What is wrong with this portrait?

[nathangardner]

<p>cool effect, but he's in his walker with regular clothes on and it looks like one of those photos you just picked the camera up off the table and snapped, with the exception of the lighting. Next time the lighting presents itself this way, maybe get a white or black sheet and lay him down on it, maybe naked, to make the photo more formal looking. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>There's nothing wrong with the photo as long as you were going for a Rembrandt style of lighting. If you want a different look, try a different lighting configuration.</p>

<p>Stop worrying about what other people think.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Folks told Leonardo that Mona had a creepy smile. Forget what the peanut gallery says. It is a wonderful shot.And it is even better if you like it!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Two of my absolute favorites are Victor Skrebneski and Antonin Kratochvil, check out the websites if your not familiar with them. Talk about breaking rules and a flair for the dramatic, I love it. </p>

[martin allum]

<p>Michael<br>

i like it because its different from the norm, i think that you have set out to create an image in your mind and done just that. Well done.</p>

<p>we as photographers/Creative people always look for confirmation from others, well you have it from me! </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Oops, should have been (you're), talk about breaking rules...</p>

[htarragon]

<p>I like the photo. It's not the stereotyped cute baby shot on a bear rug (usually bare)with a smiling child. This shot gives the subject a personality. To me it's much more interesting than the usual studio or home shot. There's an adultness about it. Of course, if you wanted a different stereotype, you would have your subject holding a cigar in his fist (and if he could, say "We will fight them on the beaches...").<br>

A well done portrait.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>In ACR 4.6 just desaturated, added Clarity, sharpening and a tweaked curve to bring out dark side of the face and add brightness while maintaining modeling in the bright side. Now I think it looks a bit more like film noire.</p><div></div>

[mtmixon]

<p>I've been away for a couple days and was pleasantly surprised by the number of responses to this thread. Lots of great feedback.</p>

<p>It looks like more people like the photo than don't like it, and generally for the same reasons as I do (e.g. it's an atypical baby shot). That's good, as it suggests I conveyed what I wanted to convey.</p>

<p>Regarding the advice and suggestions for improvement, much of it I agree with. I unfortunately couldn't do anything about some of the criticisms - this wasn't a posed photo, but rather me grabbing my camera in response to some great light while my son was in his exer-saucer. Had I stopped to change his clothes, background etc., the photo may have been lost. Light and babies don't stay in one mood for long. :-)</p>

<p>I have created a second version (<a href="../photo/12231051">http://www.photo.net/photo/12231051</a>) that incorporates much of the other feedback, and I believe I like the second version better. In particular:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>I agree that a straight black and white treatment works better than the split tone. There might be a split tone that works for this image, but the one I chose wasn't the best.</li>

<li>I cropped the photo, mostly per Jonathan Green's suggestion. I went back and forth on this one, as it is a rather severe crop, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense to eliminate most of his right arm, as it simply led the eye out of the frame (which, I suspect, is why many people didn't like that part of the photo).</li>

<li>I addressed the highlights on the right side of his head. Actually, the histogram never showed any clipping there, but given the darkness elsewhere in the photo, the lighter areas are accentuated, with those on the right side of his forehead being most noticeable. A little recovery and selective exposure adjustment has addressed that.</li>

<li>I cloned out the eyelash shadow on his nose.</li>

<li>I lessened the blacks on the left side of his face so that the outline of his left eye is a bit more visible while still keeping that side of his face darker than the other. There is also a little catch-light that I put back in (I had cloned it out the first time).</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks again for all of the feedback, and thanks in particular to Tom Mann and Tim Lookingbill for providing some alternate treatments. This has been a good learning experience.</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Michael, don't crop it!</p>

<p>Don't you see you already have the classic golden mean ratio composition working for you?</p>

<p>On a high contrast shot like this the viewer goes right for the eye of the brightest part of the baby. If anything the right arm points like an arrow to the baby's face. It acts as a lead in similar to the horizon line in this Bob Peak illustration:</p>

<p>http://bobpeak.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/14_A-114_TWAfamVaca_700x854wb.jpg</p>

<p>Note that the vertical golden mean division formed by the horizon and airliner in that illustration.</p>

<p>If we were to see the hand of that arm then it would act as pointing in the opposite direction, but since the hand is hidden it's a non-directional element that supports the design of the composition.</p>

<p>Can you tell I went to art school. Bob Peak was my hero.</p>

<p> </p>

[mtmixon]

<p>Tim - never heard of the golden mean ratio, but it makes a lot of sense. I suppose you're right regarding what dominates the eye's attention...even though lines leading out of the frame do grab the eye, bright spots (especially bright spots comprised of a human face) would still trump. I do see artistic merit in both versions...part of what makes this fun. :-)</p><div></div>

[indraneel]

<p>I like this latest version a whole lot! No sinister appearance so it's not obvious as to what he's thinking. Adds to the suspense...</p>

[f_ph1]

<p>I like the first version. Looks like a baby Dr. Evil.<br>

Beeehave...</p>