Family Portraits

[photoguy99]

(Since I was so kindly invited..)

Yes, the black background is doubly problematic.

Without hair lighting it messes up the figure/ground separation with the dark-haired people (but you have the same problem with lighter backgrounds and lighter hair, so the blackness specifically isn't the general problem here).

Secondarily, blackness creates a sense of drama which feels not quite appropriate to the happy family? But if that's what you sold, that's what you should deliver!

On a separate note, many of them feel a little high in the frame. Especially the first one. The triangular structure of the faces feels like it's floating up high in the frame, and it ought to feel more rooted. I think a hair off a bottom, a little extra on the top (which you can just paste on if it's not there in the frame -- black background FTW) and it might feel more pleasing.

In a couple of the others you have strong diagonal lines, you might consider slight re-crops to make the diagonals lend more exactly on a corner, you might find the pictures get a little stronger.

 

[pixmedic]

I shot these very wide. i have lots of room to recrop and add more to the tops.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think they look good. I do think that 3, 6-8 are a little bit cold in temperature, but not enough that it's really jarring. I think it's just with all the photos in one place that you notice small variations in the images.

 

[pixmedic]

I think they look good. I do think that 3, 6-8 are a little bit cold in temperature, but not enough that it's really jarring. I think it's just with all the photos in one place that you notice small variations in the images.

I struggled with exactly where i wanted the WB on these.
im not even sure where they are NOW is "exactly" where I want them...
some of them I liked a little differently than others, but i wanted to keep the set more or less the same, at least to the effect of the skin tones reasonably matching when viewed together.

I mean, on the one hand, dad was absolutely thrilled with these, and it was one of the largest print orders I have ever sold that wasn't a wedding.
on the other hand, I don't want to use "the clients loved them" as an excuse for not looking at ways for me to improve.

 

[pgriz]

Well, since the business side got taken care of, now you have some leeway to play "what if". Nice shots. Jazzie's right, the girl does seem to look a little more "in" in the last image.

I do agree with other comments that a smidgin of hair light would have made the images more three-dimensional.

 

[photoguy99]

I'm gonna go all in here, and beat a favorite drum of mine.

In all but one of these photos, the people in the picture have on their School Pictures face. They're hyper-aware of the camera, the camera is all they're thinking of. This is the case with pretty much all the portraits we see on TPF, and it is without a doubt a Thing. In some cases, this is what people actually want. They want an image in which they have thoughtfully composed their features in to what they imagine is their "best" look.

It's not what Great Portraits look like, though.

I'm going to suggest that you try a little light direction. In these I might have suggested that the family think about, just to pull something out of the air, the Best Day Together from the last year. Tell them to concentrate, and each remember that day, and then focus on it. Start shooting. You'll get a few frames while they're sifting memories, a few frames where they're reminiscing, maybe a few frames as they return to the moment.

The greats, Karsh and Snowdon, would work a subject over time. They might spend an hour looking for that moment, that instant when something special, something internal and open, appears on the face. Karsh, though, could and did sometimes work fast, sparking that moment with a push, a word, an action, at just the right moment and then POW grab it.

Flip through these things: A Portfolio of Portraits by Kirk Tuck in Austin Texas. and compare with your own work, and with much of the work we see on TPF. Forget the sharpness and tonality and lighting and the poses and the framing and the everything. Just look at the faces. There's a certain amount of School Pictures Face going on, but not very often. Usually Kirk digs out something a little more personal.

 

[pixmedic]

I'm gonna go all in here, and beat a favorite drum of mine.

In all but one of these photos, the people in the picture have on their School Pictures face. They're hyper-aware of the camera, the camera is all they're thinking of. This is the case with pretty much all the portraits we see on TPF, and it is without a doubt a Thing. In some cases, this is what people actually want. They want an image in which they have thoughtfully composed their features in to what they imagine is their "best" look.

It's not what Great Portraits look like, though.

I'm going to suggest that you try a little light direction. In these I might have suggested that the family think about, just to pull something out of the air, the Best Day Together from the last year. Tell them to concentrate, and each remember that day, and then focus on it. Start shooting. You'll get a few frames while they're sifting memories, a few frames where they're reminiscing, maybe a few frames as they return to the moment.

The greats, Karsh and Snowdon, would work a subject over time. They might spend an hour looking for that moment, that instant when something special, something internal and open, appears on the face. Karsh, though, could and did sometimes work fast, sparking that moment with a push, a word, an action, at just the right moment and then POW grab it.

Flip through these things: A Portfolio of Portraits by Kirk Tuck in Austin Texas. and compare with your own work, and with much of the work we see on TPF. Forget the sharpness and tonality and lighting and the poses and the framing and the everything. Just look at the faces. There's a certain amount of School Pictures Face going on, but not very often. Usually Kirk digs out something a little more personal.

You didn't look at the flickr page did you?
Lots of less formal shots there.
Formal shots is what dad wanted tho.

 

[photoguy99]

Well, I have NOW! But it's not quite a Formal versus Informal thing. It's closer to a Camera Conscious versus Not Camera Conscious.

Put it this way. We're awfully good at looking at faces and guessing, generally, what the person is thinking. Our brain has an incredible amount of machinery to do Exactly That. So when you look at a portrait - if you can set aside the issues of posing, and lighting, and focus, and so on, which is going to require a conscious effort for a photographer to do - you can get into the mind of subject a little.

Ask yourself, "what is she thinking?" and if the answer is "she's thinking about the camera" then you and I are on the same page. Now go look at Kirk Tuck's pictures (or at Karsh or Snowdon or whoever) and ask the same question. I think you'll find the answer to be something else, at least some of the time.

Sometimes these pictures are quite formal. The famous Karsh portrait of Churchill is extremely formal, and Churchill happens to be thinking "that SOB just took my cigar" which is why it's so successful.