Improve Your Outdoor Portraits With An Eye For Lighting

Playing with the Levels tool in Photoshop usually does the trick for me. You can also use multiple layers to use different filters to achieve the desired effect.

cha0tic

@pale_blue_eyes: One caveat about the hand, it's great for finding the proper exposure, but won't help with white balance correction.

pale_blue_eyes

Those are some excellent tips! A few of my own:

1) Get in close.

2) Try a fill flash in twilight conditions.

3) If you don't have a gray card handy, the palm of your hand usually makes an excellent substitute.

pale_blue_eyes

@cha0tic: Not trying to be condescending or anything, but photography tends to follow the rule "Crap in, crap out".

Chris O'Connor

I shoot everything full manual, if it's too bright, I'll first dial down the ISO, then speed up the shutter, last but not least, I'll dial up the aperture (shrinking the hole letting less light in).

Follow @pale_blue_eyes for twilight conditions, fill flash can make those shots look very natural.

fusion27

Semi off-topic, but I really discourage new photographers to destroy their photos with gratuitous amounts of Photoshopping. (contrast, saturation, levels, etc.)

Just like what @Chris O'Connor said, "Crap in, crap out."
If it didn't turn out well, just try again, don't Photoshop it! That's the point of getting better: practice!

@Chris O'Connor: Seconded.

@Chris O'Connor: Back in the day I used to do more photo manipulation than regular photography. However, sometimes touch-ups can help bring out certain things in the photo that would otherwise go unnoticed. But I don't try to make it look like it has been shopped -- far from it.

cha0tic

I still haven't done portraits yet. I mainly focus on landscape, nature, architecture, etc. But these are tips I will save for when I do get into portrait photography, which I'm sure I will once I have kids. :)

@cha0tic: there is a rule that it is always better to do as much work as you can in production. that way you don't have to do post-production. plus it always makes for a more natural final image

mfusion

@Dylan Boom: At the same time though, a little bit of 'shopping isn't horrible. I find a lot of pictures I take of the sky look great if I adjust the curves a little. (Of course I don't bother with the ones that look bad to begin with, but still.)

@Joe Broom Marfice: Sorry, mfusion, that was a reply to cha0tic, not you.

Joe Broom Marfice

@mfusion: I can't write a better riposte than I found in TFA:

To this day, there is no trick I have found that replaces the need for proper exposure, white balance, and sharp focus. Today's digital cameras have less exposure latitude than a roll of Kodak gold film. In-camera metering systems have become much more advanced, but the sensors still lack the seven Æ’-stop exposure latitude that negative film has.

Joe Broom Marfice

@The Amazing Ant: Oh don't get me wrong, slightly touching up the color is nice, but super-saturating and faux-HDR coloring is just cheezy.

@fusion27: I dunno if it's the shooting conditions I have usually, but I find I have the problem of not enough light more often than too much. Also the name slips my mind but there's a type of filter that will cut down the amount of light coming by the equivalent of a couple aperture stops.

@Dylan Boom: Thank you, and add making it black and white except for one color to that list too. It's not clever or new, and it looks stupid

@Dylan Boom: Heh, guess you probably aren't into cross processing or using single element plastic lenses.

Always shoot in Raw: Sure if you're a masochist. Honestly, if you're going to shoot RAW and want to do portraits just buy some Fujicolor NPH or Kodachrome.

Yeah, whatever! I'm going to spend 19 hours in photoshop making the same bland and boring photos that he took.

Never use anything less than 70mm. Sure, tell that to the people using Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slims.

So where's his portfolio of work? On his website I found a grand total of two images - both relatively boring snapshots punched up in Photoshoop.

@battra92: This comment immediately disqualifies you from any further participation in any serious discussion of photography. But I have to say the mean density of uninformed opinion and bad info is quite impressive.

The only people who have any reason to not shoot in RAW are sports photographers and people who don't have enough memory cards. Even if you don't P'Shop a lick,even if you get it exactly like you want it in camera, there is zero advantage to having a lossy compressed image when an uncompressed one with better dynamic range and correction overhead is available. Especially since you can always turn the latter into the former, but not vice versa.

There's a reason that professional portrait photographers tend to work with telephoto lenses. They flatten perspective, give a shallow DOF for better seperation, and a good working distance. Wider lenses tend to distort prospective, especially at the distances you'd be using to get proper framing (no cropping in nasty old P'shop right?). While they can be used to creative effect, the results most people won't find the results flattering.

And did you really just name drop a POS plastic P&S (A Lomo is a cheap POS and the Vivitar is a poor man's Lomo) in critiquing someone's photography? Wow.

junyo

@askj113: A neutral density filter.

junyo

@fusion27: It might help to set ISO first. That establishes the baseline image quality potential. Setting the lowest ISO possible tends to give you the best final image because lower ISOs generally have less sensor noise. This has to take the conditions into account. In bright sunlight ISO 100 should give you a reasonable amount of room to work, in shade or overcast conditions ISO 400, etc.

Whether the shutter or aperture is set next is a question of whether you're trying to control depth or motion. If you're trying to control DOF you have set the aperture first and let the shutter speed fall where it will. If you're trying to control motion you'd set shutter speed first and let the aperture float. For portraits, my shortcut is set the ISO to 100, open up the lens within a stop or two of max (if the lens is f2.8, set it to f4) and then set the shutter for the correct exposure. If the shutter speed isn't fast enough to handhold (if I'm holding the camera) or freeze the subject (if I want them frozen), I bump the ISO a stop at a time until it does. Once I have the minimum shutter speed I recheck the depth, but f4 is a good working aperture for my fave lens, shallow enough to throw the background out without being crazy thin and having to refocus if someone blinks. FYI, YMMV.

junyo

The only thing shooting in RAW will do for 99.99% of photographers is drastically reduce the number of images that will fit on their memory card and make their images nearly impossible to share with Grandma.

Unless photography is your hobby or your job...

-Leave everything on automatic.

-Keep pressing that button! Take tons of shots and you will be almost guaranteed of getting a few good ones.

-Never attempt to send or show anyone more than 10 shots from any one event. This will force you to pick only your very best shots and you will avoid boring the pants off your friends.

-Delete the bad/boring shots right away before you end up with 200GB's of crap cluttering up your drive.

-Burn the good stuff to DVD, label it and put it someplace safe.

bdgbill

I think you may be mixed up with the effect of a telephoto lens. They do indeed help with @junyo: shallow DOF, but they don't flatten an image, they scrunch an image together. Wide angle is what tends to flatten and image. When I shoot action I still prefer to shoot in RAW. What's the point in sacrifing control just to pop off a few more frames per second when you end up with improper exposure in the end?

Michael Zaldarriaga

@bdgbill:

>Leave everything on automatic.

I wish I could hate you to death.

Graham Simmons

@Link got gaffled.

junyo

@[en.wikipedia.org])#Angle_of_view_of_the_capture

junyo

@junyo: Haha. I've had photos hung in an art gallery so what do I care if I'm not qualified?

I shoot what Ken Rockwell (I know, I know) calls "Real RAW" - film. I'm not putting down digital (if we're comparing camera penii I have a Nikon D40) but honestly RAW is a waste of time for most people and slows you way down.

If you want to take the same crappy shots everyone else does, then by all means emulate what everyone else does. If you dare to think different well then you'll have nerds debate your lens sharpness.

@Graham Simmons: He actually makes a lot of sense in some ways.

Here's another thing: You're impressing NO ONE when you shoot RAW. Get it right the first time. f8 and BE THERE!

@battra92: Again, name drop Ken Rockwell, the biggest laughingstock on the Internet, and expect people to take your advice seriously?

It's not a question of imitation, it's a question of common sense. I'll bet you shoot negative film in your Vivitar. And do you know why? Because the increased exposure latitude and the fact that you get a second crack at the exposure decisions when you process and make your prints. RAW does exactly the same thing. If you want to brag, shoot chrome, where the exposure you took is the exposure you got, and there's not saving it if you're a half stop off. Run a roll of Ektachrome through your fixed aperture, fixed shutter, fixed focus Vivitar then tell me about masochism.

Also, the blurry, vignetted snaps of Lomography are more current affectation than they are good photography. Different does not equal better. When you make a picture by the deliberate consideration and control of most or all the variables that went into that image, you've taken a photograph. When you've let the camera decide the variables (or had those variable set at the factory), pointed it at something vaguely interesting, pressed the shutter and trusted that the camera's compression engine did a good job, then you've taken a snapshot. And hey, it might be the world's greatest snapshot, but it's a snapshot nonetheless.

junyo

I liked the tips. I think RAW is for people who care. I didn't buy a Canon 40D to shoot freaking JPEGs though. Those guys who work on CHDK really opened up possibilities on my Canon P&S, which still gets action every once in a while. Now if someone can do the same for my iPhone...just kidding!

Michael Zaldarriaga

@junyo: No, I shoot slide - mostly Kodachrome. I only shoot negativew in B&W or when I'm playing around. Assuming makes ... you know.

Whatever, though bro. Keep spending 10 hours in Photoshoop. I don't have that sort of time. You do your thing, I'll do mine but RAW is certainly not something I'd suggest everyone do.

@pale_blue_eyes: maybe... the leaf of a palm is better than the palm of your hand for correct exposure (+1 stop correction for skin tone vs. standard mid grey)

Stefano_TT

@pale_blue_eyes: maybe... the leaf of a palm is better than the palm of your hand for correct exposure (+1 correction for skin tone vs. usual mid grey)

Stefano_TT