Simona

Folks - Looking for compositional critiques (mostly) here. Why? Backstory -

This was a planned shot in that I really liked where the subject was sitting (a few leading lines, good light, etc.) and the fact that she was in an animated conversation with some other folks on the deck. But -- she was looking the other way. So, I waited for a spike in the conversation, got in position, and waited for her to turn around. When she did, I snapped.

I was *really* pleased with this picture.

However, the subject was less so, as she said she looks fat. At first I was nonplussed, but after looking at it a few more times, I saw that the bicep has a certain prominence in the picture. So, my question for the pros out there -- would this have been a keeper for you? Should I have seen this coming, and angled the camera even more to minimize the arm? I think if I had done so I may have overly enlarged the head....not sure.


D-Neg.

I was going to make a suggestion but (1) it wasn't about her arm and (2) I am not a pro so I'd better remain silent

@pentaxuser It's a critique forum...fire away!

She looks completely in proportion to me. She is not fat by any reasonable definition of fat. Yes she is not sylph like but neither is she still of an age (early to mid teens) where this would be natural. If you were able to reduce her upper arm size which is what is bothering her then does this adversely alter her overall proportions? I feel it might and make her look wrong.

What I think might help and here it may the scan that can be altered to do this is to lighten the area behind the sunglasses so there is more detail in her eyes which are the key in any portrait but especially in a female portrait

I am solely darkroom oriented so its silver gelatin prints for me exposed under an enlarger but I'd try to lighten the area behind the glasses by dodging - it may be an easier thing to do with scanning tools. In this scan it appears that the very small DoF means that her eyes are probably that part of the negative that is in sharp focus and some more detail there will pay dividends and may even cause her to place less importance on her upper arm.

Viewers, I believe, are drawn to her face and eyes here and that is where the emphasis needs to be, in my opinion

@pentaxuser Thank you very much for your thoughts. I *think* the eyes are hidden by the reflection but I take to heart what you are saying. I’ll take another look.

This is the second time I’ve had a disappointed reaction to a shot I thought was flattering, so I was looking for a sanity check. Is it my weak photo eye or is this par for the course in portraiture? Both?

Thanks again for taking the time.

Recommendation: study this: http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/chapter-01.html
Very classic but great learning.
Regarding your shot: the position of the camera - looking down on her body - is indeed unfavourable, so is the positioning of her arms. And that dress is very "busy". Always advise your models to wear simple, neutral clothes that don't attract lots of attention in the image. The way the light falls on her face is also not very favourable. A "Loop", "Rembrandt" or "Split" lighting would make her face more slim and elegant. Using natural daylight you would need to position her accordingly.
Don't be disappointed: making good portraits is a skill that you need to learn! If you really want to acquire this skill, study good books and practice. I practiced a lot using a shop dummy (mannequin) that I bought. She is very patient and never disappointed. And.... do that digital: you'll waste hundreds of shots and need to learn through trial and error, so you'll apperciate the speed and low cost of doing such practicing digitally.
I took a look at your home page https://halistry.smugmug.com, and there are many really nice portraits there, so you surely have a feeling for making good portraits!
Good luck, and please keep sharing your results here!

This is sweet. I always tell my sitters, you may not like now, but you will like someday. She is very attractive.

@artonpaper Right? It certainly is fascinating how much of a difference there can be between how one sees oneself and how one is seen by others. For a candid, non-staged, non-planned photo (from her perspective) I thought she looked fantastic.

@Ron789 Thank you for the feedback. If I could nail all that with a candid photo surreptitiously snapped during a July 4 BBQ, I would quit my desk job immediately and be taking photos for a living! (Lord, are you listening?)

But, ultimately, you are right. Good is good regardless of the circumstances. I’ll check out that link.

@Dusty Negative You're right, there is no way you can control this with a candid snapshot. But studying this helps you recognise what works and what doesn't. Applying that to your snapshots may help you in selecting those images that are good, discarding the ones that aren't. As I once read.... "the difference between a professional and an amateur is not in the photo's they make, it's in the photo's they discard."