portrait comments requested

[malcypants]

here is a quick go at a portrait, not a self portrait. The image has been cropped back to suit a square frame. I have tried to 50/50 subject and backdrop, and have increased the brightness of the skin to even it out a little and give a greater emphasis on hte hair colour.
Please let me know what could be done differently, good choices, bad choices etc etc

[BigFuzzy]

Hi Malcypant, first off, welcome to DPS!
Could you do us a favor and read the Critique Forum Rules and add the EXIF info, and try to ask a bit more specific question other than, "what you think?" Both things will help us better help you with our comments/analysis.

So as to the photo:

I can appreciate what you're trying to do, but it just doesn't work for me and here are the two main reasons:
Lighting - the overly brightened skin is distracting, so much so I feel it actually takes away from anyone looking at the hair. Typically the human eye is drawn, first, to the brightest part of an image and that's the skin (by far) in this image. Also, the straight on flash kills all the shadows which make this image feel very flat to me.

Posing - To me this is way too posed. I have a general distaste for any poses that have a subject placing their hands under their chin. it feels particularly dated to me. And the "look away as if you're gazing at something in the distance" thing doesn't work for me. Having said that, posing is a taste thing, so take it as you wish.

I like square crops, so that's good.

I know I sound harsh, sorry, but it just didn't resonate with me at all.
Keep posting!

[malcypants]

Originally Posted by BigFuzzy

Hi Malcypant, first off, welcome to DPS!
Could you do us a favor and read the Critique Forum Rules and add the EXIF info, and try to ask a bit more specific question other than, "what you think?" Both things will help us better help you with our comments/analysis.

I know I sound harsh, sorry, but it just didn't resonate with me at all.
Keep posting!

the rules were read however rightly or wrongly I chose not to add the exif onto the post, it should be available in flickr should anybody wish to look, unfortunatly the exif data reads mostly that the image was edited in photoshop, and all the original photographic information seems to have gone, so I did not think it was at all useful.

With regards to sounding harsh, had I not wanted comments I would have put the image out for comments, and welcome your direct approach.
This response to your post does sound a little defensive, please dont get me wrong it is not intended to be, I see your point of view with regards to the brightness of the skin, I may have over done that a little, and yes the question could have been more direct, however I was looking for as much feed back as possible without limiting it to a secific element of the picture.

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by malcypants

the rules were read however rightly or wrongly I chose not to add the exif onto the post, it should be available in flickr should anybody wish to look, unfortunatly the exif data reads mostly that the image was edited in photoshop, and all the original photographic information seems to have gone, so I did not think it was at all useful.

With regards to sounding harsh, had I not wanted comments I would have put the image out for comments, and welcome your direct approach.
This response to your post does sound a little defensive, please dont get me wrong it is not intended to be, I see your point of view with regards to the brightness of the skin, I may have over done that a little, and yes the question could have been more direct, however I was looking for as much feed back as possible without limiting it to a secific element of the picture.

Fair enough, just know that many members who frequently give honest constructive feedback will often not reply to a post that doesn't include the requested info because many feel they shouldn't put in the effort to give a nice full constructive critique if the poster chooses to not read/follow the rules. So don't be surprised if you get few replies on this or other future ones.

Don't worry, I didn't take your response as defensive. Even if it were, I'm used to it.

[ajax_andy]

One of the things I've learnt (and it's taken a little while) is about how details are lost if the image is either over exposed or under exposed.

In this image the highlights are blown on the skin and it give it a very bland (and bright!) look... it's important not to 'over do' things when it comes to editing the highlights or shadows as you will always end up losing the detail and have flat blocks of either bright white (highlights) or black nothingness (shadows).

If you learn about histograms it'll help you understand how to tell in photoshop etc whether you have the shadows, midtones and highlights within the histogram and if they are disappearing off one side that you haven't got it right and will lose a lot of detail.

You may already know this so apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs so to speak. If you dont then open up a levels adjustment and this is your basic histogram... the graph should fit in the middle (more or less) if it i.e. |...iiiiIIIIIIIIiiii...|

If it looks like this i.e. all bunched up to one side |..........iiIIIIi| you've over exposed and will lose details in the highlights.

If it looks like this... |iIIIIiiii............| you've lost details in the shadows.

Someone will probably pull me up for my explanation but that's pretty much it in laymans terms IMO.

Also posing with hands under the chin is a big no no as Big fuzzy mentioned. My thoughts on posing are "if you're deliberately posing" it'll look naff. The trick is too look as natural and relaxed as possible

[malcypants]

thanks for the comments, note to self, watch the hands next time.
with regards to the very light skin tones and lack of shadows this was not a histogram/exposure choice, this was a post production choice, which I may have taken a little far, depending on an individuals personal choice.
Thankyou for the comments, they are logged in the grey matter for future reference.