Photos Portraits from Photography Class

I've been taking a photography class for fun, so I thought I'd show off a couple of the pictures from my latest project. We had to do portraits, that was pretty much the only constraint. It's a Digital Photography class, but we aren't allowed to digitally manipulate our images, so these are straight off my E-510 (except for the resize):
#1

14mm f/3.5 2 sec.


14mm f/3.5 1/10 sec.

 

#1 is barely a portrait in my opinion.

#2 the Lighting is a bit harsh.

You should play with the camera white balance and see if you can use b&w setting if it's got one.

When lighting a person you need at least two light sources or something to bounce the light around. I'm sure you've been told to avoid the light source being too close to the camera (no onboard flash kthx). It is important to light the shadows under the chin and to avoid shadows around the eyes.

 

Portrait One - Guy on Sofa in blue light . . . I like the blue tones, but the rest does little to catch my attention . . . maybe would be more interesting and more flattering if the camera were higher shooting down, and thus included some of the carpet/legs etc . . . maybe with something in the picture other than you and a sofa (you might already say the picture suggests your watching tv, not that I can see that) perhaps a book, a tv dinner, work boots . . . anything to try to get a reason or story into the picture.

Portrait Two . . . tone down the background light, make it less of a halo effect (hairlight might not be the right term here) and then the picture could be shot hotter (deliberatley over exposed) which would be more flattering on skins tones, and would balance the darker person with the lighter background (I beleive making it more of a high key picture).

But ultimately, and I don't mean to be negative or nasty, I would like to see better technical and creative examples.

If class tutor has commented on these, would be interested to know what he/she thought.

One last thing . . . most of my photography is natural light, and the key with this is to get very soft directional light . . . the sun or a single light source (without softener) is a very hard light with strong shadows . . . opening some double french doors and putting a subject just inside out of direct sunlight gives a great light source. I think more and more the future of commercial portriat photography is either location/environmental or studio . . . but both done with natural light and/or one high quality light source with relflector to fill in shadows as required/desired.

 

I like the first shot. Reminds me a little of Ed from Shaun of the Dead.

Second one doesn't do it for me. Apart from teh obvious blown out light, the wall in general is distracting. If it was uniform background it'd be ok, but the texture detracts from model. Also the angle on the model isn't the most flattering, imo.

 

You're telling me that you're in a photo class where they're starting you on digital? Blasphemy!

 

You'd hope so, what with it being a Digital Photography class.

 

I've taken film photography before (in high school). I think the university gives digital as an option just to entice people.

@Jamie and 3DHeli: Thanks for the criticism. In my class, the instructor doesn't criticize a lot...all she really ever seems to care about is composition. I'm trying to learn better technical techniques, but I'm not sure how to learn...this class hasn't turned out to be what I wanted. But seeing as how it's still an introductory class, I suppose it makes sense. I want to keep taking photography classes at the university, but they aren't offered in times when I can take them, unfortunately. The schedule of an engineering student doesn't allow for much creativity =).

As far as the photos go, for the first one, it is supposed to be watching TV, but mostly I was just playing with the blue light from the TV. 3dHeli, you're right, something else in the shot that would enhance the story would have made sense. I think I should have had the subject holding a remote, or something else a bit more interesting. For the second one, I wanted to see what I could get from the subject being right on top of the light. These are huge industrial lights that are mounted on the wall. I think I generally just wanted something different from studio portrait shots. @Hwulex, you're right, the wall does detract from the scene quite a bit. The problem with these assignments for class is that I'm very busy, and I can only work with what I have (no external flash, yet). We have short deadlines, and it's been cloudy and generally bad outside, so I thought I'd try doing shots indoors. I was trying to do something a bit unconventional. My shots never really end up coming out the way I envisioned them, however, I'm getting better. Like I said, thanks for the criticism, everyone. It's helpful to a learning photographer.

 

Pfft, you still learn much better on film. Start off with the stuff that really reinforces the concepts and the science behind photography before breaking out the tools that make it a lot easier.

 

Erm... early photographers who used metal and glass slides said the same thing about film photography when it was first introduced. Don't hold back technology, man!

You're right that people shouldn't rely on digital manipulation to make a shot look good, and should instead learn to focus on learning the steps in order to get a good shot w/o using easy digital manipulation techniques and enhancements. But as long as you're not doing that, I see no reason why digital shouldn't be used over film. Anyway, you can manipulate almost anything in a darkroom the same way you can on a computer... just maybe not as easily.

Perhaps the argument is that a pro should be able to produce a good photograph regardless of whether you're using film or digital media. The quality of a photo ultimately depends on the photographer, not the camera. Learning old film tools and techniques that can be easily replicated using digital seems pointless if you don't plan to stick with film.

Perhaps learning film first still has its advantages, but its seeming to be more and more of a novelty. Why worry about old darkroom techniques when you just plan to use digital later on?

Expert photographers claim that they can produce better looking photographs using film. That is probably still true, but that claim becomes increasingly negligible as digital photography technology has become more and more advanced and has allowed better and better looking shots to be taken.

Personally, digital is just a much more efficient choice. The time spent being able to take a great looking digital photo is almost always much less than the time spent to take a great looking film photo. But maybe if I was trying to achieve the best photo ever created, I would stick with film for the slight peculiarities that still exist between film and digital.

My point is that if your argument for starting with film is merely because it reinforces basic concepts better than digital, I just don't agree with that. However, if you plan to stick it out with film for the long haul, then you may seem some advantages in its use.

 

I'm not claiming that film will produce superior shots at all. My only point is that with digital, it's way too easy to just set the dial on the green rectangle and snap away without having a clue what's happening. You'll never learn about the aperture's effect on the depth of field, how strobe-lit subjects don't care about shutter speed, and all that good stuff. Of course, disregard that if you're using your digital camera in manual mode, or at least aperture priority (preferably with adjusting the EV), since you'll get the point just as well using a digital in manual mode as you will with a film body in manual.

You know - learn the rules, then break them. I've never found anything that the phrase holds truer than with photography. Sure, some things will always work no matter the tools or the medium - rule of thirds, leading lines, etc. But it helps to really understand what's going on with your dodge and burn tools when you've actually dodged and burned in a darkroom.

 

Film cameras have auto modes just like digital cameras do. People had been doing the same sort of clueless snapshotting with film cameras for many years before digital existed. Definitely more of it happens now since digital makes it so much cheaper to take as many shots as you want. But if you're learning photography, you'd assumedly be learning the techniques of operating a camera in manual mode regardless of whether it was film or digital.

Understanding what techniques such as "dodge" and "burn" do in Photoshop (and other darkroom techniques that Photoshop is capable of mimicking) can be just as easily be understood, but just explained as manipulations of pixels instead. If you understand how what these digital techniques do and understand how to apply them properly, is there really any practical reason to learn how to do them in a darkroom?

 

You could do that with film cameras too, I've lost count of how many compact film cameras I've seen around tourist attractions. Just like digital they fire the flash 9/10 to make them idiot-proof. The green setting won't get you anything more than a snapshot - a photo to remember the occasion and nothing more. Anyone who does use the green setting (regardless of camera) in my opinion, isn't after creative photography at all and you should just leave them to their snapshots.

Anyone who's really into photography creatively will naturally end up using the manual settings regardless since the auto mode is horrific.

On a related note, I like the first portrait I can see what was intended and more time honing your skills and learning how to get your vision 'on paper' as it were - will make for some great photos imo. Anyone who says photography is all about settings and technical spec sheets isn't a photographer - s/he's a tech enthusiast. Photography is about conveying whatever you want to convey. Some of the greatest photos ever come from large format cameras where you moved a lens element to the correct position, took off the lens cap, went to lunch, and then put the cap back on.

 

TNash - I suggest reading up (searching for examples on or make your own) of the effects of aperture (depth of field, background blur, f1.8 versus f8 versus f16) and shutter speed (1000th versus 125th versus 1 second).

On a side note, for most the first use of aperture/shutter is to control available light . . . merely settings to prevent under or over exposure . . . . . . but for the serious photographer this is the firt area of control to understand and utilise.

Also look into lens focal length . . . see what shooting a head and shoulder portrait with a 28mm lens, versus a 100mm or 200mm lens looks like, notice how the nose is bigger the close and wider you are . . . suggesting the 100mm + is usually preferred. But then shoot a group or scene of people, and notice how from afar with a 200mm the flat (flattening look) is limited, and how beying wide (28mm) close and in the action brings the scene to life.

I hope you have an slr, ideally with a 28mm wide angle (any aperture will do), a 50 or 85mm f1.4/f1.8 (lovely big aperture for available light hand held and creative control). If you have a sports or wildlife interest than maybe a 100-300mm zoom range would also be wanted . . . but for me the 28mm and the 85mm are two great all purpose focal loengths, and if you buy a prime (mainly at the 50/85mm level) you can get an amazing piece of glass that far exceeds the ability of a zoom for the same money, giving shaprer pictures, and a much bigger (light sucking) aperture for low light photography or background blur (subject isolation).

For the aperture a combined portrait and landscape shot (could be friends in front of a pub) will show it, for the shutter moving water or moving people are favorites.

Don't worry about not having external flash at the moment . . . I suggest turn off the onboard flash (assuming your camera has one) and just look for natural light.

Beyond aperture and shutter, and focal length, composition is the other ingredient. Of course the scene, people, light etc are important to experiment with as well. But when broken down photography is a few simple things.

For any situation/event/subject you choose to photograph, you should always be making concious decisions as to aperture/shutter/focal lenght . . . . you may also have some control/influence over light (but not always) and composition (at miniumum you can crop . . . at most the whole scene can be completely staged and controlled).

For some inspiration - or to make you jealous and want to give up - check out www.joeyl.com - he is amazing, I can't beleive he only started a few years ago, and at such a young age is so talented and driven.

SIDENOTE - for those supporting film and/or no manipulation.

I consider the choice of aperture/shutter, crop/composition, and any invisible stage direction to subjects to be manipulation - which I do myself.

Adding a filter onto a camera, choosing another lens focal length, over or under exposing, the way the negative is devloped and printed is all manipulation . . . and it's been going on since the dawn of photography . . . from memory the 1905 earthquake and fire in San Francisco was evidence of artist retouched photographs being used in news papers to hide the truth. But their are many other examples, dating back many years prior to photoshop and digital.

Anyone knocking digital manipulation in general I think is merely unaware of how images were/are conceived and printed.

Although I agree with many that over manipulating/processing can look horrible, and should never get in teh way of the photography . . . . it's a fact that humdrum photos have been taken by many of the great photographers, only to need cropping/printing work to make them into something great.

The click of the shutter is not the end of the photograph, rather the beginning.

SIDEnote of a sidenote . . . that's not to say getting it right (as much as possible) in camera is something to take lightly . . . the more you get right at the taking stage the better . . . and in some areas it's essential.