baby photo

[aladyforty]

I wanted to post these all at the same time for comparison but noticed that photos are getting removed if there is more than one so I will post them all separately. This is going to make it hard to compare but whatever.



I'd first like an opinion on the shot then if someone can have a look at my other posts of this same shot and let me know which version is best I'd appreciate it

[Stevekin]

I guess this where you want the response made.

You've really caught this little fella's smile. I should think itwill bealmost impossible to get a shot of him looking happier. Well done.

Bit too close to the top of his head with the crop, just about shaved his hair off. The empty space to the right is too bright and empty, I think you could probably afford to lose a third of that (including some of the fleece), maybe more ??

The black and white one isn't doing it for me, nor is number 2.

Of the three I prefer Baby photo three, got a bit more colour in his cheeks.

Lovely pic.

Stevekin.

[thatsanicepicture2]

Aladyforty,

Hi again. This is a nice shot and i like three the best. Yeah it's too tight on the litte kids head, was it a crop or the top of the frame? Also... Is this natual light only?

dale

[aladyforty]

Stevekin wrote:

I guess this where you want the response made.

You've really caught this little fella's smile. I should think itwill bealmost impossible to get a shot of him looking happier. Well done.

Bit too close to the top of his head with the crop, just about shaved his hair off. The empty space to the right is too bright and empty, I think you could probably afford to lose a third of that (including some of the fleece), maybe more ??

The black and white one isn't doing it for me, nor is number 2.

Of the three I prefer Baby photo three, got a bit more colour in his cheeks.

Lovely pic.

Stevekin.

Thanks, if i remember correctly I did not crop the shot so cant repair that. By the way the baby is a girl "Lucy" but then shes a little tomboy:-)

[aladyforty]

thatsanicepicture2 wrote:

Aladyforty,

Hi again. This is a nice shot and i like three the best. Yeah it's too tight on the litte kids head, was it a crop or the top of the frame? Also... Is this natual light only?

dale

Thanks Dale, yes natural light only.

[RodneyBlair]

The lighting on the child's face is ugly. It has a bit of a grunge look. Fill flash or a reflector was desperately needed here.

Until you have a better feel working with people in various lighting conditions, I'd suggest you seek locations that block any direct light. This is the primary reason I even bother shooting flowers now. I'm learning alot about how to work with the direct light from the sun.

Keep trying and good luck.

Rodney

[Stevekin]

aladyforty wrote:

By the way the baby is a girl "Lucy" but then shes a little tomboy:-)

Sorry :?. Apologies to Lucy.

[aladyforty]

Stevekin wrote:

aladyforty wrote:

Sorry :?. Apologies to Lucy.

No probsstevekin

Hey Rodney, I know the lighting ain't good but it does not look UGLY to me, I guess I could do some morepost processing. In this case I admit that yes, I should have used flash but there have been some times where because of protocol Ive been unable to as happened today when I photographed our ANZAC day parade (like veterans day in USA) the press photographers were not using flash in the bright sunlight either on close ups of old soldiers (an unspoken rule), it seems a little rude to do so and I now have another batch of photos to work on that were shot in direct sunlight without flash:roll:

[RodneyBlair]

aladyforty wrote:

Hey Rodney, I know the lighting ain't good but it does not look UGLY to me, I guess I could do some more post processing. In this case I admit that yes, I should have used flash but there have been some times where because of protocol Ive been unable to as happened today when I photographed our ANZAC day parade (like veterans day in USA) the press photographers were not using flash in the bright sunlight either on close ups of old soldiers (an unspoken rule), it seems a little rude to do so and I now have another batch of photos to work on that were shot in direct sunlight without flash:roll:

I don't try to sugarcoat what I have to say. Ain't good = UGLY to me.

You've blown the shadows on a couple areas. In print, these shadows will look like textureless blotches of ink. A print like that is not pretty.

Lacks nice detail on the child's lips(blown shadow).
The open mouth looks like a black hole(blown shadow.
Blown shadow in the corner of the right eye.
Blown shadow in the corner of the left eye.
Blown shadow below the right ear.
Blown shadow below the shirt colar.
Blown shadow in the hair.
Shadows in facial lines are near blown. Though not technically blown, the values are so low that there is no detail there to pull out.

This looks like an image that was terribly under exposed and pulled out in post.

Maybe we can determine where you went wrong if you'll share some details about the shot.

I hope you'll not be offended because I'm only trying to help you. If you do not care for my help, just say so and I'll back off.

Good luck,
Rodney

[aladyforty]

unfortunately very bright sunlight was when I shot it, the sun was directly overhead so I thought shadows would not be a problem, obviously my biggest mistake:roll:. . I wanted to shoot in AV mode so that I could fast shoot and the flash slows me down, this is not aposed shot. The white background was nearly all natural so the rest I cloned in in photoshop. This was just a try at getting something out of what I had. I find the flash built into the digital rebel YUK so try not to use it, perhaps when I get a flash I can bounce flash off or mount different to where this flash is situated I can do better. When not using the flash I find overcast days the best, no shadows:-)