I think the eyes have it!

Attached is a high ISO, (3200), natural light pic of my grand daughter taken with a 5D3 and a 100mm f2-8 macro lens.

beautiful child.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Attached is a high ISO, (3200), natural light pic of my grand daughter taken with a 5D3 and a 100mm f2-8 macro lens.

Click to expand...

Your granddaughter is very cute and you must be quite proud. Technically however there is a lot of room for improvement. Are you looking for feedback - or just wanting to show her off? (Either is fine.)

--
View my photo galleries here:

As always I am looking for constructive comments.

Nice shot

This is what I would do with it..

It's a small bit cold colour-wise. I did a colour balance click on the white of her eye which warmed it a bit, then gave it a slight increase in contrast and sharpened it..

I do a lot of this kind of photography on my grandchildren. I always do this! I seldom bother with Raw.



And here you have the two for comparison. I may have overdone it slightly, but that's a matter of taste..









--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

Many thanks for your feedback on the colour and going to some effort to illustrate your point. Although I think you are correct that the original is a bit on the cold side, she does have very pale skin which is difficult to get right on the screen.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Many thanks for your feedback on the colour and going to some effort to illustrate your point. Although I think you are correct that the original is a bit on the cold side, she does have very pale skin which is difficult to get right on the screen.

Click to expand...

Getting the colour "right" is a natural pre-occupation of photographers. However, getting the colour looking its best is often a different matter! Instagram, and how attractive it looks is an example of this.

Don't feel bound to get it right. Get it best!

My current settings in my Canons have sharpness at 7, increased contrast and saturation. What comes out is... more spectacular! I'd only use RAW for weddings or tricky lighting.







--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

Once again, thanks for the feedback, I am interested to know how you knew I had been taken it in RAW.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Once again, thanks for the feedback, I am interested to know how you knew I had been taken it in RAW.

Click to expand...

I didn't! I was referring to Raw in general.

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Many thanks for your feedback on the colour and going to some effort to illustrate your point. Although I think you are correct that the original is a bit on the cold side, she does have very pale skin which is difficult to get right on the screen.

Click to expand...

Getting the colour "right" is a natural pre-occupation of photographers. However, getting the colour looking its best is often a different matter! Instagram, and how attractive it looks is an example of this.

Don't feel bound to get it right. Get it best!

My current settings in my Canons have sharpness at 7, increased contrast and saturation. What comes out is... more spectacular! I'd only use RAW for weddings or tricky lighting.







--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

Click to expand...

Thank for the helpful insight Garry. Just curious on what picture style do you use? Thanks.

Marvellous picture - I much prefer the original version as posted.

24 Peter suggested that "Technically however there is a lot of room for improvement". I am looking forward to finding out what I should be doing to improve my picture.

I have some feed back concerning colouring which I don't fully agree with but it was great to get someone who was prepared to give me the benefit of the experience, it all helps.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

24 Peter suggested that "Technically however there is a lot of room for improvement". I am looking forward to finding out what I should be doing to improve my picture.

I have some feed back concerning colouring which I don't fully agree with but it was great to get someone who was prepared to give me the benefit of the experience, it all helps.

Click to expand...

Thank you for asking David (traveling the last two days):

Shutter speed & aperture: personally I would not shoot a portrait at 1/5th. Motion blur & camera shake (even with IS on your 100 L) are too likely. Here, I do see the slightest bit of camera shake when I look at her eyes. I am also not sure if her hand is moving/coming to rest. I also would not shoot a close up portrait at F3.2, esp. with the 100 L. The abrupt transition to out of focus areas (her hair, sweater) to me is more distracting than pleasing. I also see a loss of contrast around the edges as well - foggy, hazy look to it (I owned a 100L and noticed this when shooting at or near wide open - it was so distracting to me I returned the lens.)

Lighting: Overall the lighting is kind of uninspired. I would have sought to fill some light on the right side of her face. Also, the light falling on the front locks of hair above her forehead shows some uneven lighting (the hair looks grey/ white rather than blonde.) I'm sure the response is you were capturing a moment, rather than creating a moment, so you were working with what you had. Fair enough, and more on that below...

Crop: I personally don't care for the missing fingers and perhaps would have shot more directly from the front. The angle of her body is also slightly awkward to me (I do have several nieces and nephews her age so realize it is tough to always get a good angle.) IMO the background (vinyl car seat?) is not appealing and does not add to the image.

Catchlights: you are right: the eyes have it - she has beautiful eyes. And the lighting/catchlights do not do them justice. To me, they are distracting. I see five separate reflections in the left eye alone. Classic portrait work has one, maybe two distinct reflections...

Which comes back to the question of what is this photo? A snapshot of a found moment with an adorable child who apparently (and rightfully so) holds great meaning to you? If yes, bravo. Job well done and thank you for sharing. I hope you have many similar meaningful moments with her. In terms of this particular forum, an example of advanced photographic work, in my opinion this is not.

Hope that is helpful.

Hi 24Peter, I must thank you for your painstaking comments on my photo. Although I don't agree with all your observations, especially concerning the lighting, I do agree with a number of your observations such as cutting off part of the hand, something I don't normally do. My main reason for posting it, apart from grand-fatherly pride, was to show what can be done with spur of the moment photography under very low light conditions and utilizing the high ISO performance achievable with modern digital cameras.

Photography is a never ending learning curve.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Hi 24Peter, I must thank you for your painstaking comments on my photo. Although I don't agree with all your observations, especially concerning the lighting, I do agree with a number of your observations such as cutting off part of the hand, something I don't normally do. My main reason for posting it, apart from grand-fatherly pride, was to show what can be done with spur of the moment photography under very low light conditions and utilizing the high ISO performance achievable with modern digital cameras.

Photography is a never ending learning curve.

Click to expand...

David - thanks for taking my comments in the spirit they were offered. Please use what you like and leave the rest.

Let me reiterate: your grand-fatherly pride is well placed - she is adorable. I look forward to seeing more and wish you both the best

Here is a shot of the other twin . This one was taken with the 24-105mm lens at ISO6400 using only natural light. I look forward to your valued comments and from anyone else for that matter.

I have to warn you. Keep this up, and I'll start posting my puppy pictures...

Very cute kids.

Sorry, I have no technical expertise in portraits, so I'll leave it to others to give advice. So far, I prefer the first picture, just due to the great smile.

DavidAMWA said:

DavidAMWA wrote:

Here is a shot of the other twin . This one was taken with the 24-105mm lens at ISO6400 using only natural light. I look forward to your valued comments and from anyone else for that matter.

Click to expand...

David - thanks for reaching out again. Let me start by saying I don't want to single myself out as any kind of authority on portrait photography. I do OK but there are many more talented folks here and elsewhere who can contribute to this discussion. I also want to acknowledge you for being willing to offer your work for comment. It takes a lot of courage (and sometimes a very thick skin) to do this, but in the long run I think it will serve you well.

My take:

Once again, adorable subject (you have good DNA). Great eye contact (not always easy with kids this age), relaxed natural smile and genuine overall pleasant demeanor. Do not underestimate the value of this. Kids this age are often already well-versed in the fake, forced smile. Overall in terms of posing and composition, a nicely done child portrait.

The nits: first, the eyes look a little "dead" (this is a common photography term when the eyes lack well defined catch lights/highlights - not meant to be derogatory in any way). That (missing catch light) plus it's hard to discern the pupil from the iris. He may have dark iris - I can't really tell - but for me I always want light hitting the eye in such a way that there is a pleasing catch light and I can also clearly see the (color) of the iris.

Next, I am not sure what the attraction is of shooting a portrait at hi-ISO under ambient lighting conditions. If I were taking the time to setup this shot (like you clearly did - as opposed to capturing a moment when something else was actually going on), then bring a Speedlite, light stand and a shoot thru umbrella. Or forget the light stand and umbrella and use the little plastic foot that comes with the flash, place it on a high shelf and bounce the light off a wall or ceiling. Point is, lighting your shot allows you to shoot at a lower ISO which will give better skin tones and a more pleasing overall color balance. (Notice how mushy his hair looks - this is purely an issue of shooting at 6400.) My advice: save the hi-ISO shooting for his 2nd (?) BD party.

I am also not sure about the white balance. Are you using a custom setting? Looks a little warmish to me.

Overall I'd up the exposure on everything but the bear head. Right now his clothing blends in too much with the chair/background and you kind of have two heads floating in space (his and the stuffed animal's). However, I would do that in Photoshop with some selective levels adjustment. I would also soften the lines under his eyes (or move your light lower when you're shooting to de-emphasize them).

I also might have bounced a little more light onto the left side of his face while shooting or centered the light more on the camera axis. The light fall off on the left side of the face is kind of in no man's land. I think typically you'd want more of the left side in shadow to create contrast, or more appropriate for a child, a flatter lighting setup. When you say "natural light" you may mean available light which implies the light source was fixed for this shot, in which case forget everything I just said about moving the light

But these really are nits. Overall this is a well-executed portrait of another adorable kid. Bet his parents love it. Good job

--
http://www.superstarheadshots.com
http://www.peteralessandriaphotography.com
http://www.greatproductshots.com
http://greatproductshots.blogspot.com/

Once again many thanks for your extensive feed-back. As you have pointed out the image was taken in "available light" as opposed to "natural light". I mentioned in a previous posting that I like to take spur of the moment pics where the subject is more accepting to having their photo taken, I seem to get more natural shots, hence the use of high ISO settings. As far as colouring, the image may be slightly warm, but it looks pretty close to correct on my monitor. Although I do make use of photoshop, I try to resist manipulating the image as much as possible. My goal is to replicate the original scene as close as possible. I know this may not be very fashionable now, but that's my particular "thing".

Thanks for your insights and suggestions.

Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee said:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

Nice shot

This is what I would do with it..

It's a small bit cold colour-wise. I did a colour balance click on the white of her eye which warmed it a bit, then gave it a slight increase in contrast and sharpened it..

I do a lot of this kind of photography on my grandchildren. I always do this! I seldom bother with Raw.



And here you have the two for comparison. I may have overdone it slightly, but that's a matter of taste..



--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

Click to expand...

Just for fun I tried this myself. OP, you have a very cute grand daughter!