Hi Gerald ...
> What do you mean by "jarring bokeh"? I see a lot of shots in print these
> days that use that as an artistic technique. I'm wearing my thick skin, so
> please critique away. :)
What I meant is that the out of focus areas are, to my eyes and
sensibilities, harsh, not smooth. I'd prefer something more "creamy"
and soft, which would better compliment the portrait, IMO.
>
> More on the shots: I want to send her brother in Korea a pic or 2 of his
> sister in Paris. I liked both of these pics myself, but couldn't decide
> which one, hence my request to the list.
Is there a reason you can't send both? Each shows a different, and
nice, quality. Heck, Gerald, they're your pics, why do you want
someone else's opinion on which is better. None of us know your
girlfriend as well as you and her family.
> Other responses: the light wasn't so great, and even after getting a
> Velvia-corrected scan from my RFS3600 with it's film LUTs, it still looked
> like I was shooting with a lime Jell-O filter attached (exaggeration).
Why shoot Velvia for portrait work. It's been said that other films
are superior and offer better characteristics for that type of
photography.
> I tried cropping the bottle and knee from #1, but couldn't get a pleasing
> picture. The pose for #2 is probably better, but the expression in #1 is
> best.
As you noted below, a better crop in the viewfinder would have been
the answer.
> Lately, my shooting technique has been focused on cropping only in my
> viewfinder, so I tend to shy away from cropping on the computer.
I forgot which camera/lens combination you were using, but if it's
one of the newer bodies, with a smaller finder view, it may be
difficult to get an exact crop in the finder, so cropping later may
be the only alternative in that situation. Of course, once you
understand the limits of the camera's viewfinder, you can probably
move in a little tighter. Unless you've got a 100% finder there's
always the possibility of some surprises in the final print.
> The strand of hair gives the pic character, imho. She's not a fashion
> model, but an aspiring architect. It fits her.
I agree 100%. The strand of hair is real, it's the way people
appear sometimes. The hair lends a nice, natural look to the shot.
>
> To know her, pic #2's expression is not pensive, but reflective. I was
> hoping that this would come across (tell a story?), but alas it appears that
> subtle expressions like these are not so universally recognizable, so I
> failed in capturing that.
Ahh, but the story isn't for us, it's for you, your girlfriend, and
your families. They will know what the expression means. Remember
who you made the photo for.
> The bright background lights appeal to me, but this is probably because of
> the power of the memory of the moment for the photographer, and isn't
> transferred in the image to the casual observer.
Indeed - and this is one of the things that gets in the way of good
photographs. What ends up being captured on film is not the image in
front of you, but what the image means to you, and the emotional
effect it has based on memory, experience, and the like. Sometimes
one needs to be more objective when snapping the shutter, i.e., take
yourself and your emotions out of the picture, and see the photo for
what it is and not memories it conjures up for you. Of course, this
depends on why you're taking the picture. If it's for your own
memories - something to look back on later - that's one thing, and
it matters not a whit whether other people get it. But if the photo
is for others it may be better to be more objective.
> I'm wondering what I could have done differently.
>From the few photos of yours that I've seen, I believe that B&W
could work very nicely for you.
> I generally don't haul flash gear around, not liking it's harsh shadows, even
> as fill.
Flash is an insult to a nice environmental portrait such as what you
were attempting with your girlfriend. In this case a less contrasty
film may have been a good option. While I'm far from well-versed in
color photography, some of the lower contrast negative films appear
to offer a solution. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these
matters can jump in here with a comment or two.
> I could have found a darker background, or used a smaller aperture to get it > more
>in focus
A more focused background, unless it contributes to the "story", is
often a distraction. I don't think more background detail would add
much, if anything, to these pictures.
> ... but these were just some grab shots while resting a while in a chair.
And for that they are just fine. These were pics for you, not Life
magazine.
> In the end, I have plenty more shots of her from the weekend, and might pass
> a few of them along for comments. I'll see if there is a better one I could
> send to her bro.
Her brother will probably not notice the details we're discussing
here. He will see his sister, and think kindly of you for sending
the pictures. He will not be looking at these photographs with the
more critical eye of a "photographer" (unless he's a photographer
himself).
--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It matters little how much equipment we use; it
matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
