Reading mode: Light Dark

Grandaughter Photo's, critique please!

Go to last post
I prefer the 1st. The baby looks more ... active.

The 3rd is of course at lot sharper but somehow I do not like it. It was taken with the flash, right?. Also the baby does not seem interested at all by the camera.

I do not know if that make sense but you could ask someone behind you to attract the baby's attention so she would look slightly in your direction but not directly in the camera.

One more thing! in the first two, you cut a few hairs at the top of the head. I am not a often doing portraits but that doesn't seem a good idea to me. What do you think?

--
Stephane - Minolta 7D - Sigma 28-105/2.8 - Sigma 105/2.8 - KM 100-300 APO
http://www.chauveau-central.net/stephane/gallery/

 
Beautiful little lady, congrats.
As memories, 1 and 2 are superb. I think 3 is a bit harsh (flash?)

Trick with babies is to attract attention to you/camera.. eg with mum making silly noises/faces behind you.
Continuous shooting and focus mode (after one or two exposure trials).

But more important (to you/family) enjoy the baby, the golden time together and make the photo session fun in itself.
--
LesP (grandad of twin girls)
7; 7D; 10-20Sigma; 17-35D; 24-105D; 100-300D; 200f2.8; 500mirror
 
Darwin,

Cute granddaughter.

I like the lighting in the first two. If the background was better, they would be great photos.

The first two would have looked better in portrait mode and then the hair would not be cut off. Put the transition between wall and carpet in a better spot by changing camera angle.

--
Rick
 
One more thing! The first two are a bit flat on my monitor which is often the case for portraits taken without the flash. You can give them a bit more 'punch' by adjusting the levels and especially the back point to increase the dynamic range.

--
Stephane - Minolta 7D - Sigma 28-105/2.8 - Sigma 105/2.8 - KM 100-300 APO
http://www.chauveau-central.net/stephane/gallery/

 
Interesting comments. I like soft focus of first two. I have some experience with grandbaby pictures--betting good background is the hardest part. I haven't found a way to photoshop out background without destroying the softness of the hair in that area. I've experimented with hanging cloth and such--buit background is a constant issue when taking candid child pictures at home. I would appreciate any suggestions on this issue also.
 
Could you post an example of what you would like to do? That can be either very simple or very difficult.

The human eye is very sensitive to strong transitions so the solution is often to blur the selection before applying the effect.

For example, imagine that you want to blur an object in the background.

(1) make a copy of the layer (never work on the original!)

(2) make a rough selection around the object using the free selection tool. you do not have to be very precise.

(3) blur the selection (not the image). The tool is called 'feather' in Gimp and probably in PS too. Do not hesitate to give a large value (e.g. 20, 40 pixels or even more if you can)

(4) if the background object if very close to a subject which has to remain sharp, then I usually switch to 'selection mask' mode and I carefully erase the parts of the blured selection that overlap with the subject.

(5) Finally, apply the required effect (blur, unsharp mask, ...) in the selected area.

--
Stephane - Minolta 7D - Sigma 28-105/2.8 - Sigma 105/2.8 - KM 100-300 APO
http://www.chauveau-central.net/stephane/gallery/

 
I think photographs should project not just a reflection but also a situation to truly say something.

In each of the photograph's I was not having the baby pose for the most dramatic effect but rather to capture her moment in time, with some awkward restrictions on me at the same time.

This is one of the most mild mannered and sweetest babies I've ever seen. She had just woke from a nice nap to see her Grandmother and 3 year old brother playing a game on the floor at her side and she was very quietly watching them.

I, on the otherhand was laying on the floor with a fixed lens in a very limited area with nowhere to go.

I assure you that I do appreciate your comments and critique but please take another look at the photo's and see if you can see the way I described them to you.

This is an interesting topic to me and I have no formal training in photography at all but is there validity in what I have said or is it just poor photography still.

All the family members that saw them thought I had really captured the mood and loved them.

As far as clipping off some hair etc, thank you I will be more careful and flexable. Please respond to my questions as I really do want to understand more.
Thank you,
Darwin
 
Darwin,

I agree with you - photos should capture the moment. That being said, portraits aim to capture the best of a person. They are intimate by nature, and evoke strong emotion responses. This is why I recommended shooting in portrait (vertical) orientation - to capture more of your granddaughter, who is cute as a button, and less of the carpet that is just so-so :)

As for blowing the highlights - it's the highlights in the background that are blown, something that is less of an issue the less of the background that is visible.

Lastly - as long as you had a good time taking the photo and you and your family like them, what we say doesn't matter!

--
Check out more of my photos at http://gallery.johnrives.com
 
Thanks John,
Now if you could answer a couple more questions please?

The carpet background while bright, are not blown out according to the camera and histogram, but I agree it is to bright so I cropped a couple of the photo's in portrait and agree that they are much better. Thank you for the suggestion but do you think the carpet is really blown out?
Darwin
 
Thank you for your input very much. Monitors are a critical thing and the one I am using is an LCD with xbrite so the pictures are not flat at all. To verify the accuracy I printed one and aparently the calibration is fine because the print came out nicely.
Darwin
 
I like the lighting in the first two best, I think they turned out very nice. I think the hardest part for these types of photos is including a background that is non-distracting. You've done good on the first two in this regard but could improve them a little by not including the upper right object. You could probably do some cropping or cloning to fix that though.
 
Darwin,

The carpet in the first shot looked blown out on my monitor, but I confess that I did not load the image in CS2 to look at the histogram. More than anything, it was distracting - too much background that offered little to the photo. Had the background been a colorful blanket or quilt, or perhaps a garden scene or lawn scene it would offer vibrance and color - the carpet detracted from the main focus of the shot and offered nothing of value. I'm glad you liked it better in portrait - it was not a bad photo, I just felt that cropping it would bring out the best aspect (your grand daughter) and minimize any unnecessary elements.

What lens did you use, and what format did you shoot in (JPEG / RAW?). If you shot in RAW I'd love to take a crack at it and send you back (or upload) your results. I'm still working on improving my RAW workflow for portraits.

--
Check out more of my photos at http://gallery.johnrives.com
 
I like the first 2 overall because of the nicer background. Very cute baby and you should concentrate on her beautiful eyes. With the 1st 2, portrait mode would've been better as someone already said. Don't be afraid to get up closer and fill the frame too. Don't worry about cutting off the head somewhat in some. Many portrait photographers do this to draw attention straight to the eyes. Use your fastest lens (2.8 or faster) at about 50 to 100mm and make sure the her face is sharp and background blurred. Take the picture as sharp as possible and worry about softening during PP. Sharp eyes, smooth bokeh background and softened skin tones = striking portraits.
 
I did use the 50mm 1.7 lens and have several other photograph's up close and I did try to focus on those blue eyes, but I did not think to use portrait mode. I will next time to be sure.

This was not a "setting" but with the information I received from this thread it will be the next time. I'll post them for you all to see. Did I learn anything? We'll see.
Thank you,
Darwin
 
I'm sorry, I didn't mean "portrait mode", I meant portrait as far as orientation as opposed to landscape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top