Cinematic self-portrait

[Nyte]

This is my first self-portrait. I was in an elevator and I liked the light and the reflection so I just took a couple of quick shots. This is the one that I liked most. Tell me what do you think about it. I wanted to give it a sort of cinematic look as lately I'm very keen on this new genre in photography called "cinematic photography". How do feel about the atmosphere, framing, post-processing etc.? Any feedback is appreciated!






EXIF data

Camera: Nikon D5000
Lens: AF-S 55-200 VR
Exposure: 1/45 sec
Aperture: f/4.0
Focal Length: 55 mm
ISO Speed: 1000
Exposure Bias: -3/2 EV
Exposure Program: Aperture-priority AE

[BigFuzzy]

As for the cinematic feel you wanted, I'd say you were successful. The colors/tone are good and the added "widescreen" bars help.

As for the image itself, well, not to be mean, but it's just another photo of someone holding their camera composed exactly in the middle. Not much exciting me. Also, the focus is on the camera and your face is blurry. If that's what you want, then fine, but I think the subject should always be the one in the best focus.

Still, your processing to achieve your desired 'feel' works for me and like it.
What did you use to PP it? Did you use a preset or do it yourself?

[sinque]

One of the best self portraits I have seen.
sinque

[Nyte]

Thank you both for your feedback!

@BigFuzzy: I respect your opinion but I cannot agree with everything you said. Both the camera lens and the visible eye are in focus and in portraits I think that the most important thing to be in focus is the eyes. The back of my head goes smoother but it's because I'm shooting wide open I don't think that this is an issue. I agree that the composition itself is nothing unseen but I think that the light is interesting and what makes this shot kind of interesting.

About the post-processing, I use Photoshop. I do not use any presets. For the cinematic look, I just play with the built-in adjustment layers until I'm happy with the results. Most of the time I use Brightness/Contrast, Levels, Curves, Hue/Saturation and Color Balance. These work great for me I also play with the blending modes, opacity and masks to get the exact amount of toning, contrast, darkening etc. that I want to.

Good shots that you have, btw. I just look at your website and saw some great images. Good post-processing techniques as well!

@sinque: Thank you for your compliment! I'm really glad that you like my shot!

[dave.turley]

Hi,
Maybe you should've put this in 'Share your shots.' It's a technically good shot, perfectly explained by yourself, but I think what Fuzzy is saying (excuse me if I'm overstepping here) is it's a shot that's been seen many times, and maybe needs an element to lift from the norm.
Regards
Dave

[Nyte]

Originally Posted by dave.turley

Hi,
Maybe you should've put this in 'Share your shots.' It's a technically good shot, perfectly explained by yourself, but I think what Fuzzy is saying (excuse me if I'm overstepping here) is it's a shot that's been seen many times, and maybe needs an element to lift from the norm.
Regards
Dave

Thank you for your feedback, Dave! Maybe next time I will find some element that will make it pop or something

[wulf]

The image did look a bit soft to me, so I took a look at a larger version back on Flickr. It looks to me that the area of maximum sharpness is seen on your left shoulder and jacket pocket, where you can easily pick out the texture of the material. Because this creates a very narrow depth of field (f/4 at close range) your face and the front of your camera lens are into the soft zone. I do think you could have done with a smaller aperture and wider depth of field; to get enough light you would probably want to recreate the shot in a setting that isn't a small (moving?) lift even if the end result looks the same.

I think you were successful in creating a look reminiscent of numerous films in your processing. As far as the overall pose, it is true that it is yet another picture of someone taking a shot in a mirror but I think the look and feel make up for that. In particular, I like the way the camera lens presents a dark hole rather than the reflections that are more common; it enhances the dark mood of the image.

Wulf

ps. Did you reverse the lettering on your camera as part of the post-processing?

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by dave.turley

I think what Fuzzy is saying (excuse me if I'm overstepping here) is it's a shot that's been seen many times, and maybe needs an element to lift from the norm.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by wulf

The image did look a bit soft to me, so I took a look at a larger version back on Flickr. It looks to me that the area of maximum sharpness is seen on your left shoulder and jacket pocket, where you can easily pick out the texture of the material. Because this creates a very narrow depth of field (f/4 at close range) your face and the front of your camera lens are into the soft zone. I do think you could have done with a smaller aperture and wider depth of field;

Exactly this. I find it odd you think the focus is sharpest on the eyes/face which is the point I was trying to make. I'd wager that it's impossible for you to have had a large enough DoF to get all that in focus. What do others think ?

And thanks for your kind words on my work.

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by wulf

ps. Did you reverse the lettering on your camera as part of the post-processing?

According to where the shutter is the word would not have been reversed - the entire image in mirror would have been reversed and the camera would have registered it so, therefore he's reversed the entire image in processing.

Looking at his nose and eyelid - looks in focus to me.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by Bruce A

Looking at his nose and eyelid - looks in focus to me.

Have you looked at the jacket pocket? That is your in focus reference. There is probably enough detail that other parts of the picture could be sharpened with post processing but the nose and eyelid clearly fall behind the area of sharpest focus.

Compare the corner of the pocket and the corner of the collar; the latter is clearly less in focus and the face sits behind that point. What I (and, I think, Al) am saying is that the face is a little out of focus and not the sharpest part of the image; that isn't the same as saying the face is hopelessly out of focus.

Plugging figures through an online depth of field calculator (Nikon D5000, 55mm focal length, f/4) and assuming Nyte was 1m from the mirror would only give a sharp zone of 5cm, probably less than the length of the lens, let alone the depth of the camera body. That increases as you add distance but you need a pretty large lift to get the 20+ cm needed to comfortably fit camera and face into the zone.

Wulf