run

I hate looking at other people's family shots. I don't know thepeople, so why should I care? [End of intentionally insensitiveintroduction]

 

But I like my family and because I spend a lot of time with them andmy wife wants something in return for all the money I spend onphotography, I end up taking a lot of pictures of my kids.

 

However I try to make it not too boring to look at for other peopleand one way I am trying is not to show the face. The idea behind thisis, that when you see the face the picture is more about theindividual person, when you don't see the face, it is more aboutkids/family in general.

 

What do you think about this approach? Does it work in this pictureand http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=229356">thisfolder?

This is really cute; he looks determined, somehow. And I think the fact that the kid isn't looking at the camera helps to give it a more universal appeal.

 

I like how the sandy path leads into the photo, but then my eye gets to the plain sky, and it's a bit of a disappointment. Maybe crop off half of the sky so that your eye bounces back down to the boy?

Yeah, the sky bothers me to, but on an overcast day with XP-2 that's what you end up with. Do you think the cropped version is better?

Very disturbing approach to family portraits because photography, from the beginning, is about faces, is about to record the expression of human beings for the longing to live forever. Not showing the face could make for general humankind but it is also mysterious. Anyway, a very original approach. About the photo, it is very casual, it remind me a Norman Rockwell drawing but there is too much sky to my taste. I prefer "twist", for me the best of your folder.

Great expressive movement! But rather than running up the hill, he seems to be marching determinedly. The composition is very nice, like Laura mentioned. But I am not sure whether I like the original or the crop better. The original seems a bit more balanced, although the sky is uninspiring.

 

About your question on faces. I can see where you're coming from, but have to agree with Oscar. The face makes (most of) identity. And so it can add or substract from an image. The impact will vary. For instance, your wonderful "Twist" doesn't need any extra expression, since the movements suffice to bring across the intended emotion. But, say, a laughing child seen from the back had better make some easily interpretable gestures. Some faces can become symbols, like McCurry's Afghan girl, Newman's Stieglitz :) or any network anchor, sports hero or supermodel. So, what I think, is that it depends on the circumstances, the artist's intention and of course the face itself, whether we can relate to it or not. And it could be, but doesn't need to be the face, ruining your friend's photos.

The croppped version is definitely an improvement; with the original, the running doesn't jump out as being a big feature of the picture. With the cropped version, the boy is running, and it changes my whole perception of the event.

 

Cute shot. This is well composed and thought out I believe. But the sky must go.

Cute pic. I like the way the running and path lead the eye into the picture, though I agree with the others that the sky is somewhat bland and that cropping would help the composition.

Otherwise, zooming out slightly to bring in more of the path, and a slightly higher shooting position to lose the bush from around his head are about the only other points worth mentioning.

OK, updated the picture with the cropped version, in addition I emphasized the ocean by burning.

 

Interesting, that Jeroen thought that the kid was running uphill (he was running as fast as he could not marching, look at the blurred right heel), the path was actually almost level, maybe a little bit downwards towards the cliff.

 

Does the visible horizon change your perception whether the path is up- or downhill?

Does the visible horizon change your perception whether the path is up- or downhill?

 

Now that made a difference! Before, I just saw greyish tones and thought it was all sky. And, what do you know, suddenly there's an ocean. Very unexpected!

a friend of mine, a mother of four, likes to take what she calls "back photos" not only of her family but of complete strangers as well. They seem to work surprisingly well. I wont delve into the psychological depths of why but I have started taking a few myself. regards, Bill Gibson

William,

 

can your friends photos be seen somewhere, I'd like to see how other people usethis approach.

Your "back" approach works, in my opinion, to create a scene rather than portrait. It is a well done exercise in that genre. I'm still not sure about the top of the picture. Would like to see the one you took from the top of your handy available stepladder which from the higher viewpoint eliminated the horizon :-) Cheers

Cute shot. I get a nice feeling that the boy is running off to the next great adventure. Back shots work for me if not overused. I try to include one in every wedding I do. I do have a difficult time making out the ocean. Is this the trail above Torrey Pines State beach?

Is this the trail above Torrey Pines State beach?

Yep!

sorry, no way to do that, she doesn't do the internet thang much.

 

She did show me some attempts in Ireland on a country road of an older gentleman walking along with his dog. Every time she tried to get a shot, he kept turning around, wondering why this woman was stopped with her car and kids in the middle of nowhere with her camera out, since obviously there was nothing to photograph.

regards

Bill

Good focus, DOF, and composition.

Very nice! He (she?) is framed perfectly.

This made me smile! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's all this about faces. There are some incredible images without faces - "passage to paradise" comes to mind. In my mind, I instantly see my own kids running when they were young. If the face were showing I couldn't make that inference.

 

I think the cropping helps. I'd also increase the contrast but that's just me. Nice shot.