What’s Your Preference?

sarai · #1 (**permalink**) 03-21-2011, 03:29 AM

Hi there,
First post to the critique folder and so excited to get some feedback! I recently upgraded cameras and am hoping to learn how to get a bit more of a professional look to my photos. I'm guessing that using a reflector or something might have helped in this photo, but since it was a candid shot at a party, I'm wondering if there are any tricks in post processing to help make it "pop" a bit more? Also, please critique my composition and exposure too! I'm here to learn!

Maya's first birthday party | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Camera	Nikon D7000
Exposure	0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture	f/3.2
Focal Length	50 mm
ISO Speed	1000
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Off, Did not fire

tyasa81 · #2 (**permalink**) 03-21-2011, 05:55 AM

when you say "profesional look", can you give some examples or describe what you are going for?

it's a nice candid... but doesn't really show the party... she could be in front of a backdrop since there's no environmental context to relate to the picture...is this cropped in post?

sarai · #3 (**permalink**) 03-21-2011, 03:15 PM

I don't really have examples of the professional look I'm going for. But I guess I mean portraits that have more depth to them. (I'll see if I can find some examples). Yes, I cropped the photo--she was pulling down her mom's shirt and didn't think that was the prettiest background

sarai · #4 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 03:30 AM

Here are a few examples of what I mean by "more professional looking..."
Wide Eyed! | Flickr - Photo Sharing! by ironicalife (found on flickr) and photos by PInkletoes baby and toddler - PINKLE TOES PHOTOGRAPHY - Austin's Family Photographer
thanks again for any feedback!

tyasa81 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 04:01 AM

hi sarai...

wide eyed - looking at the picture... my guess is that this is taken candidly with a long telephoto lens nearing max aperture opening... the symmetry of the face makes this centered photo looks very beautiful added with the additional bokeh of being outdoors...

pinkle toes - looking at a few of the portfolio again they use creative angles with a variety of long lenses or wide angles... again... they are showing the environment in context... very nicely in fact...

looking at you picture based on those two examples you show, i'm guessing you have a tendency to like bokeh but with the bokeh being something you can actually tell or hint at about the environment...

your current picture you have now have bokeh, but that out of focus area doesn't give any hint of environment context...i finally figured out the blue is the mother's dress, which i can't tell if you haven't said anything... i'm guessing your taste here so if i'm wrong please take this critique with a grain of salt... you might want to practice pulling back a bit... anyone can zoom in close to a face and capture just the expression... which isn't necessarily bad on its own... but only a few can get the environment, and expression in a nice composition that totally says "wow!"... maybe that's your defining point of being "pro" look.. so start practicing pulling back a bit, use a variety of focal length to mix it up and try to fit the context of the environment in a unique angle you can be proud of... hope that helps...

sarai · #6 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 04:07 AM

thank you so much for your feedback! I never really thought about the background as being as important, but you're absolutely right--that is much of what I like!

kristenh · #7 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 11:49 AM

i think its a pretty decent shot- very nice catchlights in the eyes. don't think you needed a reflector- to me its already a bit overexposed.

i looked at the sites you linked to. the kate and joel shot- the one shot is very nice- and i agree with tony- looks like a long lens and of course she/he had plenty of light. i actually didn't think much of their site in terms of whether they had that "pro" look- i didn't think so. there are lots of shots with junk in the background, background lines cutting subjects in half, poor lightiing, somtimes bad focus

..one of the most valuable things somebody or other said to me was that the background is as important as the subject- scan the entire frame of the shot before you push the shutter. i look at a lot of so called pro portrait sites and many of them are not doing this simple thing, and it shows. your brain is very different from your camera- as humans, we automatically focus our attention on the subject and don't even notice anything else. but our cameras are more equal opportunity. i have a few photos where there was even a branch or a plant blocking my subject and i didn't even notice till after i looked at the shot!

the second site does look what i would call pro- or at least people i'd consider hiring. but look at their nice backgrounds- either very non-distracting or mildly interesting but not detracting from the subject (like the brick wall). also, they obviously have equipment for their indoor shots- lighting equipment like softboxes and those are no doubt quite set up- not like your candid.

anyway, i've only been at this a year, so you can certainly take my advice with that in mind, but with my amateur status and mostly taking shots of kids- i stick to outdoors, for the most part. or indoors- i got a speedlight and have been bouncing the flash.

sarai · #8 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 03:16 PM

Thanks for the feedback! I'm curious, how were you able to tell that the shot by Joel and Kate was with a long lens (as opposed to a shorter lens closer to the subject)? What are some of the differences of shooting further away with a longer lens instead of closer in with more of a wider angle lens?

kristenh · #9 (**permalink**) 03-22-2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarai

Thanks for the feedback! I'm curious, how were you able to tell that the shot by Joel and Kate was with a long lens (as opposed to a shorter lens closer to the subject)? What are some of the differences of shooting further away with a longer lens instead of closer in with more of a wider angle lens?

i think you answered your own question about one thing- the wider angle lens will incorporate, well, a wider angle

if its very wide, the facial features will look distorted, big nose and such. but for me, with the shot you referenced, it was the blur in the background- it was a real blur, not just recognizable shapes that were blurry. that is not the scientific explanation, but that's how i knew. maybe tony will know more...

tyasa81 · #10 (**permalink**) 03-23-2011, 03:15 AM

sarai.. my method is indeed nothing scientific either... when you've shot a lot, using different focal length, you'll start to notice the difference.. when i see that particular shot and if i want to emulate it, i'll definitely pick a focal length greater than 50>... but i wont know exactly if i'll use an 85, 105, 135 or 200... all these are considered long lens...

it's just the compressed perspective of the girl and the background... if in doubt you can always ask the person who posted on flickr on "what lens is used for this amazing picture?", most will probably answer you.. looking at the bokeh and long lens it's definitely an expensive one... and the poster will most probably be proud enough to say what it is...

i just taken a look at the picture again... and the tag says sigma 85/1.4 on a d700... so there you go..

most probably shot wide open