File :-(, x, )
Portrait of a friend and his girlfriend Ruskie
What do you think?

I like it, but theres always room for improvement.
So, don´t be soft on me :)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareK100D Ver 1.00Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:04:14 17:49:47Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/9.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>> Anonymous
>>41191
To me, it's not really a potrait, only a picture for documentation than anything else. There's nothing particularly interesting about the background, I don't exactly know why so much of it was included. Maybe you should have focused more on the subject. I would have made this shot vertical and focused more of the embrace rather than just cutting it off at the girl's arm. I just don't see what you wanted to capture here.
>> ac
Putting faces right in the middle of the frame is a classic newbie mistake. At a minimum, get their bodies in the shot. Even better, put 'em off center horizontally, too. Read about the so-called "rule of thirds" as a starting point.

Additionally, you've metered for the sky instead of the people. They're too dark to be properly exposed, and too light to be silhouettes, which is another common amateur mistake. It's difficult to get a backlit scene like this properly exposed--usually it's better to walk around to the other side of them so they're not so backlit anymore.
>> Ruskie
>>I don't exactly know why so much of it was included. Maybe you should have focused more on the subject.
Hmm, i thought the picture would be more interesting if there where more going around in the background. But now that you mention it, the background is very boring.

>>I would have made this shot vertical and focused more of the embrace rather than just cutting it off at the girl's arm.
Yeah, that would probably made it a more interesting picture.

>>They're too dark to be properly exposed, and too light to be silhouettes, which is another common amateur mistake.
Would any settings made them properly exposed?
Like longer exposure time, or bigger aptitude, or is it just that the picture is taken in the wrong angle?


Anyways, thanks for the criticism guys.
>> Anonymous
>>41196
f/9.5 is a weird aperture for a portrait. Open up to something like f/4 or 2.8 if you have it. If you did that and left the shutter at 1/250 you'd probably have very close to proper exposure on their faces.
>> ac
>>41196
>Would any settings have made them properly exposed?
Both the sky and the couple? At that angle? Probably not. Maybe (but probably not) with film, but almost certainly not with digital. Pick a different angle or resign yourself to having a sky full of blown highlights or a couple who are nothing but clipped shadows. Moving to an angle where they're not in shadow would probably be your best bet. Although you might be able to play with curves in your image editing program and bump up the shadows to bring out the couple while keeping the sky from becoming a featureless white blob.

Also, Pro Tip: It's called an aperture, not an aptitude.
>> Anonymous
>>41196
>Would any settings made them properly exposed?
A bit of fill flash would have helped a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>41223
QFT.

I hadn't thought of this because I am dumb.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
mine is better
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> ac
>>41234
Huh. I was all ready to be "Haha! He hilariously blew the hell out of the highlights!"

But I actually do like this one better.
>> Anonymous
>>41245
use your flash next time D:
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CORPORATIONCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwarePaint Shop Pro Photo 11.20Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:04:15 14:39:49Exposure Time1/250 secISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/9.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height681
>> Ruskie
>>41234
Indeed.
But, how does one succeed with this curve thing?
Everytime I tries to use it the picture turns out like shit.

>>A bit of fill flash would have helped a lot.
I dont have a stand alone flash(or what you call them), only the one built in with the camera.
And that flash tends to fuck the image up.
Well, I guess its because I dont know how to use it :]

>>41265
I dont think the b&w adds something.
Only makes the picture dull, but thats just my humble thought
>> Anonymous
>>41273
Page 57 of your operation manual is relevant.

And while b&w may not be what you want, in many cases a good conversion can save an otherwise unusable picture. I think>>41265demonstrates this nicely.
>> Ruskie
>>41275
Thank you :)
>> Anonymous
I think this picture is very interesting. I love how the background is very beautiful and nicely situated, but the faces of the couple are so goofy. i loverss this