People not looking at the camera

[elle_m]

<p>I recently shot a wedding where, due to circumstance beyond my control, I had to do some group photos in less than ideal circumstances.</p>

<p>In spite of my best efforts, there is not one photo where everyone in the group is looking at me. I had about 3 minutes to get these photos, and everyone was distracted. I called out to them, did count downs, etc. etc. and still -- not a one. They were subtle enough that I couldn't tell in-camera -- only until the images were bigger.</p>

<p>Now, these photos are about 1/8 of the coverage of the wedding (my focus is on reportage/editorial photography and my clients know this), but I ultimately feel like they will take issue with this. They are nice enough photos, considering the circumstances - sharp, in focus, pretty.</p>

<p>I do have a clause in my contract about scheduled photo session times and my liability in relation to what can and cannot be done if people miss said sessions (which is the case here), but I still feel badly.</p>

<p>Any advice?</p>

[theresa_skutt]

1) Don't tell them! Switch heads in Photoshop. Practice and fix it; they will never know :)

[ianivey]

Elle, do you know how to use layers in Photoshop to combine two similar shots in order to get everyone's eyes on the

camera?

[danielransom]

<p>I so sympathize. Particularly in the formals. Spaced out Brides and Grooms ("I can't believe I just got married.") Older people and kids with short attention spans. Many other groups with varying levels of attention, differing personal involvement in the wedding, etc.<br>

I find it is best to first get out physically in front of the camera (on tripod) and make a short announcement along the lines of "I am the official photographer and am doing something important". Then, with EACH photo, again get physically in front of the subject(s) and make polite "adjustments" in posture or angle or whatever for those who seem to be losing attention, all the time pointing back at the cam and reminding the group to look into the lens. And when I actually shoot, I perform the venerable "1-2-3-" procedure.<br>

We all have to understand our wedding subjects. They probably are not real photographers, they just went though one of the craziest events of their lives, and they most likely just want to sit down and eat. It is our responsibility to gently herd them to a positive photographic outcome.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Shooting weddings is about 50% photography and 50% people skills.......the photography is generally the easy part. Your demeanor and decorum is what will get these shots and present the message that you are the professional. Blaming your clients is poor form. Instead of looking through the viewfinder and "chimping your shots", look over your camera at your subjects or shoot with both eyes open to ascertain eye contact.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Or don't worry about it. :-)</p>

<p>Very few of my group shots have people all looking to camera. I prefer (even strive) to get shots where people are looking in any direction but mine. Looks much more natural.</p>

 

[mark liddell]

Photoshop heads from one frame to another, no one will ever know (or care probably). In larger groups the odds of everyone looking at the camera at the same time get worse and worse, people also get tired of group shots quickly so shooting until you get one where everyone is looking at the camera can just take too long.

[ejder]

<p>I shoot multiple frames of any formal photo in the likely event that I will have to take some blinking (or otherwise incorrectly positioned) eyes and replace them with open ones in photoshop. It's just part of the process to me.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Not many years ago wedding shooters could get this shot on film without the benefit of Photoshop. School portrait shooters could take several hundred portraits in a day and get less than 2-3% with eye blinks and rarely took more than one shot per kid to start with.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Yes, David, that's true, but we have a different set of expectations now I think. People now know you have a digital camera and expect faster results. </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Theresa, my point was that with film it was possible to get the results without resorting to Photoshop and that good shooting could produce the results. The people skills and shooting skills are still the same using film or digital.</p>

[greg_c.]

<p>Maybe its less complicated than that. Look at Civil War tintypes. An honest staring pose every time, if a bit stiff, but what else to expect for that rare and important modern photographic portrait. Jump a hundred years to our great yearly school kid portraits. Not so stiff but just as honest. Fifty years later and we don't need to be stiff anymore. Don't even always want to look at the omnipresent cameras constantly snapping away. That's why maybe the best portraits in our modern times are the ones when the subjects are no longer camera aware. Hooray for modern times! Like Neil opined, maybe don't worry about people staring at the lens or catching them off guard, just make good easy honest pictures without so many complications. </p>

[danielransom]

<p>Realized I answered as to future actions to prevent this problem from happening again and not to the present problem. If you know anything about Photoshop, this next advice will be obvious. You can try this. Sometimes it works. Try moving the pupils to be looking into the camera lens. Blow up pic to at least 100%. Use the eyedropper tool to sample the white part of the eye, then use the lasso or healing brush or some other tool to cover the still present pupil in the other eye with the sampled color. Downsize the image a bit until you can see both eyes and select the pupil with lasso. Drag it over to the vacant eye, and place appropriately. Really pretty boring work, but can make a difference. Helps if you make all the pupils as dark as possible. You can do this in layers or not; I didn't want to get too complicated.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Greg C, There's no reason that a camera-aware subject needs to be static, stiff, or boring. Documentary coverage, conventional candids and good portraiture can co-exist.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I agree with Neil. At first I thought getting everyone's eye contact and a "good" expression was mandatory in group shots but then I realized the people loved the less formal and less perfect shots - the imperfections make them more alive and real. So I no longer make an effort to get that "perfect" shot; instead I go for something that is enjoyable to look at and feels real.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Not sure what kind of advice you are looking for. You already have a clause in your contract about client cooperation. You obviously tried to take control of the situation using count downs, etc. I would not feel badly, if you did all you could.</p>

<p>If the groups aren't too numerous, I would swap eyes, move eyeballs, etc. as suggested above by some, or at least offer to do that on select ones or ones that go into the album, if the client complains.</p>