stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Hello, These 3 picture where taken by me when our children where 3 months old. It makes for a nice black and white series hanging on our wall. The first 2 where taken with the Nikon f100 with fuji provia using a 80-200 2.8 afs lens with -2 fill flash. The last picture was taken with a Leica M7 90mm Summicron with fill flash at -1 2/3 on FP4+. We really like all the pictures, but we prefer the Leica shot. The first 2 shots where converted to Monochrome is Photoshop using a special B&W conversion program with filters applied. Comments appreciated. Thanks Steve Persky<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 2nd shot<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 3rd Shot<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Btw, all of these images where scanned with the Nikon Coolscan V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 honestly, what can one say? theyre your standard kid pix.... <br> <br> and, i dont see a difference in the make of the cameras, which is a non issue anyway..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 grant u must b blind if u cant tell the last 1 is a Leica shot bow down and grovel at the king of bokeh u knave u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 riiight, this coming from someone who doesnt even own a camera.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 These pictures are enlarged to 11x14 and when hanging on the wall the last shot seems to have more graphic appeal which is hard to describe. Although it took alot of tweeking, I got the other shots to look pretty good when hanging together. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 the last is the worst one if anything. the first is the best, if anything..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Did you have triplets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 >grant . , jun 27, 2004; 05:50 p.m. >riiight, this coming from someone who doesnt even own a camera.... How DARE you insult the Jayhole! Our dearly beloved has NUMEROUS cameras with the red dot--just open up his safe, take out the boxes, and take a look. Why else do you think the guys down at his "pro shop' let him hang out there, instead of swatting away the gnat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 ahhhhhhh.....i'll take ur word for it, seeing that he has almost 9000 posts, not one being a photograph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 I also like the last shot the most, but not because it's a "Leica" shot. In the first two, there are two problems common to both of them: <p>1) There are the distracting highlights of the window blinds in the background. <br>2) The flash wasn't fill, it was the main light, and flash coming from the camera isn't the most flattering. <p>In the last one, I'm not even sure you used flash - the origin of the main light appears to be from a window behind the shooter's right shoulder. I can't even detect any hotness from the flash on the armrest of the sofa, which you should be able to see if your flash had been used on-camera. So, either you were extremely skilled at using fill-flash in the last one, or used Photoshop to tone down the armrest, or you remembered your settings wrong. Looks like a natural light portrait to me, nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 The first and 3rd are very nice baby shots. Your little one pops out quite nicely from the background. Can't tell any differnce bout the camera or lens really. But I think the fill flash worked well. I think they fit the bill well. I suppose its not in the grand tradition of "Leica" photography but who gives a sh*t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__hank_boneroneo1 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 <<Did you have triplets?>> Wouldn't they be ... kinda like ... all in the same shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 You have three cute shots of three adorable children. You're not going to get much sympathy here from some of these strange people because you had the nerve to admit the dread Nikon desease before you got your M7 with the 90 'cron. Worse still (hang your head in shame)you converted the pix from color. Congratulations on getting a Leica rangefinder and discovering traditional B&W film! I'm looking forward to seeing more of your work. What do the boys look like now? More pix please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_tolley2 Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 I think 1st shot is the best also. It has the most pleasing light and composition of the 3. And the expression in the infant's face is more intelligent and engaging. It is a very nice photo and I would be proud of it. The last looks like too much flash and it's overexposed (my opinion only). And the sleepy look in his eyes is not as wonderful as the awake and engaged look in the 1st baby's eyes. The 2nd has less pleasing light and the baby is not captured with as interesting an expression. Because of the lighting, there is a dark feeling about it which does not work for babies. (for me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Stephen, I have to confess one thing before I say anything else. I hate baby pictures. This neither rational nor fair. But it is the truth. Having said that, I'll say this: As baby pictures go these are good baby pictures. They are cute and yet they preserve the dignity of the babies. A lot of parents think that babies are at their cutest when they are drooling. I am glad you are not one of those parents. I agree that the last one is the best. There is a pensivness in the face that demands a second look. The first is good but could use a slight cropping, bottom and right. Regarding the second: framing is spot on but a thin black border would have been a good idea for the white background here. Could you say a little more about how you converted the first two shots to monochrome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Al Feng, Thank you for your contructive critic. You are dead correct about the 3rd shot. It was mainly bright window illumination behind my back shining right on the baby. I did have the flash on the camera, but it is possible I had it turned off for that series. I was doing alot of experimentation with and without flash (So much for the experiment if I cannot remeber what I used). In addition, the first 2 shots did not have a large amount of environment illumination so your observation about the flash being than more fill seems to be correct. Btw, these are not triplets. These children are all about 1 year appart. We decided to make a series after we liked that first shot about 3 years ago. So from now on every baby we have will get posed on the couch at age 3 months for the series:) Regards, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Alex, I converted the files using a special fp4+ filter from silveroxide.com. I ordered the 16-bit fp4+ filter after reading about it in shutterbug I think. It lets you adjust a few parameter and add filters. It was kinda expensive, and I think there may be better conversion programs out there at the moment, but I have not explored them yet. Fred Miranda's web sit has some useful reviews of black and white conversion utilities. As for posting baby pictures, I can see how people would hate most baby pictures because the people who took them are blinded by the love of the subject. They cannot even see how bad a picture might be. I did think that this series has merit because the babies look similar at 3 months of age, and it shows how my photography has gotten better/worse over 3 years. Now that I have all this extra knowledge from this forum, maybe I should convice my wife to have another so I can get some even better 3 month old baby shots. Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Baby pix is just portraits of little humans, nothing to be repulsed by. Stephen, they are all good solid portraits. The second one has an old fashioned look about it, and would probably look good in subtle sepia tones. Maybe, lighten the skin tones a little but otherwise its great. That?s three more Cuban cigars you owe me, ta. Nice stuff thanks for posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Stephen, as I am aware that you don't mind others offering "improvements"? to your images in circumstances such as this. I humbly present this serving suggestion.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_persky Posted June 27, 2004 Author Share Posted June 27, 2004 Craig, Nice job. That was an improvement. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 Steve, I agree with Al Feng about the lighting, though I wouldn't be able to analyze it as thoroughly as he has. I'm not a fan of on-camera main flash, and from that perspective I like the 3rd photo best. The bright light from the window in the BG of the first photo is distracting to me. They're adorable kids, be sure to take the time to enjoy them at every stage of childhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted June 27, 2004 Share Posted June 27, 2004 This is an easy one. *All* pictures of kids and babies taken with a single, on camera flash *suck*, look like snapshots, deserve our ire, and have the creativity of an empty beer can. Shots one and two for that matter could have been taken with a disposable camera and Max 400 film for all we know. Even though kiddi pics can be cliche', those that are done well with available light, such as #3, are shots that are most likely to be cherished. This is what you should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now