Portrait PP critiques needed (very photo heavy)

[theantiquetiger]

I know you usually only do one or two images for critiqueing, but I want y'all to see a bunch and see what I am consistantly doing wrong or right, so I am adding the RAW image and my PP image

My favorites are #1, #3, & #7

#1





#2






#3






#4

[theantiquetiger]

#5 (two post versions)








#6






#7

[Matt K.]

#1 - I like it, like the crop, the expression and the catch light in the eyes. I would suggest to move the flash off camera, cause with the on-camera flash you did get some shadows under the chins. I assume there is ambient light coming from the right, and you used your flash to provide some fill. Generally a good idea, but watch those shadows.

#2 - Also a pleasing composition. One of the tricky things in taking portraits outdoors is the be mindful of the background. If your dof is not blurring it out, then you can get weird things growing out of heads .... (middle child) move a bit lower down for the angle, and that plant will disappear behind the kids bow ...

#3 - Handled shadows well on this one, nice portrait ... just again: watch the foliage .... she seems to "sprout" things ....

#4 - Hmmm, nice kids. I am not sure, something is not right for my eyes .. maybe it is that the girl on the left seems to be so much thinner than the girl on the right. This is possibly due to her wearing black, and the other girl sitting rather than standing ... but that's just me. Exposure and otherwise nicely done.

#5 - I like the first process. Seeing the legs fully is more to my liking. I find the background very distracting from the model. Especially all the electrical boxes on the neighbors house and the chimney do not help. Exposure and composition is nice, though ... tricky surroundings ....

#6 - Nicely done.

#7 - Crop tighter on the top and right, and watch the colour of the left hand (her left hand, on the photographic right); post processing might have a bit to do with that ...


All in all i think you did very well, your exposure is handled well, and given the "studio" there was not much else you could have done, short of ripping shrubbery out and rearranging decks and porches ....

[theantiquetiger]

All in all i think you did very well, your exposure is handled well, and given the "studio" there was not much else you could have done, short of ripping shrubbery out and rearranging decks and porches ....

OK, so I need to decrease my F-stop/increase exposure to help with background. I do notice some terrible skin tones after posting here (I don't see it when I process them, easy fix). Be careful of "human horns". I did notice some shadows under their chins, so softer flash or reflector.

[Matt K.]

OK, so I need to decrease my F-stop/increase exposure to help with background. I do notice some terrible skin tones after posting here (I don't see it when I process them, easy fix). Be careful of "human horns". I did notice some shadows under their chins, so softer flash or reflector.

could not see the exif files on those ...tried to look .. but creating a shallower depth of field may be the answer ... what focal length did you shoot with? And yeah, softer fill flash ... I am experimenting with this as well .. it is easy to criticize someone else, but to do it yourself is much harder i found out ...

[theantiquetiger]

The lens was a 17-50. The focal lengths were anywhere from 20-40 for the most part.

[Bucky]

Hello,

All are very nice shots. I have only started working on my portraiture, but when I get outside to take shots I will try to keep the subjects far away from the background to allow subject isolation. Even in close quarters, you can use angles to create a more pleasing background.

As far as your question, I think the processing is great. Not over the top and complements all the shots.

[Marko]

For the future, this would less confusing if you numbered each shot chronologically.
The pattern I find here is that the FIRST shots looks way more natural, so from post 1 for example, shots, 1, 2, 3, 4 all look natural (in skin tones in particular), the pped versions do not. (the subjects look like they are wearing too much foundation...even the kids)
Hope that may help.

[asnow]

I'm certainly no expert in portrait photography, but I think Marko has a point. They pped version versions look a little over processed. Also my understanding is that you shouldn't crop at the joints (example: the girl with the jeans and white top - you've cropped her leg at the knee). Also echoing what the others have said, be careful with the backgrounds. Either really blurr them out or look for something less busy.

[QuietOne]

It does seem to me that the post processing is better. The skin texture and tones are definitely better, so I think you're making some progress. I like what the crops do in terms of making the subject the definite focus. It isn't just cutting out some of the background clutter, it's making the subject the center of attention. I can see what asnow means about cutting the leg at the knee; at the same time, it brought more focus to your subject.

For backgrounds, why not hit up a fabric store? Go to the bargain and clearance stacks and rummage through them. You can find stuff as cheap as $1.99 a yard. If you can't get some distance between background and subject, try some solid colors. Maybe look for the fake wools, especially something with a small loop or other texture. Stay away from felt! Most of it is made from acrylic, which really has a strong shine in light. The exception would be if you stumbled on some wool felt. I know many people have had luck with home decor fabrics.

You could also try sheets or blankets, but the sheets might be too smooth a weave and the blankets too loose a weave. I know muslin is traditional, and if you're doing portraits in a more usual style, you might look into that. Muslin used for quilt backings or interlinings comes in some wide widths, but it can be expensive. In all cases, go for fabric you can't easily see through when it's held up to the light. You'll have to experiment - my experience with fabric is as a sewer, not as a photographer.