File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I'm trying to get into portrait photography with my Rebel XT. I've been mostly shooting nature, my dog, the usual boring junk, but really have an itch to try shooting people.

I can't seem to figure out the angles, every portrait picture I snap just looks so mediocre ...
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:13 15:13:34Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2304Image Height3456
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Is this an example of your work? If so, first comments:
1. Don't shoot ISO1600
2. Get a better lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent portrait lens on a Digital Rebel. I'm guessing you're using your 18-55 kit lens, yes?
3. Use a medium telephoto focal length. The 55mm end of your kit lens is pretty good for this. When you shoot with a wide-angle like you did with this shot, there are some weird perspective things going on. That's why this young lady looks like she has GARGANTUCHIN. A telephoto lens is more flattening, and thereby more flattering
4. WHITE BALANCE. If you're shooting with tungsten light, you pretty much always have to set the white balance manually. That's what's making this picture look all orangey-red.

As for the more creative side of portraiture, rather than just the tech bits... Just take a crapload of photos. Eventually you'll start to figure out how to get your model to give good poses and how to get them right. Talk to them, make them laugh, get the hang of giving them direction, etc.

Oh, and you might want to look into some off-camera flash lighting. That's helpful, too. Check the Strobist blog for more info.
>> Anonymous
ac is now in STEREOOOOOO
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>90844
Stupid floodfilter keeps me from posting legitimately more than once in a thread, but has no problem letting me accidentally double-post. :-P
>> Anonymous
>>90843
Good advice. The room was dark and candle-lit, hence why I had to pump up the ISO. I have a 50mm 1.8 prime that I shoot with, but it's awkward having to shoot from so far away to get a good angle, know what I mean?

You're right about the perspective, it does look a little distorted.
>> Anonymous
If you stop down the kit lens a good bit and get plenty light you can get some decent images. I've seen some very nice pictures from the kit lens when people work for it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
here's another. I try to get up close and personal for the portraits, but I'm not sure if this works in my favor.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:11 02:55:25White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height853RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>90851
well thats kind of the good thing about longer focal lengths. you can get tight shots on the subject without actually being in their face. that usually helps them be more comfortable since youre not 2 inches away with a camera up their nose.
>> Anonymous
I too have started some portraits with the EOS400D (rebel), and same as OP did landscapes, nature, dog, etc.

For portraits, it is difficult to get people to pose right. Even if they are screwed up pics, I get some "wow, nice shot" comments by using monochrome shots.

Also, to make things easier with lighting, I reverted to taking pics outdoors where I would be used to lighting etc. It's also more relaxed than an awkward indoor scenario.

Once I nail down getting poses and stuff and get some proper indoor/studio equipment I will try it more indoor.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>90826

Your models should already be able to pose, you shouldn't have to pose them. It's your job to follow them with your camera and shoot them as they're doing their thing. Straight on isn't always the best option, a lot of times having a model turn to the side and then turn your head to look at you, or look up, will be great. He/She doesn't always HAVE to be looking at the camera.

A portrait doesn't have to be a shoulders-up shot either. In fact, the majority of the models i've worked with so far don't want a head shot at all, they want full body. Situate yourself a certain distance with a zoom lens so you can go in for a head shot if you'd like, then zoom in or not to get the shot that you "see" in the pose. After that, ID a site, prop or backdrop for them to work with and let them have at it/do their thing. Just keep shooting, you can suggest things such as "turn your head this way, that way, cock your hips, move your leg" etc, if you see the potential for a great shot, tell them to go back (I had to do this with a model I worked with this past weekend. She accidently moved onto the cutest pose and I had to give her direction to move back into it).

ID what type of outfits they are going to be wearing, if anything. Is it informal, formal? Black and white, color?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
     File :-(, x)
>>90890
(cont)

if you HAVE to give them direction and they are extremely inexperienced, study other photographers and what their models do, how they shoot. Google image search is a good reference for this (and for those of you that know me in some of the other boards on here, this type of thing is what I use those pics for).

I'm shooting strictly outdoor right now because:
1- I don't have the $$$ for indoor equipment
2- Outdoor light is more predictable.

I choose a site, scope it out ahead of time, decide which portions/elements of the site i want to shoot the model in then take him/her around and let them pose from there.

Try using natural light instead of the indoor lights most houses and rooms have. Put him/her by a window and voila! fantastically beautiful warm light!

Look at your surroundings- are there any other elements in the shots, such as shadows or people that are going to detract from your main center of focus? (I can post an example of this if you'd like)

that's all I can think of ATM, just throwing out things i've learned from Trial and Error. From some other shoots.
>> Anonymous
its been a good six months since ive posted in /p/ but here goes.....

emulate what you want technically but try to make yourself happy in the content, rather than just making photo A like photo B.

>>90843

thanks for the strobist thing site. ive looked around it a bit and it seems to be good for technical help.

one problem. i cant help think that most of the contributers to the site are stuck in early nineties catalog mode.
>> Anonymous
>>90892
Awesome advice, Liska. I'll have to try outdoor portraits, it seems like a pretty viable idea.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>90934

give it a try- it works out pretty well for me and gives the model something to play with
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>90890
>>90892
This reminds me of an important piece of advice in doing portraits: Don't let your model wear an empire waist dress. Empire waists make everyone look pregnant.

;)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>90991

lol, but i'm not the one that decides what outfits models are going to wear. THEY do ;)
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>91000
Oh, the horror. Chaos and insanity ensue.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91064
>>90991

NEITHER of you are allowed to comment on ANY sort of fashion thing when i post shots up here from my most recent photoshoots ;P
>> Anonymous
>>90991
On the right girl and with the right cut, they can look great. Different clothes are right for different builds, and the problem with empire waist dresses is that they became such a fad that every girl was wearing them, and it takes a lithe build to make it look good. Most American girls aren't lithe, and so it got this bad reputation.

(I'm sorry, Liska, I had to because it's true.)
>> Anonymous
>>91076

Very true. It's why it can be good and bad to let the model decide what to wear. Bad if she doesn't know how to choose for herself properly, good if she does and you are clueless about clothing and costumes.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91076

it's perfectly fine, but it turned into a wholed debate on my flickr that confused the heck out of the model (i personally think she looked fairly decent in it). I'm pretty good with fashion, but most of the time i let models choose on their own
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>91083
She looked fine in it. Dunno about ac, but I just meant it in general. I made one statement agreeing that they often look bad and all these other people jumped on me like I'd personally insulted them. In other words, I agree with>>91076
>> Anonymous
>>91083
I know; I was involved in a (the last?) extension of it onto /p/.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
I just KNOW that there may be potential "WTF Is that model wearing?" comments if i post some of my next one (think stripped leotard, red tights and a see through skirt) so I just wanted to come them off and tell them they weren't allowed to make fashion comments ahead of time :))
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91090

Striped. Not stripped
>> Anonymous
>>91090

"Stripped"? "See through"? "Come them off"? This is sounding SEXY.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91094

lol this is what I get for posting at work. See correction, I said Striped instead. Come=Cut (try not to get too kinky here) but, yes, the skirt is see through. But all you can see is the striped leotard beneath it. If i even decide to post those, that is.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>91090
That sounds like the sort of wacky outfit that I really dig.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91096

in all honestly it looked pretty cute on her. Put her on top of a couple of old machines so she could play with the wheel and the levers and it's exactly what we did last saturday.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>91090
See that isn't some standard, everyday fashion that most people don't look good in, that's something a bit more unusual. That would get a whole different kind of commentary. The empire waist thing was tangential to the picture. I'm not going to just make fun of your models.
>> elf_man !fBgo7jDjms
>>91097
Heh, that sounds awesome.
>> Anonymous
Pro's shoot portraits with 14mm lenses.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>91155Pros shoot portraits with fisheye lenses.

fixed
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hmm... If you want to shoot people, you might want to consider buying the proper equipment...
>> Anonymous
>>91155
fisheye portraits? in my /p/??
>> Anonymous
>>91400

It's not very likely.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>91155
I use my 11-18 a lot :P
>> Anonymous
>>91414

Yeah, but you use a Sony, so it doesn't count. :D
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>91438
what?!

Anyway Ive been using it because im typically 1-1.5m away from whoever im trying to shoot and getting more than just an eye is nice at that range, plus it has a .25m min focus and so long as the stupid cunts dont put their hands infront it doesnt distort that much.

anyway SCREW YOU
>> Anonymous
>>91446

You can get some nice creative portraits with the wider angles. These things always depend on the style and preference of the photographer, I feel. Both long and wide have their uses.

>anyway SCREW YOU

Not until you buy me flowers and a steak dinner, at least.