Portrat of a Young Man in Glasses

Pages [1] 2
Hello!
This is my first post on the Professional Critique Forum.
I'd like to introduce this simple head'n'shoulders-portrait for critique.
Thank you!
Attachments
This post contains 1 attachment, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Anton,

The only way we improve our images is by getting critique, applying what was said to the next image and getting critique again (and again, and again).  Smiley

First of all the exposure is excellent. I can see detail in his black sweater and his torso is turned at a 45 degree angle. His head is tipped to the masculine shoulder, making him look masculine!

Critique.  The main light was too high. This is evidenced by no main light catchlights in his eyes and in the shadows in his eye sockets.  The camera was a little bit too low. Perhaps you lowered it so the frames of the eyeglasses would not cut though his eyes.  A better cure for this is to gently push straight in and slightly up on the center of the eyeglass frame, all the while telling the subject what you are doing. This will position the glasses on the bridge of the nose where they should be.  EYEGLASSES. I ALWAYS request that the subject obtain empty eyeglass frames from his or her optomotrist.  This solves a number of problems like: 1. No glare in the lenses from any lights, so you can use the absolute best lighting all the time. 2. No distortion of the size of the eyes. 3. No distortion of the edge of the face where the lens tends to pull the skin in. 4. Lensless (and therefore lighter)  frames sit correctly and easily on the upper bridge of the nose.  5. No lenses means no shadows cast by the main light striking them.  6. The skin behind the lenses will not have that dark tint caused by the tint in the lenses. In your image you have all six of the six problems associated with eyeglasses with lenses in them!  I have done this for about 25 of my 26 years as a professional portraitist and in none of the final images was anyone able to tell the subject(s) didn't have lenses in his or her eyeglass frames.

Benji
Logged


Benji is right about the glasses.  However, it's just not always practical.  Few subjects are going to get open frames for a wedding shoot and most of practice on family and friends and in often less than formal circumstances.  So, it still helps to be able to work around these problems.

Most of who where glasses are aware of the way that they make us look and others who see us every day account for these visual effects.  Keeping the frames up where they belong is good start and something that you missed.  Keeping the frames higher also tends to cause more glare problems and you have to be careful where you place your lights.  Often a slight movement of the head can do wonders to cause or prevent this glare.

To me, it looks like your main light was both too high and too close to directly over the camera.  Moving the light lower and to camera left will improve the light on his face by moving it into more of a short pattern.  Do not place the light so low that the shadows from his lenses cut into his eyes.

The only other thing to mention is that I would have pulled his shirt down from the back in order to reduce the wrinkles behind his neck.  Also, I like the effect of your background light.

One last thing . . . I would suggest as little bit of a smile next time!

Ed

Logged

Ed Farmer
Mount Laurel, New Jersey

www.edfarmerphotography.com
www.photoartsforum.com

Hi Anton,

When I look at studio portraits, I always look for the personality of the person being photographed.  I'm just not seeing any personality here, even though I'm sure he's a personable guy. 

Another thing that bothers me is the glasses.  I think just having had him push the glasses further up, or tilting his chin up would have helped in this shot. 

But what it misses on most, to me, is the lack of insight to the model.

Thanks for sharing!
Logged

Proud Member of: WPJA, WPPI, TPPA, PPA, and NAPP

"I want to warn you, my photos will always be a bit more fantasy than reality."

I must apologize because at this time my entire system is out of calibration and is beyond repair!  New gear coming soon.   The image on my screen was too dark to assess so I put in Photoshop- the attached image looks fine on my screen but will probably be washed out on everyone else’s monitor!  I attached it to illustrate a few points, however, so please excuse the poor quality.

The attempt to correct reflections in the eyeglasses was a brave one but has resulted in totally bad lighting.  The main light is with out a doubt way too high.  The shadow detail in the eyes is almost all gone and the shadows from the eyeglass frames are entirely distracting and cause all the more attention to go to the eyeglasses.  The main light is also too flat- it is kind of a butterfly lighting that is not at all flattering to the subject.  The lighting on the face is very uneven from top to bottom because of the extreme height of the main light and the lack of lateral movement and feathering.

The best way to treat eyeglasses is to have blank frames as mentioned.  Sometimes, in an emergency deadline situation, this can be remedied by tilting the lenses down a bit but here they are placed too low on the nose, perhaps in an attempt to tip them down. 
There is also a remaining reflection at the bottom of the glasses which indicates that the fill light was way too low.  Having a high fill source such as a ceiling bounce array or a soft box mounted where the back wall and ceiling converge- behind the camera, will eliminate reflections from the fill light.

The background has distracting highlights on it.  Placing the background light just so it imparts a subtle glow- enough to give separation and some color or tonal mass is less distracting.

The original crop is too loose- the attached version shows a better composition. 

The mole between the eyes-???   This is always controversial.  Does the client want it left as is or want to have it retouched?  If he intends having it removed (surgically) in the future- he may wish to have it removed from his image.  Because of its central position between the eyes it really calls attention to itself- lightening it may be a good compromise. 

Expression?  A serious look is fine- in a complete sitting some smiles should be included unless there are dental issues that are best not shown.  As Cindy pointed out the expression is kind of lackluster- sometimes we have to draw the expression out of the subject.

The camera is slightly low and this is not a real full face because the ears show as  if the were different sizes.

In general- I think the image is slightly below professional standards, mainly because of the lighting and lack of attention to such things as clothing wrinkles.  Good attempt- no cigar.

Ed Shapiro

 


   
Attachments
This post contains 1 attachment, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 11:57:56 AM by Ed Shapiro »
Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com


Dear colleagues!

Thank you very much for your critique and for your time you spent for it! As I expected, I learned very much new about that image.

Now, to help me to learn the technics more deeply, I ask you to answer my questions...

                  Anton
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Hello, Benji!
There are some questions for you...

...The camera was a little bit too low...

Why do you think so? The tops of the subject's ears are on the same line with his eyes: I guess his face looks directly to the camera, doesn't it? How did you feel the mistake? Or you mean the tilt of his head?

Some more questions are to be posted...

Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley


Hello, Ed!
Thanks for your useful remarks!

...To me, it looks like your main light was both too high and too close to directly over the camera.  Moving the light lower and to camera left will improve the light on his face by moving it into more of a short pattern.  Do not place the light so low that the shadows from his lenses cut into his eyes...

Ed


You are right! Unfortunately, the subject's glasses were black-out. So the ceiling-bounce technique and the high main light helped me to lower the shadows from his eyes. And it also saved me from catchlights. Finally, the "hollywood" lighting was my aim! I like this approach and wanted to light the subject this way!

Ed, do you think that this lighting made the subject's face too flat?

Thank you!
                    Anton
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Hi Anton,

When I look at studio portraits, I always look for the personality of the person being photographed.  I'm just not seeing any personality here, even though I'm sure he's a personable guy. 

Another thing that bothers me is the glasses.  I think just having had him push the glasses further up, or tilting his chin up would have helped in this shot. 

But what it misses on most, to me, is the lack of insight to the model.

Thanks for sharing!

Hi, Cindy!

I know this person quite well, and I find him here "just as he is". He is a good guy but not a charismatic personality at all! Thus I should flatter him even more!
And yes, he lacks for a little smile here!

Thank you!

P.S. I guess carrying glasses that way is a part of his personality!
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley



Hello, Ed!
To have a critique from you is the honour for me!

I must apologize because at this time my entire system is out of calibration and is beyond repair!  New gear coming soon.   The image on my screen was too dark to assess so I put in Photoshop- the attached image looks fine on my screen but will probably be washed out on everyone else’s monitor!  I attached it to illustrate a few points, however, so please excuse the poor quality...

Oh, you ought to have a good CRT-monitor since Adobe gamma couldn't solve the problem! Looking forvard you have it!
Actually, not only me can see details in the subject's black T-shirt...

Quote
...The lighting on the face is very uneven from top to bottom because of the extreme height of the main light and the lack of lateral movement and feathering...

Why so? I have measured the lighting in Photoshop (LAB): left temple 45-55, forhead 65-75, chin 50-60.

Quote
...The background has distracting highlights on it.  Placing the background light just so it imparts a subtle glow- enough to give separation and some color or tonal mass is less distracting...

I'll consider this! But some people like this effect.

Quote
...The original crop is too loose- the attached version shows a better composition... 

Why did you choose this crop? Is there any rule here? It looks to me that his head becomes bigger and his shoulders - less broad.

Quote
...The camera is slightly low and this is not a real full face because the ears show as  if the were different sizes...

Ed Shapiro

Yes, it is certainly not an exact front view! Does it really makes this face distorted to you?


Thanks very much, Ed!

Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Notes on critique:   (TO ANTON)

My main criticism, as to the lighting, goes to the fact that in the attempt to eliminate the reflections in the eyeglasses, the lighting was severely corrupted.  The main light is so high that it cast a shadow of the frames and an optically projected pattern from the main light onto the rest of the face.  Theses are serious distractions and distortions and are not good lighting by any stretch of the imagination.  The accepted method of managing reflections from eyeglasses is to either work with blank frames or tilting the glasses SLIGHTLY downward to alter the angle of incidence of the main light.

Regardless of Photoshop density readings the forehead of the subject is hotter than the rest of his face.  This is also solved by lowering the main light and feathering it either toward the camera or downward.

In classical portraiture a full face is defined as a straight on position of the face where both ears show as the same size.  A 2/3 facial portrait shows only one ear and the face from the near ear to the outside corner of the far eye or slightly more.  In both cases the camera should be at the subject’s eye level or slightly higher.  The best position for the eyes in a head and shoulder composition is 1/3 down from the top of the image- that is the strongest place for them to be.  Unless you are shooting a passport or identification picture, it is not necessary to show both shoulders head on.

When I mention distortion, I am not reffering to gross distortion that contorts the face.  In classic portraiture one of the main concepts is a true recognizable likeness-  unless a person has ears of different sizes, showing half an ear counts as a distortion of the true likeness.

I hope this helps!   Ed Shapiro

   

 
Logged

Ed Shapiro
The Hintonburg Studio
Suite 201  78 Hinton Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA  K1Y 0Z8
613-792-4837    Email:  edshapiro@rogers.com

Hello, Benji!
There are some questions for you...

...The camera was a little bit too low...

Why do you think so? The tops of the subject's ears are on the same line with his eyes: I guess his face looks directly to the camera, doesn't it? How did you feel the mistake? Or you mean the tilt of his head?


The reason I feel the camera was held too low is the fact that his eyes appear to be looking down slightly, and we can see up his nostrils a little.  The head tilt is fine.

Ben
Logged




The reason I feel the camera was held too low is the fact that his eyes appear to be looking down slightly...

Ben

Ben, could you tell me about the direction of subject's look? Do you usually have your subjects look in certain direction?

     Anton
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Anton,

In portraiture (and "people" pictures in general) the more things one can bend, twist, tilt, tip, turn, lean, swivel, angle or make off center the better!  Grin 

I usually have the camera just above eye level so the eyes are not centered in their sockets.  Having more whites of the eyes above or below or off to one side is better than having the pupils perfectly centered (and thereby making the whites the same all the way around.

Ben
Logged


Anton,

In portraiture (and "people" pictures in general) the more things one can bend, twist, tilt, tip, turn, lean, swivel, angle or make off center the better!  Grin 

I usually have the camera just above eye level so the eyes are not centered in their sockets.  Having more whites of the eyes above or below or off to one side is better than having the pupils perfectly centered (and thereby making the whites the same all the way around.

Ben

OK, Ben, how about your rule # 12: "...Proper Eye Direction-Generally speaking, in males the eyes should follow the direction of the nose..."?

In which cases should one follow the rule without fear to get "dull" eyes?

    Anton

P.S. Thank you for your tutorial!
Logged

[an'ton kisi'lØf]   Smiley

Pages [1] 2
Top of Page