Emma #2

This is developing into a very nice series of portraits. I'm ok with the skin tones and the determined expression is great. I'm having trouble with her looking to her right with her pretty much in the center of the frame. You may want to try some negative space on the side she is looking into. Many times portraits are more effective this way. It will also take her ear away from the center and allow the viewer to be drawn more towards her face which is the subject. Overall very good work, keep them coming.

Well done! My only suggestion would be to pull back a bit and allow more space around her head. Whoops, I just read wfe's post above, I think we are both thinking along similar lines. The photograph is very nice as is! But I do believe it will become stronger with some breathing room! Charlie......

I like this and your other Emma portrait very much. One thing that you might experiment with is a low reflector, to bounce up a small amount of light into the area under her brow, around the tops of the eyes and under the chin. You don't want much, just something to lighten slightly the detail free shadows there. You would, of course, want to either keep it so low as to minimize the second catchlight in the eyes, or retouch out that second catchlight.
Matt

Dave, This is lovely. AGree with above comments about the need for more space but, also I'd like the light to be just a tad less strong. I'd like to see her lovely skin - all of it.

Despite the high technical quality and superb sharpness, or perhaps precisely because of it, these photos do not strike me as true portraits, but more like anatomical studies. They look too clinical to be true portraits. The lighting is not really flattering enough, and the angle of the head is either straight on or at right angles to the viewer: neither of these works well as a portrait angle. Also, the head is too large in the frame.

The expression is not particulary warm, either.

Sorry, these are just not satisfactory as portraits.

Why should a portrait be warm or flattering or make the subject look attractive by any particular standard? I don't know anything about Emma, but maybe this rendition conveys some aspect of her personality.

David:

Because by convention that's what a 'portrait' is. Otherwise, it's not a 'portrait' but perhaps a figure study or something else, but not a 'portrait'. A 'portrait' has relatively little room for divergence. There is of course the 'candid portrait', but this does not fall into that category either. It's just not a 'portrait'.

Some large-format portraiture:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html

Hurrell was a great photographer, and his prints were truly stunning, if you've seen them first hand, but it might be argued that his photographs were theatric fantasies for the most part and not portraits at all, if one considers a portrait to be an authentic portrayal of the character of the subject.