Photo Arts Forum » Forum List » Professional Critique Forum » Virginia's Bridal Portrait

Virginia's Bridal Portrait

Travis Minnig

Moderator

October 10, 2008, 09:23:23 AM

Well, not much to say. I'll leave it to you to tell me I guess.

Attachments

Virginia_017.jpg - 198.72 KB - 53 views

View Exif...

Logged

Travis Minnig Studios

Benji

Pro Critique

Reply #1 - October 10, 2008, 11:06:36 AM

Travis,

The first thing that I saw was an incorrect camera height. Most full length brides look best with the camera centered at about their hips and the camera tilted up slightly. With a low camera angle she will gain height and look more regal. High camera angles make her look short and squatty. The second thing I noticed is the blue cast in her dress in the shadows, a sure fire sign of underexposure, and sure enough I checked the Info reading in Photoshop and the brightest highlight (her cheekbones) measure 212. They should measure 240. Had the main been powered up 2/3rds of one stop and the background, fill, kicker and hair lights remained identical it would have been properly exposed. Her right hand doesn't look real feminine, I usually place it under the other hand cradeling the flowers. Lastly the background light should have been moved to camera right about 18 inches so the hot spot would have been more behind her. The lighting pattern on her face is EXCELLENT as is the placement of the kicker.

Benji

« Last Edit: October 10, 2008, 11:57:33 AM by Benji »

Logged

Travis Minnig

Moderator

Reply #2 - October 11, 2008, 12:39:07 PM

Benji,

You always give such great advice. Thanks. I have a question concerning the exposure though. I had the exposure set 1/3 stop more, but I was losing the brightest areas of the dress. It is some sort of highly reflective satin-type material and it was blowing out more easily than any of the dresses I've photographed in the past. She had a light complexion, so I took the exposure back down just a touch to try and mediate the issue. Under this circumstance, would you say I did the right thing? OR would you suggest some other method that would be more precise and leave me with a better image?

Also, on the camera height; you (I think it was you) mentioned this to me on an earlier critique. I didn't forget about it, but I was also afraid that the lower camera height was adding weight by placing the lens too close to the heavier part of her body. I certainly didn't want to exaggerate her weight, and I was afraid that a low angle looking up would do just that by the perspective and lens distortion of looking up at a subject. I understand your points, and this is something I really need to try so I can make a more educated decision about it. I know this probably comes across as an excuse, but I really just wanted to let you know that I remembered your advice from earlier and made a conscious decision to do what I've done here based on some of my own perceptions. I really need to try what you are suggesting.

Thanks for the compliments on the lighting, as well as the suggestions on the backgroung light and the hand placement. Hands are something I really struggle with, so I need to keep working on them. Often times I can see what I like/dislike, but I can't ever seem to get a good pose myself. I usually work with a client until they start to seem impatient, and then I let it go and try again on the next one. I think I'm getting better at it, but slowly. I appreciate your advice on this and I'll keep working on it.

Travis

Logged

Travis Minnig Studios

Ed Shapiro

Moderator

Pro Critique

Reply #3 - October 11, 2008, 05:04:04 PM

Quote from: Travis Minnig on October 10, 2008, 09:23:23 AM

Well, not much to say. I'll leave it to you to tell me I guess.

Hey Travis

Sorry I did not get here earlier- I have been running off my feet- planning a new studio and all.

Nice elegant image with a few bugs. As Ben alluded to there is some foreshortening probably due to shooting down at the subject- not shooting from waist level. If you were shooting with a wide angle zoom setting- it is best to do full length portraits with the normal focal length position or a prime 35mm lens on you DSLR.

There seems to be a cyan cast in the whites of the dress. This may mean that there are ultra violet brighteners in the gown fabric which sometimes fluoresces in the presence of electronic flash lighting. A Skylight or a UV16 filter, on the lens, can remedy that.

The short lighting is slimming and you have a good feminine pose which is flattering and has prevented blowing out the top of the dress.

Her stance is a bit awkward because of the positioning of her feet and legs, Her feet may have been close together and her knee, facing the camera, is not bent enough to give her dress much shape. Her weight should be placed on her far hip, her front foot aimed at the camera and brought forward to the point where the tip of her shoe shows. In that position she can easily pivot at her hips and control her stance and posture.

In a close up or ¾ portrait, you can shoot a bit higher and have you subject lean forward a bit to de-emphasize double chins or heavy necks. In a full length portrait you can not resort to those particular corrective techniques. In order to avoid linear distortion the camera has to be kept level and exposures have to be made at the subject’s waist level.

Your bride has a pretty face and you have brought her features out well. There is a bit too much fall off of light at the bottom of the dress and a bit more space is called for. Things are clearly getting better!

Ed Big Grin

Logged

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

Travis Minnig

Moderator

Reply #4 - October 11, 2008, 05:28:02 PM

And another big Thank You to you Ed. I really appreciate the time many of you have put into helping me improve my photography.

Quote

Things are clearly getting better!

See, I am listening and learning. Thanks for the encouragement.

Logged

Travis Minnig Studios

Top of Page