Help

[unohuu]

I don't usually shoot people. I like the idea but something is

missing. I posted this in the critique gallery and got lots of low

ratings. What I am looking for is information. What makes a people

photo interesting? Thanks for your help. All sincerity appreciated.<div></div>

[ozone42]

Well, I think this is an interesting shot. Not anything phenomenal or profound, but well composed. It's cute, it's not your every day person shot. I like the juxtaposition of ages. Technically it could be sharper.

 

Honestly, if someone rates you low and leaves no comments then you can't really give it much weight. An opinion is generally worthless if it has no explanation or justification. I don't know what the general practice is, it seems the major behavior is a sort of "hot or not" style quick rating of I like this one, I dont' like this one. I find it ironic that several of my old candids that were often out of focus, noisy, and low res got much higher ratings than anything I've put up recently from my 20D with superior sharpness, composition, colour, etc.

 

It's kind of hit and miss. About one of 50 ratings I've received in the past have been helpful. I personally would rather get low ratings and suggestions or comments than I would high ratings without any.

[melresnick]

I would start to look for the potential this picture has by getting rid of the background and leaving just the two people.

 

The grandmother's (?) eyes seem angled a bit too far behind her.

[kbreak]

gee I wonder what they're looking at

[unohuu]

I am not annoyed that the ratings are low. I understand that these are not quality images, but if one asks for help and gets only criticism there is little room for growth. The information shared just here today is already infinitely more helpful than the useless ratings. Tell me more about what makes a portrait interesting! The background I knew would be an issue, but it was there in this grab shot. I really do not like the digicam since the choices for exposure are small compared to the RF I just bought. Hopefully I will have better luck with that.

[kbreak]

Portraits reveal an aspect of the person photographed.

 

What does this picture reveal about the subjects?

[unohuu]

a connection; both biologically and metaphysically in that moment when their eyes are both gazing away.

[sabrina_h.]

I'm not crazy about this photograph and I'll tell you why...

 

The lighting is flat. It looks like full frontal flash. With an off camera flash, you can move

the lighting to more of a 45* angle to create a more dynamice effect (3 dimentional) or use

higher shutter speeds and elimate the flash altogether.

 

Also, there's not really a gradual seperation of midtones. It looks like a color image

converted to b&w. The darker tones are a bit muddy.

 

Your framing is off and tilted to the right. The white wall next to grandma's shoulder

creates and unbalanced image in my opinion.

 

Both your subjects are looking to the left with no empty space in the direction their

turned. I do believe there is a rule to this. But the image looks "cut off" and unfinished.

 

You've placed your subjects dead center which creates a less interesting image than if

they'd been placed off-centered. Think, "rule of thirds" ... creates a more dynamic feel.

 

Even though the tonality isn't very smooth across your image, it lacks contrast. There is

no "real" b&w in there. It's mostly grey (or it appears to be).

 

The background is busy and distracting with the white area on the wall. It adds nothing to

your frame. Never neglect the background of your image. It pulls it all together. Think

micro-composition.

 

I also think your subjects are too close taking up too much of the frame. You have very

interesting subjects and want to explore this story a little further. Some images work up

close, this one (imo) doesn't work.

 

I'm still learning myself and would like to outdo what I did the last time. You will not grow

if people lie to you about your images. Especially if you lie to yourself...

 

keep at it. Dont be afraid to pick up a few books or take a photography class or two.

[unohuu]

Sabrina, that is exactly the kind of constructive critcism I have been looking for. I already dumped the little digicam. I have gone back to my SLRs and now have a MF camera that I hope to use more often. This image was a grab shot and I thank you as I have just started reading - The Tao of Photography, and some other books I selected from the library. Thanks.

[steve_levine]

What Sabrina said! The light from your "on camera" flash is the pits.

[steve_levine]

Here is an example of a B&W portrait with an off camera main light.<div></div>

[unohuu]

Thank you too Steve.

[sabrina_h.]

I've learned a lot from reading books about photography (anything I get my hands on). I

have 7 photography books sitting in front of me that I haven't read yet; at least not all of

them, I've been reading now for 2 days.

 

I started taking a photography course about 8 months ago (to current) and my

photography has improved by 50%. I've learned many technical things that can improve an

image dramatically.

 

The things that I mentioned in the previous post are simply basic rules. I'm not a "abide

by the rules" kinda girl, but they're there for a reason; to create balance and harmony in a

photograph. When you're more familiar with the basic rules, then you can break them :D

[sabrina_h.]

oh, forgot to mention,

 

The hubby and I have exhausted the library's supply of photography books (we've read

them all). We get used books from amazon.com and ebay. We've got some great books.

[unohuu]

I am also looking for a reasonable course to challenge myself. To force me into those rules that I can later choose to break. I am thinking of a simple portrait course first. Thanks all for your insight and assistance.

[J.W. Wall]

Our local community college has good photo courses at much less cost than commercial ones. Their library has many helpful and interesting photo books. You might check out your local c.c.

[ralph_wilson]

<p>I think Sabrina gave you an excellent critique on the composition and

technique. All I would add is in answer to your question of what makes people

pictures interesting.</p>

<p>My answer would be interaction between the subjects. Your shot makes the

viewer wonder what they are looking at, but that alone doesn't make it

interesting. If the shot had the two subjects making eye contact with each other

or some sort of connection between them I would want to look at it longer. </p>

<p>I am a photojournalist so I wouldn't orchestrate a moment, I would have

walked away thinking "Rats, I thought I would get a shot out of that."</p>

[StuartMoxham]

If you don't want to use flash try window light it looks great and it free. <br>

<br><img src ="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2449081-md.jpg"><br> window light

[unohuu]

Ralph, you indicated you would possibly have walked away and missed a shot. I can't recall what they were looking at. Would it have helped if that had been in the image for some context?

[ralph_wilson]

<p>Lucius -</p>

<p>That's hard to say. If it was an inanimate object perhaps not. If it were

another person, maybe. If you try to include that other element in your image,

all sorts of other things come into play. If the subject of their attention is

ten feet away, you need to change your camera angle so you don't have a huge

dead space in the center of your photograph. Change your angle and now you have

depth of field to worry about and on and on. </p>

<p>Like all my other posts, I'm just offering opinions not hard fast rules.

These are just things I am thinking about when I'm shooting.</p>

<p>People photography is like nature or sports photography. you need to know

your subject. I spend a lot of time watching people (I'm not weird about it or

anything) and people are fairly predictable. If you watch a scene progress you

can <i>sometimes</i> predict the actions and reactions that are coming. You can

get a knack for having your camera pointed the right direction.</p>

<p>That's probably more answer than you were looking for. I'll shut up.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Ralph</p>

<p>PS: I'm attaching a photo that I think needs to include the focus of their

attention. The expressions alone wouldn't tell a story.</p><div></div>

[ralph_wilson]

opps!<div></div>

[jennybrown]

Hands add a lot of emotion to a human interaction picture. We don't know very much about the relationship between grandma and baby because we can't see their hands. Their heads are shoved together, in a not very pleasing way, but it doesn't express their relationship to each other. Seeing grandma's hands/lap would help, and it also helps express baby's emotions better. For the power of hands, look at the kids stirring dough; each child's hands tell us a lot about what they're feeling or thinking.

 

The aesthetics of your shot don't work because:

* You're so close that the emotional relationship is out of the frame

* The heads are in an awkward position, which you could have quickly adjusted for by leaning a little to one side.

* The lighting is very flat and unflattering; try bouncing flash off of the ceiling instead. It will make grandma look less bug-eyed too.

* The cropping is so tight that it interrupts the viewer's thought of "what are they looking at?"

 

Bouncing light off the ceiling will make the background look more natural and less intrusive. It will also help facial expressions. Then you just need to practice framing and positioning, and give yourself a bit of room for movement. Leave enough space to fiddle with the cropping a little bit afterward - and you may find that you won't need to, because it'll already be good.

 

It takes practice to see the background and adjust for it in a split second. But it can be done, and will be a skill you use heavily.