Portrait advice

[Ethan]

It all depends on what you want.

As is, it speaks to you as a father and that is great and no critique will ever change that.

However, if you wish to be either artsy or fashion or commercial. The pic will not cut.

Always but always and I repeat always when shooting Beauty and Portraits is to look for the shadows. Photographers look always for the light and forget the shadows. What makes a picture is the existence of shadows which allows Modeling, Depth and Perspective.

You lack shadows in your dynamic range and you lack shadows on her features.

It is a rule of thumb when shooting portraits to have the B/G darker than the subject as this:

B/W balance







B/G Blur/Bokeh:







Crop Vertical:







Retouch Face (Dbl eyelid - Eye Bags - Contour - MU - Nose Bridge - Hair):







Side by Side Final (Contrast to taste - No Sharpening whatsoever was done):

[Airy]

Face edits do not work for me - looks like bleaching and de-personalizing

[Jack Dahlgren]

Airy, I'm with you on the face edits. They can go too far in the name of "beauty"
For example how far would you go with removing features from a face like this

[Airy]

Different cases, same conclusion:
- why on earth should an elderly person get rid of her wrinkles - should she also get her memory (and ours) reset?
- why on earth should a pretty young women be made prettier - who owns the definition of pretty anyway?

The yardstick of a really good portrait is the subject accepting his or herself, unretouched. There are enough tricks to be applied before triggering.
Removing a pimple or cat scratch in PP makes sense though (these being temporary blemishes, and as far as they do not contribute to the story).

[Jack Dahlgren]

2- Pretty can be made Beautiful. Beautiful can be made Sublime. Why you want to deny it to any woman?
Are you going to negate trousers for women or skirts and lingerie?
What is it to you if women use beautifying products and photographic imagery.

I am sure the following would love to hear your views such as Anna Wintour -  Joyann King - Marie-José Susskindo Jalou and others.

Here is a quote from Anna Wintour:

"It was so unlike the studied and elegant close-ups that were typical of Vogue’s covers back then, with tons of makeup and major jewelry. This one broke all the rules. Michaela wasn't looking at you, and worse, she had her eyes almost closed. Her hair was blowing across her face. It looked easy, casual, a moment that had been snapped on the street, which it had been, and which was the whole point. Afterwards, in the way that these things can happen, people applied all sorts of interpretations: It was about mixing high and low, Michaela was pregnant, it was a religious statement. But none of these things was true. I had just looked at that picture and sensed the winds of change. And you can’t ask for more from a cover image than that"

Doesn't sound like she is caught up in perfection.

But no need to argue. There is room for different approaches. I'm in favor of a more natural look, but Ethan is not wrong to pursue his own vision.

[Airy]

Ethan, no need to revert to personal attacks.
Bleaching and plastifying does not necessarily mean beautifying. While on the one hand (correctly) recommending to enhance contrast with the background, a few steps later you flatten her face, following current magazine standards. The cult of pale faced blondes has been damaging enough (not to mention D-sized bra cups and twiggy bodies).

The only sublime lady is the one in front of the lens. Whatever picture ensues is necessarily a crippled version of her self. What features can or should be retained is photographer's choice and skill. But yes, I resent industrial processing. That's just my honest opinion.

BTW I have nothing against sophisticated poses and racy clothing (or lack thereof), as well exemplified by your provided link. But that's not "portrait" in the strict sense.

[elsa hoffmann]

My apologies for the late reply. I have been traveling a bit.

Let's be honest - everybody has their own opinion and everyone's opinion is good for that person. What we see is subjective and we base that on our frame of reference, style and taste.

I prefer images that have a finer touch - the next person likes to see it journalistic style. You decide what you like. As said - I prefer images that are more fine art to print and hang on the wall rather than something that would be good for the family album. BUT THAT IS MY TASTE. Doesnt have to be anyone else's taste. Often people comment that they don't do ANY retouching - those people normally don't know how  Any image can benefit from retouching. How you retouch though is personal taste.

Rough edit - small image. Crop is a bit awkward but obviously I left it as such.

[elsa hoffmann]

Ethan I dont agree with your comments regarding the shadows. Your edits looks hard, orange  and is not flattering in my opinion. This is a soft portrait. Its a girl in lace. Not a chick in leathers. Editing should fit the subject and not the rules.

[Erik Lund]

,,,,,

It is a rule of thumb when shooting portraits to have the B/G darker than the subject as this:

,,,,

This might be your rule, but definitely not a rule I have ever used or even heard of

[aerobat]

Many thanks for the numerous comments and also for taking your time and editing to different styles.
I like Elsa's airy style for this kind of portrait. Admittedly I have no clue about retouching and would have to learn this.

Another photo from same series which was taken in portrait mode. Framing and pose could still be better.
The bokeh is less distracting in my view.

[Airy]

Nice one. Maybe let her do something with her arms; now they are more in the frame but still "hanging".

[MFloyd]

I made also my edit  Frequency separation for skin & face editing; correction on some parts of the hair colour; correction of left eye which is slightly smaller than the right one (as everybody); no sharpness correction; no reframing; no background bokeh correction.

Please, no philosophy about the evil or appropriateness of face editing. By now, we all got the message.

[tommiejeep]

Daniel, I feel , for me, your last one is a big improvement. The light bokeh is not as distracting.  I also like Elsa's take.  I hope your daughter is in the loop on all of the options.  What does she think?  .  I am so bad with PS that I always send the NEFs to my wife and let her PP as she likes.  I would not dare post a portrait of her online without prior approval.   Same goes for my vain teenaged son these days  .

[Akira]

Daniel, the most detracting part (again, if I would ever nitpick and exaggerate the "problem") to me is the bright bokeh of the point light sources around her head, especially the ones on top left of her head that touches her hair.

Sure enough, Elsa drastically reduced the brightness (intentionally or unintentionally) of the very part I'm talking about, and made it into a fairly-tale-like image!

[elsa hoffmann]

Photography styles do change with time - and is closely linked to the current fashion.

Currently lighter skin tones are fashionable. So are light spots / bokeh. At some point about 10 years ago everybody and his uncle gave every portrait an orange glow. SO last season now.