results. Here's something I've discovered about cloth backdrops. They look like poo poo. All of them. The trick is to fix it or hide it. Fixing it takes time. The best way is to toss it in the dryer along with a very wet hand towel and run it till everything is nearly (but not entirely) dry. You get an effect akin to steaming, so once you hang it (while still slightly damp) the creases just fall out. If you have more time, hang it and be prepared to wait hours. Once hung, spritz it with water on the back side (you don't want to leave stains on the photo-facing side) and you'll get nearly the same effect. You may have to spritz several times. Hiding it is easier. The easiest way is to put enough distance between your subject and background that the background is out of focus. Secondly, you can just wad your background up instead of folding it. This gets you a webwork of completely random squiggles, and it works best on abstract backgrounds. Not so much on solid colors or any sort of 'scene'. Lastly, creases (mostly) only show when light hits them at an angle. If you can blast your light straight at it, you'll 'flatten' all but the deepest creases. You can still use shaping portrait lighting on your subject if you light your background separately. As for the portrait itself, I wish her face were lit a little better. If you didn't want to ruin the effect (which is nice), you could throw a really long snoot (a grid could probably work too) on a light, pointed at her face from the lower camera-right side. At a low enough power setting, it would light her face some more without seeming out of place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
Half his face is hidden in shadow. You desperately needed some fill flash. Any time your light source is directly overhead you'll get those deep shadows under the brow, in the eye sockets, and sometimes under the cheekbones if the person's face is angular enough.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:I hope I don't sound contrary, because someone responding to constructive criticism with nothing but rebuttals is very annoying, and I value your opinion. I feel the need to get involved. McMadCow is trying to get you to look beyond yourself and think of what could be, rather than what is. What is is that those music portraits are technically acceptable and creatively bland. There's not a lot of technical fault with either (though i don't like the huge nose-shadow on the piano one) but, creatively, it's just a person who is there with an instrument, showing the generic "picture smile" you see in every wal-mart photo ever. This is not necessarily bad, but think of what could be! You could get a wider shot showing the concert hall with her in a spotlight. You could get her playing or writing or turning a sheet. You could experiment with the colors of the stage or the form of the instruments! There's so much more available to you! Branch out! Live a little! Take this "technically correct, creatively bland" photo and jazz it up a little!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I like the shot and the pose, but I think you should have turned her body a bit more so there wasn't so much leg-spreading crotch action. Seconding this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:04 |
|
|
My personal favorite portrait that I've taken is B&W
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2012 02:17
|
|