photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
ctfchallenge | all galleries >> Challenge 149 - Breaking the Rules >> Challenge 149 - Eligible > Sarah
previous | next
25 december 2007 andy smylie

Sarah

adelaide

rule: don't crop the top of the head of your model off.

Reason broken: I like a close crop to remove all the clutter behind (shot inside on Christmas day) and I like the framing of the face with the hair.


other sizes: small medium original auto
comment | share
Guest 06-Jan-2008 15:02
Thanks for the response mcbit and Lonnit. While I am still unsure of the difference between formal and casual - I see the lighting etc in the image presented - I do agree my image needs work and will not be an entrant in my local camera club comp this year.

Cheers
Andy Smylie
ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 19:48
Contacting the parents is a nice idea. As far as I understand now in the UK taking pictures of (other peoples) children in the UK is a real problem. State paranoia is rife! -mcbit
ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 19:11
Thanks on 2 counts, McB. As for the hair, it looked neat enough in person, but the camera picked up all the fly-aways. I actually edited lots of them out to add more formality and order. OTOH, the slight mess of the hair, and the minor shadowing under the eyes add to the waifness of the image - although being a more formal looking portrait, which often can look forced and posed, it kept a real-ness to it that I found so deep and enchanting. I think the image has a bit of "Le Mis" depth about her. I've got to track down her parents and let them know the image exists. I'm certain they would like to obtain a copy if they knew about it. Geez, I'd love to have images like this of my own kids! I've really got to just buckle down and do it already! LOL! ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 09:43
Nice shot, by the way, Lonnit! The main thing that would suggest to me that its not a formal studio shot is that she'd probably have brushed her hair for a sitting :-) -mcbit
ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 09:32
Sorry; it was me! :) -mcbit
ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 08:56
Excellent response. Who said that? Please take credit. :)

Here is an example of a more formal portrait. Interestingly enough, this is actually a completely candid picture. It was taking in a temple cafeteria, during a talent show. She was sitting at a table next to mine and I thought she made a lovely subject. I focused my camera on her, and waited until she happened to look in my direction. This was taken under horrible green fluorescent lighting, the background was dozens of chairs stacked up against the wall behind her. I had an on-camera flash, with a softbox attached. Despite the conditions, and no input from me as to pose (other than waiting for the proper moment), this completely candid image has more of the look and feel of a formal traditional studio shot. Head is complete, eyes fall on the upper line of thirds, dark clothing and background make the face the focal point, overhead lighting creates a nice hair light, but flash provides fill, opening up the horrible shadows that would normally be found in overhead lighting. All in all, a rather pleasing portrait, IMO. It will be going into my next photo competition at my club.

I think the biggest issue with your portrait is the lighting. You've got a single source full frontal unshielded flash. Such lighting is quite harsh. For starters, the very best thing you can do is add a softbox to your flash head. I use a Lumiquest mini softbox. It is ALWAYS on my camera. It was attached the day I first got one, and it is never removed. That is a hard and fast rule I NEVER break! Softening up the light will really make a difference for you. See how soft the skin is in my image? Yes, she has perfect, china skin, but still... you can soften up your models skin with a bit of gausian blur on all the skin tones. That alone would make a huge difference. We don't need to see every single freckle or bump. The harsh lighting makes her lose all her girly softness. She's a pretty girl with lovely eyes. If we weren't so distracted by the skin, we'd focus on those stunning eyes. If you're going to play in PS, I'd also clone out the highlight on the front tooth - or at least soften it, and I'd retouch the dark areas under the eyes. Part of more formal portrait work is in the retouching. It should still look like the subject, but just a well-rested version of themselves. :) The shot has potential, it just needs a little work and it will really bring it up a few notches. :) ~ Lonnit

ctfchallenge29-Dec-2007 06:39
Without going into too much detail, if I went down to my local photo studio and commissioned a portrait I would expect to receive entirely different treatment than if I requested a passport photograph (although 'chopping heads' is not allowed passport photos either). In the first case I would expect consideration and time to be given to all aspects of the shot; to lighting, pose, background, dress, hair and maybe make up. This I would consider to be formal portraiture.

Lighting and pose are the factors, for me, that take this out of the realms of formal portraiture so I didn't need to read the subscript.

I think this is a lovely photo as are countless examples of this genre; however you won't make much money as a 'portrait' photographer with this type of shot. They seem to be acceptable in magazines though.
Guest 28-Dec-2007 23:35
Interesting discussion. Formal v informal - what is the difference?

You only know the source of the image because I stated so in my description. I have put up similar cropped images in the local camera club (this club is noted in the local area for portraits) only to be "marked down" because "the top of the head was cropped too closely".

Does the crop of itself make the image more informal?
ctfchallenge27-Dec-2007 22:58
Yes, but our sources are too vast, and our memories too narrow! LOL! ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge27-Dec-2007 20:33
Agreed! What I'm saying is that many rules from the short form used to describe them are not doing what they were intended to do. If you only look at the words and not the ethos then incorrect conclusions maybe applied to images. I have seen the rule of thirds explained over a number of pages............

-mcbit
ctfchallenge27-Dec-2007 19:20
Ok, so it's a rule of formal portraiture - agreed - and this is not a formal portrait, so no rule was technically broken. OTOH, I believe Andy to be sincere in his belief in the rule, and it is indeed possible that he did not hear it in it's full context. There is a simple out... add the caveat "in a formal portrait" to the end of his stated rule, and then amend his justification with be: "broken to take the image out of the realm of formal portraiture, into a more casual, candid image.". Then, McB, both you and I would be happy. :) Interestingly, I can speak this from experience directly related to my header image. I was doing a formal portrait session with the client and realized that I could pull a piece of art from it for my personal collection. Therefor, I broke the rule to take the image out of the realm of formal portraiture, to create a more artistic non-portrait image about color and texture. ~ Lonnit
ctfchallenge27-Dec-2007 12:33
Please take this comment in the spirit in which it is intended; I am not being argumentative :-)

As I remember it from the photographic books of my youth (confirmed by recent internet research) the rule "Don't cut the (tops of) heads off people" came from formal portraiture where it was considered 'de rigeur' to leave 'breathing space' around the individual or the group to ensure that everything which should be there was there and that all people in a subject group were there in their entirety. Where the subject is not a particular group or individual the chopping of heads may be unavoidable and is also acceptable. It was for this reason that I said that Lonnit had not broken a rule in her 'gallery header' shot as she quite clearly states that the person is not the subject and merely incidental.

Getting back to this shot I don't think it breaks the stated rule as it is not a formal portrait and nowadays for casual portraits this style of image is the norm.

I think we need to accept rules may not be as all encompassing as a short statement of their application may imply. :)

-mcbit
Guest 27-Dec-2007 06:39
I agree, a senseless rule, broken all the time with good results. Nice shoot & pretty model.
ctfchallenge27-Dec-2007 03:15
A senseless rule... you can't get the eyes on the upper line of thirds, in a tight portrait, without cropping off the top of the head! Qualified. ~ Lonnit