what's wrong with this picture?

[emwalker]

I took this whilst playing darts in the garage on a sunny day, and

this is really close to a look that i have been wanting to capture

with a bunch of expensive strobes and backdrops and stuff. This is

obviously bright sunshine, and the 'models' just happened upon the

right spot. Any feedback from anyone who shoots portraits would be

helpful, thanks.<BR><center><image

src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4352642-lg.jpg"><BR>Roz and

Shane</center>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

It looks as if the light is coming from below - look at the shadows and the catch light in the eyes. You need the light to come in from a higher angle (try to get the catch light at 10:00 or 2:00). And turn their faces a bit towards the light to get some illumination on the shadow-side cheek.

 

Keep trying - you're getting close!

[emre]

This picture is overexposed. I think you like diffuse light; this one seems to be reflected off a wall.

[melresnick]

I think it's a very interesting picture. The direction of the light, as Robert and Emre said, combined with the large whitish area in the upper left make the composition confusing to the viewer's eye. I want to focus on those beautiful expressions, but I keep getting pulled toward the bright nothingness in the background.

 

What do you think of this quick fix as a way of helping keep attention focused on the subjects?

[melresnick]

That went well until I clicked the wrong button.<div></div>

[emwalker]

I see what you mean about the white space, it does dominate the shot. Next tme I'll put the little one on a stool so they're closer to the same plane. The light is sunlight coming in through the open garage door, and they're standing in front of a white wall, so the light is coming from the side and reflected off the floor. I think if it's overexposed it is only barely so, where his cheek is blown out a bit, but that didn't bother me too much as the rest of the detail was there in the faces. Had she been wearing something not white, you'd also be able to see her shoulder... I do like the framing idea, it helps solidify the composition a bit. Thanks for all the input, guys, I'm going to try this again next week if I can.

 

-e-

[steve_levine]

I think it's the child's "pained" expression that I find disturbing? His face looks like he is having a "digital exam". Also it isn't the light that's too low, it's the camera.

[michaelmowery]

The lighting is fine. Yes the lightig is comming from the reflected sun off of the driveway so

it has an upward appearance. The boy is too much in front of the woman and his expression

could be better. You could improve by bringing the faces closer together. As far as the

white area, yes i not for it but it is in balance with the rest of the photograph.

[melresnick]

I agree that the boy and the mother are too far apart, and that contributes to there being too much white space. The camera height seems to be in the center of the frame, above the boy's face and below the mother's. It seems normal to me that the boy should be looking up slightly and the mother down. The low light source is unusual, and although I wouldn't expect it to produce a pleasant result, I think it adds an interesting aspect to the picture.

 

But that expression on the boy's face is priceless! This isn't a formal portrait; it's a kid with a great face mugging for the camera. Move him diagonally closer to Mom in Photoshop, reduce the brightness of the background, and I think there's a family album treasure here.

[emwalker]

I have to go with Mel on this one, the expression is why this one got saved out of three shots in sequence. Roz said "look, he's gonna take our picture," and this was his response- typical Shane! I'm going to try to shift him in PS a bit to tidy up the open space...

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

" Also it isn't the light that's too low, it's the camera."

 

Sorry, but the camera height is a different issue. The light is coming from below - look at the highlight just below the boy's brow. Light from below looks unnatural. I don't think that's what most of us want in portraits.

 

As for the camera height - it's the height of the boy. No problem if you want to empasise his perspective. A bit higher would work, too, but the shot would feel different.

[emwalker]

Aaaaaaaactually the camera was about the height of her head, at a distance of about 12 feet, and this is cropped down... not sure about the perspective, but he was hamming it up. : o)

 

-e-

[v.anisimov]

"...I'm going to try to shift him in PS a bit to tidy up the open space..."

 

I wouldn't. It will not be what you saw and what really happened. This kind of of family photos represents captured moments of life. Why change, it's already happened and you've documented it.

 

I do a lot of family photography for myself and my relatives and I know that artistically they're usually worth little (for strangers). The beauty is in the eye of the people involved. Keep them as they come. Take more if you want to improve. Nobody else can take better pictures of your loved ones than you.

[ndro777]

I myself is a fan of high key shot such as this. The low light doesn't bother me a bit, it rather gives the subject more lively look. The expression of the boy is what detract this from a good picture. I found if you want to have good people portrait, the most important is the people themselves.

[jordan2240]

Personally,

 

I'd be quite happy with this photo, and I imagine the family was thrilled. Assuming the subjects were both standing, the picture depicts the discrepancy in height, which might be an important element to the subjects themselves. As a formal portrait, "Shane's" expression would ruin it, in my opinion, but for what it is, I think it works fine. I'm sure the family recognizes that look, and is happy to have it on film.