7-5-3 Ceremony pic

[tokyomark]

Hi All,

We just got back from my daughter's 7-5-3 ceremony at the local shrine where I took a few photos. The original of this shot was a bit underexposed so I brightened it and did a little cropping. I also adjusted the levels via Lee's post. (Thanks Lee!) I hope it has enough 'pop.'

Please look past the fact that she doesn't look thrilled to be there. But I wanted to ask opinions on the composition and exposure. I know the pink knit belt is a bit hot, but is it too distracting? Also, I was trying to get a natural looking skin tone. I think I got pretty close, but what do you all think?
And finally, I know it would have been better to have some catchlights to bring out the eyes more, but it just wasn't possible this time.

Please let me know your opinions.



Exif info:
Manual mode
Shutter speed: 1/160
Aperture: 2.8
ISO 100
Focal lenght 50mm

[Doug Sundseth]

Your daughter looks fine. As noted, you could use some fill light and catchlights, but there's nothing really wrong. (The slightly hot pink doesn't bother me at all.) On a different background, this would be a nice portrait.

The background is unfortunate, though. There's a bright white spot in the lower left corner, the roof line runs right through her head, and the reflection from the roof at camera right is distracting as well.

High contrast backgrounds, even when they're blurred out, pull the viewer's attention away from the subject. You really need to manage the background elements when doing portraits. (Here you might have been able to move a bit to the right and frame the subject in the darker building entrance, for instance.)

HTH

[sk66]

It's a nice pic, you did well.

Positives:
Shallow DOF provides separation from background, but not so shallow you didn't have enough DOF.
Subject place "well".
Colors look good to me, I don't find the pink problematic.

Negatives:
Not terribly sharp at f/2.8
Too much background which serves no real purpose.
Initial underexposure.

You actually did get a little catchlight, it would have been more apparent had the initial exposure been correct.

I did a quick edit. copied eyes to a new layer in screen mode and adjusted opacity.
Sharpening brush on eyes/lips.
Crop.
5 minutes tops.

[SGToliver]

SK66 did a nice critique and example for you. The only thing I was going to say was to bump the exposure and maybe try to crop the photo (preferably removing the white in the bottom left corner) and remove her from the center of the image.

[Tracy Noe]

I am pretty new to the world of professional photography. (Okay, I am an amateur who is looking on progressing to a professional). At first glance I really liked the photo. However, after seeing the one edited by sk66 I do see how the background and bright spot were distracting. I love the fact that your daughter is not smiling--I find that often smiles look too fake and staged and I love natural pictures.

I guess my advice (take it as you wish) would be to double-check the background and take multiple shots from different angles. Like I said, I thought the picture was beautiful and at least it only needed minor adjustments!

[tokyomark]

Thanks very much for your comments, everyone! I really appreciate the feedback.

@DougS, Yeah, I see what you're saying, on all points. Thanks for the specific pointers.

@sk66 Steve, Your edit is really nice! I wish I could have done that in the first place. Five minutes for you, but probably 2 hours for me. Gives me something to shoot for.
Two points:
1. Your saying 'too much background which serves no real purpose," struck a chord with me. It shows me that, as in good writing, each element needs to earn it's right to be there.
2. You said, "Not terribly sharp at f/2.8." Could you elaborate on this, please? I mean, I agree it could have been sharper, but were you saying it should have been sharper at that aperture? Or were you saying that I should have chosen another aperture to work with? And if so, what ap would you have used, and why? I just want to understand your logic.
Thank you!

@SGToliver, Yeah, I was trying to keep her out of the center. In the original shot she was further to the right, but I had to crop out an even more distracting part. Point taken, though. Thanks!

@Tracy, I agree about the smiles. I have other shots where she's much more natural. Maybe I looked into it too much because I know that she was on the verge of getting annoyed. Overall, I like the pic so am happy.

Thanks again, everyone!

Mark

[sk66]

I'm going to guess you used a "nifty fifty"?

It's a combination...
An f/2.8 lens is not going to be it's sharpest at f/2.8. A 50mm isn't going to be it's sharpest at f/2.8. But you also missed the focus a bit. The sharpest area is in a plane equal to her hairline....a bit behind her eyes. (DOF falls 1/3 in front and 2/3 behind the point of focus)

A smaller aperture would have helped all of that. But getting the focus on her eyes would be the starting point.

What aperture I would have used would depend..... I would start with the lens's sharpest aperture and manage working distance to get the DOF required....If I couldn't get a shallow enough DOF with the desired composition then I'd open up a little, or select another lens.

[tokyomark]

Thanks, Steve!
And yes, I used a Canon 50mm 1.4.

Looking back at the pic's info, it shows the focus point on her right eye, (as we see it,) but I agree that the sharpest point is as you say. Not sure what happened there. (??)

OK, so in general with a 50mm you would have started with a smaller aperture. I don't want to ask questions about things you've probably covered in your linked posts, so for now I'll study up.
But if I can clarify one thing, when you say, "If I couldn't get a shallow enough DOF with the desired composition then I'd open up a little," you mean literally open the aperture, (smaller number,) right? (Sorry for the dumb question.)

Thanks very much!

Mark

[sk66]

Yes I mean open the aperture.
If the focus was her rt eye; I don't know what happened....and I didn't read close enough. The canon 1.4's "sharpest aperture" is supposed to be around f/2.8- f/4 with negligible improvement stopped down further. Makes it even more confusing.....but you should determine the sharpest aperture for YOUR lens/camera combination.

One consideration is that you were working from further away than necessary...this makes camera "mis-focus" more probable. (the camera "thinks" the focus point is in focus but is "wrong" due to lack of "detail" it sees there at that distance)

[tokyomark]

Got it, thanks!

The mis-focus makes sense. I've had a few shots where the focus point is on the eye, but it isn't the sharpest part.

Anyway, as you suggested I'll start working with smaller apertures more and try to find that sharpest aperture.

Thanks for all your help, Steve.

Mark