PDA

View Full Version : a problematic portrait



sully75
23-Aug-2010, 05:44
Hello All,

I took this portrait last week and there's something about it that's driving me crazy. I was wondering if it's obvious what it is, so I won't say it right off the bat (my suspicion is that it's pretty obvious).

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4919355569_31fd021c8f_b.jpg

Let me know what you think, please.

Thanks
Paul

Pete Watkins
23-Aug-2010, 06:31
The blokes hand is MASSIVE, well out of proportion with the rest of the portrait. A longer lens might have helped. I'm probably totally wrong but I don't like the look of that hand.
Pete.

goamules
23-Aug-2010, 06:31
Hmmm...plaids and strips don't mix?

jmooney
23-Aug-2010, 06:34
Two things hit me:

1-The way he's holding the flute it looks like he's missing his thumb and forefinger.

2-For some reason the proportioning seems weird, his hand and forearm look huge compared to the rest of him

Richard Wasserman
23-Aug-2010, 06:41
You sure it's a flute? I thought at first it was a gun.

lenicolas
23-Aug-2010, 06:59
yeah, at first sight i though it was a gun.
we're probably mislead by the hunting shirt.
But it does look more like a flute.

The proportions bother me too, and there's too much light on the hand, it's distracting.

alex from holland
23-Aug-2010, 07:06
yep , for me it's the hand and the missing of a finger and thumb.
It's also the "holding" of "his" flute if you know what i mean......

Ari
23-Aug-2010, 07:10
Some people have bear paws, so I won't comment on the size of his hand. The rest of the photo leads me to think that a normal-to-slightly long lens was used. What could improve the photo slightly is to print down the bright hand.
Aside from that nitpicking, it's a very fine portrait.

Nathan Smith
23-Aug-2010, 07:19
Hmmm...plaids and strips don't mix?

Yep, I think that's right - given that the shirt is pretty busy all by its self, it would probably help if the background was very simple - or the DOF so shallow that the background rendered as a solid blur. It seems like my eye is drawn to the door knob/lock/handle.

Just for fun, you could try blurring the background in PhotoShop just to see if that does the trick.

As for the size of the hand, well, that only seems wrong if it really is out of proportion. If he really does have huge hands, then it seems to me that the portrait is doing a good job of showing who he is.

Frank Petronio
23-Aug-2010, 07:20
It's a nice picture except he looks amputated and the sharpening creates halos around the film borders. Using a 180 on 5x7 is hard on portraits but it can add a lot of nice drama too, but at this distance and POV it is hard to not make the giant hand look like a mistake. But I just did the same type of shot with a girl and her rack looked tremendous. YMMV

Bob Salomon
23-Aug-2010, 07:23
Use a longer lens to eliminate the foreshortening and also to make the background less sharp. Move him away from the background to make the door go away with a long lens. And, perhaps, use a wider aperture. When using a short lens like you did pose so that hands, arms, ears, noses, foreheads, etc. do not stick out top reduce foreshortening.

sully75
23-Aug-2010, 08:18
Ok yeah obviously it was the proportions, particularly the hands. I'm still not totally sure what happened because his head/nose doesn't seem out of proportion but his hands look massive.

It is a flute.

The thing with him is that he's a former boxer and in great shape and actually does have pretty massive forearms, but I don't think they are that big.

So...I always used a 35mm lens on 35mm for portraits, and generally didn't seem to have too many problems with perspective. One of my reasons (perhaps not fully thought out) for going into LF for portraiture was to be able to have the camera higher (like, at eye level) but be able to perspective correct and have the person look proportional. With the 35mm camera I was taught to shoot at about the level of the collar bones to avoid perspective errors.

But I've been really frustrated doing portraits because I can't ever seem to get that to work. I end up using a lot of front fall (my camera doesn't have front tilt) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4554900437_8a13399c78.jpg) but I'm wondering if that's screwing me up. Maybe the fact that my lens is not long enough is making me try to perspective correct too much?

I'm totally confused by this part of LF portraiture.

What lens would you suggest I have for doing pretty intimate portraits like this (or possibly even closer)? I tend to prefer shorter lenses to long, I guess with the feeling that I'm trying less to make idealistic portraits and more personal and intimate. But I'm open to any suggestions. I think this lens works pretty well for full length and environmental portraits but I'm realizing it's pretty wide for up close, which I've been doing a lot of.

This is another portrait that I think I screwed up perspective wise, I'd take your suggestions on it, again, I found the same issue...I wanted the back of the camera to be plumb, and wanted to use movements (tilting the camera down and front drop) to get all of him in the picture, but to me the perspective ended up a little wonky (or not...I'm having a hard time telling):
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4859985365_f9f0518ed6_b.jpg


PS THANKS!

Frank Petronio
23-Aug-2010, 09:13
It's just the lens will distort anything on the edges, so he has elephant feet. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it looks kind of clever actually. I don't think you need front tilt. Just level the camera back and shoot. You could accept tilting buidlings in the background or find less grid-like backgrounds - then you could have the camea at eye-level and tilt the tripod down. You can see on the ground glass WYSIWYG. If it were me I'd just shoot more, work at f/5.6 and f/8, and learn to exploit and love a little Social Distortion, it is more interesting that all these generic traditional shots.

Paul Metcalf
23-Aug-2010, 10:45
If it were me I'd just shoot more, work at f/5.6 and f/8, and learn to exploit and love a little Social Distortion, it is more interesting that all these generic traditional shots.

x2 - I like both of them partly because of the distortions. A flutist (or whatever one who plays a flute is called) needs good hands, and the elephant feet just fit in with the collection of stuff in the second pic. And the background on the first one is perfect to me, goes well with the shirt (I guess I'm burned out on too many blank backgrounds). Second pic reminds me of National Lampoon's Vacation.

Larry H-L
23-Aug-2010, 10:57
The first picture looks OK to me. I think if you burned the hand down a bit it would look great.

In picture #2, your camera position is too high for my tastes. I would shoot a full-length portrait from waist height.

I agree with others that perspective correction isn't a big issue with portraiture.

Nice images.

Pete Watkins
23-Aug-2010, 11:12
Sorry,
It's me again. The verticals are brilliant but unless it's a portrait of the prime subject in his working/whatever enviroment there is far too much depth of field. The junk in the background does not enhance the portrait of the prime subject (the bloke). The feet do appear to be a bit big but they just might be. You could always ask the lad who's portrait it is for constructive critisisim, the customer matters. Wish that I could spell!
Pete.

Bob Salomon
23-Aug-2010, 11:28
A long, long time ago I worked as a kidnapper (photographing children for a portrait mill on locaation, at their homes). The instructions that we were given were to shoot with a 35mm SLR with a normal lens only. Always pose the kid with their forearm crossed in front of their body. This ensured that, in close, the kid would have a massive arm in relation to the rest of their body.
Before the shoot we were to show the parent two 11 x 14" prints. One straight and the other vignetted. The vignette cut out the large arm. The photographer was to tell the parent that the straight print was what they were going to receive unless they paid $1.95 for the vignetted print. But they had to decide before the shoot "as we used a different film for the vignetted print". The photographer kept the $1.95 if the parent paid it. The proof passer made the real money when they sold them the extra prints.

In the 60's this type of "kidnapping" was not unusual in large metropolitan areas in the USA.

Your using a 35 on a 35mm camera and a normal lens on a view camera basically results in the same type of image. Unless you particularly want the foreshortened effect it is not very complimentary to the average subject. A longer lens solves those problems and helps to isolate to bring more concentration on the subject. Of course this supposes that you are not trying to do environmental portraits showing the subject in their environment.

Ben Syverson
23-Aug-2010, 11:31
But I've been really frustrated doing portraits because I can't ever seem to get that to work. I end up using a lot of front fall (my camera doesn't have front tilt) (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4554900437_8a13399c78.jpg) but I'm wondering if that's screwing me up. Maybe the fact that my lens is not long enough is making me try to perspective correct too much
When I started taking portraits, I used tons of front fall, and had the same problem you're having. The problem, in a nutshell: you and I are both using 35mm-ish equiv. lenses, and shooting just below eye level, so using front fall to reduce headspace winds up making the hands / body look huge, because at that point they're actually closer to the lens than the eyes.

The solution is simple. Don't use too much front fall, and just tilt the entire camera down to remove headroom instead. That's essentially what you'd do with a 35mm camera. The background will of course not be square anymore, so use less depth of field don't shoot with a ton of right angles in the background.

The other option is just to back off. You're using LF, so you can shoot head to toe in an environment and still have plenty of detail in the subject. The further away the subject is, the less pronounced the perspective distortion will be.

Henry Ambrose
23-Aug-2010, 11:35
His feet being out of focus bothers me more than that they might look a bit large. I'd plumb the back and frame the picture with front and back fall/rise to get what you want.

Unless you are contact printing, just back up a few feet on the next ones and see if that helps (it will) then crop as desired. If that works to suit you then it might be to look for a 210 or 240mm lens.

sully75
23-Aug-2010, 13:35
When I started taking portraits, I used tons of front fall, and had the same problem you're having. The problem, in a nutshell: you and I are both using 35mm-ish equiv. lenses, and shooting just below eye level, so using front fall to reduce headspace winds up making the hands / body look huge, because at that point they're actually closer to the lens than the eyes.

The solution is simple. Don't use too much front fall, and just tilt the entire camera down to remove headroom instead. That's essentially what you'd do with a 35mm camera. The background will of course not be square anymore, so use less depth of field don't shoot with a ton of right angles in the background.


I think this is it. The only issue (I think it's an issue) is that my camera doesn't have front tilt, so it ends up making me stop the lens down a lot tighter than I'd like to get sharpness into the feet.

Ok so if I were looking for a good value (cheap!) 240 lens, what would I look for? Another old Schneider Kreuznach?

Thanks
Paul

Frank Petronio
23-Aug-2010, 13:45
Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.

Unless the guy was laying down perpendicular to your camera.

The feet are nearly in the same plane as his face, just keep the camera parallel to him and you'll be fine.

To see a real difference I'd go for a 12" or 300mm lens. Old Kodak Ektars are nice, any of the 1950s-era American lenses in Acme shutters really ~ $150 and go. Old Symmars are fine, as are Xenars. I'd probably worry about the shutter more than the lens!

D. Bryant
23-Aug-2010, 13:46
But I just did the same type of shot with a girl and her rack looked tremendous. YMMV

Frank,

You crack me up some days.

Don Bryant

sully75
23-Aug-2010, 13:56
Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.



Sorry to be dense, but I thought I could have the camera high, drop the front, tilt the front standard to be vertically plumb and then have everything in focus?

I'll drop this shortly, thanks for entertaining my questions...

eddie
23-Aug-2010, 14:39
I think this is it. The only issue (I think it's an issue) is that my camera doesn't have front tilt, so it ends up making me stop the lens down a lot tighter than I'd like to get sharpness into the feet.


Thanks
Paul

read what frank says below. use back tilt....not front. also shooting high up and then lowering the front lens board is the same as shooting from a lower angle..... you are defeating the purpose....might as well just shoot from a lower angle.


Front tilt wouldn't help you in any way that I can see.

Unless the guy was laying down perpendicular to your camera.

The feet are nearly in the same plane as his face, just keep the camera parallel to him and you'll be fine.!


Sorry to be dense, but I thought I could have the camera high, drop the front, tilt the front standard to be vertically plumb and then have everything in focus?

I'll drop this shortly, thanks for entertaining my questions...

tilting the camera down and then tilting the back perpendicular is basically like having front tilt.

BUT, i think you should use a longer lens to focus the viewer on the subject and to blur out the background so it is not as distracting.....OR control your back ground so it is not distracting which means no more environmental portraiture..... try a longer lens. you may be surprised.

eddie

sully75
23-Aug-2010, 14:57
Got it. Longer lens. Will have to sell some other junk. Nothing on ebay looked too cheap. Is 300mm the consensus suggestion? I'm happy with this lens for environmental portraiture, money is tight but I'd like to have one lens to be able to do the kind of picture I attempted above.

Thanks
Paul

Frank Petronio
23-Aug-2010, 15:14
General rule is to keep the back (the film) parallel to whatever you think needs to be straight.

Straight verticals (ie wine bottle) = Tilt back straight up and down

Straight horizontals (ie long Walmart facade) = swing back to be parallel to front of the building

Once you get the back right, use rise/fall and shift to get the composition you want.

Of course if you stand right in the middle, you don't need to use any corrective movements at all - and neither would you with your 35mm camera.

THEN you futz around with the front tilt and swings to get optimal focus. But for a lot of things -- other than Ansel Adams landscapes with a sharp foreground and sharp horizon when you use a little front tilt -- there is nothing to do. You just stop the aperture down a lot if you want sharp and leave it open if you want it artsy-fartsy.

Mark Sawyer
23-Aug-2010, 18:42
I tend to find that using swings and tilts for straightening lines always works exactly opposite from what I need for getting things in focus, but that's just because the universe doesn't like me...

What bothers me about the second image is that you seem to look straight on into his torso, up at his face, and down at his feet. That's normal to human vision, but we're only looking at one place at a time in the real world. When you condense it down to a photograph, it's small enough that you can see all three perspectives at once, and that's when things seem off...

A longer lens would help out. I agree with Frank; try a 300mm.

Henry Ambrose
23-Aug-2010, 20:01
Careful when reading all the great comments. Everyone is not using the same words.

Here I use "plumb" to mean perpendicular to the floor or "vertical". As in holding a string with a weight on it - a plumb bob.

If you were shooting the guy standing with a monorail with tons of movements you'd start with the camera level on the leveled tripod head with all movements at zero. (you should always zero any camera when you put it away, so you start out neutral - IMO) The back would be plumb as would the front. You'd point the camera toward the subject by panning the tripod head, then frame by raising the back or dropping the front. You wouldn't have to use both because you'd have plenty of DIRECT adjustment. Or you could use both if you wanted too.

With the camera you own you are probably having to use all the front fall and then point the whole camera down to get the framing you want. (I'm guessing about your camera) When you point the camera down, the front and back become tilted along with the rest of the camera. You can move the back to plumb because it has tilt adjustment. The front standard of your camera does not have tilt so you have to leave it tilted, so his feet are out of focus. If you could plumb the front standard the plane of focus would include his feet with just a little stopping down.

I've only shot a very little 5x7 but I used a 300mm lens and it seemed long. I'd look at a 240 if I were you. (likely perfect for what you are doing) Maybe even a 210 (the difference from a 180 will be noticeable). You might find a 210 for not to much money and likely find it quicker than a 240. There's lots more 210s out there, I think.

jnantz
24-Aug-2010, 05:06
i think mark tucker likes to ( or used to like to ) twist his 4x5 up like a pretzl when
taking portraits, you might go to his website and see some of his work ..

jp
24-Aug-2010, 06:09
You could take some steps back and get the 200-300mm perspective and crop the negative when printing/scanning. If you are using a reasonably fine grain film and not making monster enlargements, that will be fine until you get the lens that's right.

I have a 203mm optar which I like. Other people have Kodak Ektar 203 which is also good. If it doesn't need to fold into the camera, you have many 210-240 choices like Fujinon, Schneider, Nikon, etc... Can't hardly go wrong as long as the shutter is fine. If you are on a budget get something that doesn't need a CLA right away. I'd buy on here first, then KEH, then Ebay.

If you think you might do 5x7 or 8x10 eventually, it might be worth comparing your choices coverage to see if it might be suitable for that work as well, so you don't have to re-purchase if you figure on going that route.

sully75
24-Aug-2010, 06:29
JP for the record, this is 5x7...I'm using a 180 on 5x7. I'd really prefer not to crop, not for any technical reason but I do like to avoid cropping if I can. But point taken...

Frank Petronio
24-Aug-2010, 07:03
Backing up doesn't really give you the same view as a longer lens anyway.... but it does present a chicken and egg type of question to solve. Most photographers would switch lenses to solve the problem - notice all the gearheads here. However it may be more challenging and the results more interesting and satisfying to figure out how to make good 5x7 portraits with a wider lens like the 180.

Why not approach it that way, figuring out what will work best with the 180? You're getting close already.

jnantz
24-Aug-2010, 07:13
you might find a longer lens at someplace like equinoxphotographic.com or in waltham ma ( ep levines )
they often have lenses for not too much $$ that cover a large sheet of film, and both retailers know
what they are selling so you can ask them questions without them looking like a deer in the headlights.

a 10" teleoptar might give you enough distance between you and your subject,
and give you a similar point of view and not give you the disproportion that a wider lens
tends to give. they are pretty inexpensive.

sergiob
24-Aug-2010, 09:10
I think that if it is a portrait it is not so eloquent as one. I can't read easily from the image who he is and what he does, in case he is a flutist. Maybe showing the flute more would have helped. I would have darkened everything a bit except his face to make the eye travel easier on the image, and making the door knob less distracting. The shirt with stripes is also very strong and pulls attention away from his face.