What is wrong with this portrait?

[mtmixon]

<p>I recognize that the Critique forum is the appropriate venue for critique requests, but as I've not gotten any there, I thought I'd come here. :-)<br>

This photo (<a href="../photo/12173630">http://www.photo.net/photo/12173630</a>) was taken last week. There was some great, strong light coming through our kitchen window, and I wanted to experiment with creating a more dramatic portrait than I generally pursue, and so I exposed for the highlights on my son's face and cast the rest of him into darkness. I then did a bit of work in Lightroom to balance the lights and darks a bit more and apply a subtle split tone. I personally like the photo, but it has received an average rating below 4 (meaning a below average photo), and so I was wondering what I could have done differently to make this a better portrait. <br>

It's possible that those rating it low just don't like "dark" photos of babies, but I suspect there are ways I could have improved this photo (either at capture or in post) and I'd be interested to know what those might be.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

-Mike</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>First of all, don't pay too much attention to ratings: you have no idea how experienced or not the people doing the ratings might be. Comments are more important, if you can get some comments. Personally, on this shot I think you did fine with the lighting as an experiment with window light. Maybe its the fact his hand is covering his mouth that makes me want to see more of his face. His eye seems to get all the attention. You did cut off his head some too. I'd like to see more of his face with the same lighting, maybe a series? Its great to experiment, so never stop doing that. </p>

[maylon_roberts]

<p>OK. To me it is creepy, unflattering, and not pleasant to look at. At first glance it looks like the nose has a deep furrow across the top, (but it's really the shadow from the eyelashes) and so it makes the baby look evil. The fist over the mouth is also strange. I would steer away from clothing with conspicuous brand names on them; it's distracting and prevents it from appearing timeless.<br>

Getting the hand away from the mouth and the shadow off the brow/nose would improve things quite a bit.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Nothing's wrong with it, I love it. Great light, it's what you saw and it's got tremendous character. It's a totally honest shot, it <em>is </em>what it <em>is</em> you caught the moment. BTW, I love the fist, it makes the whole shot. Keep shooting</p>

[Palouse]

<p>I like it--it goes so well with your caption. As an informal picture of a baby I see absolutely no need to heed the advice for formal shooting--no hand in mouth, show more face, no brand name clothes, etc. He IS a baby for crying out loud--and yours is a great shot of a baby. I like the focus on his right eye staring out fixedly into space! I like the dramatic lighting.<br>

And ignore the ratings!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>And as for the arm leading out of the frame, smart kid, he's trying to wheel himself away from all the crazies with cameras, lol...</p>

[lisae]

<p>I like it because it is interesting. I find as I review 16 years of pictures of my children, my favorites are the ones that show honest emotion, as I think your picture does. And I should look at the critique forum more often because I like your pictures! I think they are real, and therefore, I think they will be very meaningful to you when you look back on them many years from now.</p>

[mtmixon]

<p>Thanks for the feedback, both good and bad. It's very useful to know what people like and dislike, as that helps me know whether or not I might try something different the next time. Ratings are easier to get (and can be a general barometer), but honest comments are always better.<br>

I tend to avoid posed shots (where you can control wardrobe, gesture, etc.) as candid photos are always more interesting (to me). As such, you give up some measure of control over things like wardrobe etc. and rely instead on taking many, many shots and looking through them in post to find the best ones. This is obviously even more the case when shooting babies, as posing them is almost always difficult.<br>

On this photo, I chose to use the one where he had his hand in front of his face as it appears that he is in deep thought (pondering his next meal, perhaps, or as Dave suggested, figuring out how he can escape without any grasp of self-mobility), and I kind of liked the idea of a "serious" baby portrait. I do agree that it would be better if the top of his head wasn't cut off, but babies move and I was using a fixed focal length, so there you go. :-)</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>It's just a matter of taste. I did not like it, but why would I say that to you......that's just <strong>my</strong> taste....my take on it.......Technically? Since I don't like the image, I am not too likely to agree with how it was created...but, again, that's just a taste issue. Regards, Robert</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I rather like this image, primarily because it is a unique baby shot that captures the moment nicely. I'm in the camp that likes the hand over the mouth.</p>

<p>However, the more I look at this image, the more flaws I see. One problem that immediately caught my attention was the almost complete loss of detail in the highlights above his temple and on his ear. Next, at least IMHO, the duo-tone effect is not flattering, especially when there are nearly blown highlights -- I would go with a straight gray conversion instead of the duo-tone, but that's clearly a personal preference. As a previous poster noted, cutting off the top of his head doesn't help matters, and I'm not thrilled with the arm leading out of the picture. Also, I probably would have framed him a bit off center.</p>

<p>To see how it would look with the color and blown areas tweaked, and with a bit of output sharpening, I generated the attached image.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the aspect of the image that made me uneasy, but couldn't articulate until I worked on the image now jumped out at me. Please don't take this wrong: You have a great looking kid, but the low key treatment, the strongly directional lighting and the staring eye reminds me of the effects they used in the grade-D horror flick, "Chucky" (ie, the killer doll). This approach to lighting may be fine for dramatic effect, e.g., a portrait of an executive with features of granite, and it certainly was interesting to try it on a baby, but I now have to agree with some of the previous posters who felt the image was creepy. That being said, it was one of the more interesting images I've seen in a good while.</p>

<p>Best regards. Keep up the interesting shooting.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>To facilitate comparison, here's the original resized (Lanczos) to display in-line in this forum.</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[lachaine]

<p>QUOTE On this photo, I chose to use the one where he had his hand in front of his face as it appears that he is in deep thought UNQUOTE</p>

<p>Ok, that's an interesting pose. So why not just go with the pose rather than emphasize dark, spooky one-sided lighting? In other words, what is it you want, the pose or the lighting? Is it advantageous to have both? Personally, I would say no.</p>

<p>When you step back and really look at the whole, I think the portrait looks a little creepy or odd because the shadowed side of the face is strangely unbalanced by encountering a deeper dark in the middle as you move right, and then a less dark though still featureless outline of the face at the outer edge. It makes it look like there's half a good face and then some kind of dark growth-like blob on the other side. An outline of a deep, empty eye socket can be seen in both. I'm not sure that's very flattering.</p>

<p> </p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>This is not a baby shot. I keep seeing it as a portrait of an 80-year old man.</p>

[kevin_flossner]

<p>For me the image does not suggest thinking. The hand is too high to suggest thinking and I keep having the impression the baby was punching himself under the nose (sorry, but that's the visual impression). </p>

[michael_s10]

<p>I agree with Brian above - doesn't fit the subject - that plus, the arm leading out of the frame makes this not work for me.</p>

 

[stevenseelig]

<p>Just a couple of thoughts.<br>

1. Ratings... well... you have an opportunity now on photo.net to look at the galleries of the people that rated your photo or you should be able to. I recently posted a portrait that also has received poor ratings so I went and looked at the rater galleries. 85% of them were landscape photographers or the closest relevant thing was an insect portrait. Makes me wonder what is in the mind of the raters as I know I am not a qualified rater of landscapes and bugs..<br>

2. The picture. I agree with a couple of comments. The furrow in the forehead and the shadow across the nose are unpleasing.. the tweak above is better. I also don't like the 'absence' of the left eye as it is lost in the shadow and for me generates a stark, angry feeling. I feel that impression is re-enforced by the strong left arm in a fist pose. Somehow this does not fit my sensibilities with the baby concept. Having said all that, minus the logo on the shirt, I could readily see this image in a magazine someplace where a stern, firm, competitive baby image would be important. <br>

Good luck </p>

[jonathan_green2]

<p>I think that your photo is great. It can however, be dramatically improved by some judicious cropping. I would first consider cropping out the entire left side of the photo to your child's ear. I would also consider cropping out everything to the right of his elbow. I believe that the resulting photo would be more dramatic and more in line with your caption. <br>

Finally, I learned this trick from an old photo editor, when I was an intern at a daily newspaper. One way to visualize how one can change the focus of a photograph is to cut two cardboard shapes in the form of the letter "L". If you place one on the top portion of the photo while placing the other on the bottom half, you will create an adjustable window which will allow to to preview how your final photo would look. I have used this technique for over thirty seven years and have found it to be extremely useful.</p>

[parv]

The image is certainly different & more interesting than the numerous brightly lit ones. For that, I thank you. On the whole I don't find it to be creepy or spooky. Then again, my definition & threshold of something being creepy are different than above.

 

The eye lash shadow on the nose is distracting on the lighter side. I would have liked little bit more light on the darker side of the face to see bits of detail (e.g. very low light reflecting in the left eye). Please do continue your experimentation. For extra impact, it would be great to see dilated pupils in similar lighting; perhaps try a self portrait (set up equipment; dim or turn off the lights; wait; fire shutter & light).

 

As for the pose, looks to me as if the child just happened to realize a mistake.

[angsax]

<p>More hands over babies faces please!<br>

I have commented on critique side of things. I agree that this is dramatic.<br>

The highlight on side of head blown out somewhat. Maybe some focussed reduction in exposure over there?<br>

The picture is fine.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>I'd go with TJM's tweak(s) (though his appears a little over-sharpened).</p>

<p>I guess I find the color off-putting because it looks to me a lot like chemistry prints that weren't properly fixed (they turn that sort of color over time).</p>

[indraneel]

<p>The Thinker... thinking dark thoughts...</p>

<p>If that's what you were after, then it's almost fine. Placing the light overhead or from the bottom might give a more sinister appearance. But someone in deep thought, especially a kid other than "chucky", might benefit somewhat from a fill light.. like a newspaper placed to the kid's left.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I like it Michael -- it works for me because it's different (i.e., somewhat original). Nicely done. I saw a baby immediately, not an old man at all.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Edward G Robinson or Sydney Greenstreet as a hard boiled detective in a 1940's film noire movie still.</p>

<p>That is one intense baby.</p>

<p>I sort of like it because I like the way I'm reacting to it more differently than the regular baby shot. I think you may have something interesting going on here.</p>

<p>I would just keep it B&W as in Tom's treatment but brighten the lighter side of the face to around 200 RGB.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I like the "chucky" alien look of the photo. The one thing that would for me make a good photo even better was more in line with what Tom did in his first example. Not so much the desaturation, but toning down the burned out section on the side of the head and maybe even lightening up the eye. This would just move your eye to where you the photo really is, his eye with every thing falling off from there in tonality. You can do all this in PS.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I like it. The little guy looks kinda tough. Maybe a future UFC champ? Forget the ratings. You don't know much about the person rating you. Actually go check out their work and see if it impresses you?</p>