Hi everyone ! Here is my very first try of a portrait using a huge part of landscape behind my model, usually I take advantage of the Hi-Sync to blur the whole background at full aperture (f/1.4 - f/1.8) with flash, here I wanted to give my picture a different look, more subtle and with a strong sky, let me know how I successed/failed !
Ps: Shot with a Canon 5D Mark IV and 70-200mm f/2.8, light comes from an Elinchrom ELB400/Quadra Pro/Rotalux Octa 135cm !
I think it's good. Certainly has a dramatic mood to it. When I make the choice to include more detail in a background I tend to think of how it can reinforce the narrative of the portrait. I think you have things balanced well tonally but I'm not sure if the added detail in the background adds much more to the image overall. Great job though, especially for a first try.
I see what you mean, maybe work a little more on the background components... Thanks for your tips Marc ! ;-)
Tones and lighting are great. Good job balancing natural light with the flash. Doesn't have an overdone look which is great.
I think I agree with Marc's comments that the detailed background does not really add to the story in this composition.
Thanks a lot Jared, for sure, it was pretty cool for a first test, and I'll try to match more the expression/mood and the background in the future compositions ;-)
A lot of photographers are conditioned to see bokeh pudding as an end in itself - as if the highest form of photography they can imagine is a high school senior portrait. It's silly to talk about about a narrative for a shot like this ("narrative" quite a loaded word) but the effect of including more detail of the background is to claim a stronger link between the subject and the landscape.
A bokeh pudding shot would say "Here is someone who just happens to be standing here so I can take a photo". This image implies a connection between the subject and the landscape. If that's what you wanted - a shot that implies he's an outdoorsman or that location is important to him - then the shot is good.
Also, the shot wouldn't look "dramatic" with more severe background blurring - the sense of depth and height a recognizeable bg give are what give that drama.
Perhaps most importantly of all, not blurring the hell out of the landscape just because its the accepted cliche avoids the enormous vulgarity of extreme artificiality in a shot where - afaik - an implication of artificiality is not part of the intended message. Blurred bgs are a tool for getting mow to mid end commercial work done fast - no one should actually aspire to shoot that way in personal work.
thanks for your very complete return David, it was more like a training for future composition, than a very planned one, but yes, I wanted to pull myself out of consistant blurry backgrounds, and for a first test, it was pretty convincing ;-)
Hw looks like a giant with the horizon so low, but that can be cool. I often think of an environmental portrait showing someone clearly in their environment. Very nice pic though.
Well, the guy is pretty huge (6,5ft), and I'm not THAT tall, maybe that's why ^^