C&C pretty please

[kschalo]

Took this today while my son was napping (clearly). I think it's a fantastic shot but he's also my kid so I'm biased. I'd love to hear other opinions. Thanks


IMG_3726e by jkschalo, on Flickr

 

[weepete]

Too short a dof for me, I find it too distracting his face is so blurred when he is obviously the subject of the shot. But that's just me.

 

[kschalo]

Too short a dof for me, I find it too distracting his face is so blurred when he is obviously the subject of the shot. But that's just me.

That was the "look" I was going for. His monkey is very special to him so that was the focus of the shot.

 

[Derrel]

Well...I dunno...I had an infant/toddler son a few years back...I took my share of these kinda' photos...this one's new, and you're probably wearing the Mommy Googles still...you're probably still exhausted from the rigors of life and parenthood...in the future shots like this become even more special, as you move to the tri-focal Mommy Goggles...and your boy grows into a towering young man...the farther in the future we view pictures like this, the more vintage and special they become. Even the "junkers" grow to have meaning, many times.

Keep on clicking. What we think means nothing.

 

[kschalo]

Well...I dunno...I had an infant/toddler son a few years back...I took my share of these kinda' photos...this one's new, and you're probably wearing the Mommy Googles still...you're probably still exhausted from the rigors of life and parenthood...in the future shots like this become even more special, as you move to the tri-focal Mommy Goggles...and your boy grows into a towering young man...the farther in the future we view pictures like this, the more vintage and special they become. Even the "junkers" grow to have meaning, many times.

Keep on clicking. What we think means nothing.

This is my fourth kid...Mommy goggles are long gone
Aside from him being mine, I did think it was a good pic, from a photography point...but maybe not.

 

[Derrel]

I think it's a fantastic shot but he's also my kid so I'm biased.


IMG_3726e by jkschalo, on Flickr

Okay...Mommy Contact Lenses then! ;-)

 

[kschalo]

Okay...Mommy Contact Lenses then! ;-)

Okay so let's pretend I never mentioned that it was my kid. What would your thoughts be on it? I actually am trying to improve my photography, unfortunately with said 4 kids I don't get out much so they get to be my subjects more often than not. Sometimes on this forum I feel like parents are patronized because the pictures they post are of their kids. If it's ****, please tell me. I'd rather be told how I can improve than have people be worried about my feelings

 

[yahgiggle]

Well i like how its more focused on the teddy, it gives it a feeling of peace as the baby sleeps.

 

[Derrel]

Okay...Mommy Contact Lenses then! ;-)

Okay so let's pretend I never mentioned that it was my kid. What would your thoughts be on it? I actually am trying to improve my photography, unfortunately with said 4 kids I don't get out much so they get to be my subjects more often than not. Sometimes on this forum I feel like parents are patronized because the pictures they post are of their kids. If it's ****, please tell me. I'd rather be told how I can improve than have people be worried about my feelings

A nice bounced flash shot done at f/9.5 at around ISO 500 would have pulled enough DOF to make it better, technically. It's a minor nit, but the Mickey Mouse PJ arms are a distraction. The out of focus hands extended are not all that appealing, nor is the out of focus face with the mouth covered up. A small amount more space at the bottom of the frame and a tiny bit less space at the top, along with more depth of field, and this would be a stronger shot. If the monkey is the subject, moving the monkey a bit more to the left would have made it seem as if the monkey was the main subject. The bit of open space above his head, at the left edge of the frame, is not helping the shot...white advances, dark recedes...cheating a bit and rotating the monkey's face toward the camera a little bit would also have helped...he probably would not have awakened if he's been out for very long.

I spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of images photographing my son. Photographing small kids takes a TON of work, and attention to many,many aesthetic and technical details; Focal length, framing, camera position, camera height, background, kid cleanliness, as well as making sure that one is SHOWING what one wants to **show**, as opposed to recording happy moments. Kid photography is actually MORE-difficult than photographing grown ups or landscapes. Kid photography can be fast, fluid, and demands tremendous concentration to a myriad of small details. When the child is sleeping though, you can work as slowly as needed to get everything just right. This is in no way a "fantastic" shot. No offense intended. It's a cute moment, but it has a lot of things that are lacking for me, as a disinterested third party.

 

[sashbar]

To me as a disinterested party it is a portrait of a monkey caught in the arms of a sleeping boy and terrified of Mickey Mice.
On a serious note I think Derrel is spot on, as he usually is.

 

[paigew]

One issue is the composition. This is not a photo of your son...this is a photo of his stuffed monkey...which really isn't all that interesting. I would have shot this from a different perspective, and probably in different light.

 

[The_Traveler]

It's my theory that a viewer first looks at a picture, he/she tries to figure out what and why he is being shown this and to do this gets hints about what is important from the color, tones and position of everything in the frame.

His/her eyes are drawn to faces, objects in focus, objects at the power points (thirds), bright areas or objects. Those are seen as important.
Objects that are out of focus, not at the power points, at the edges or dull are generally seen as unimportant.

If your composition is unambiguous, that is the important things are bright, in focus and at the power points, the statement is clear about what the photographer is showing.
The photographer can shock and surprise the viewer by putting something important at the edge but the rest of the composition needs to support that.

When your composition is ambiguous, it's left up to the viewer to muddle around and decide what to look at. The viewer knows the photographer has placed everything in the frame and thus the viewer tries to parse all these visual information to get to the photographer's intent.

Your original image: the face is at the thirds (powerful) but oof, the toy is in focus but in the middle - not usually seen as important

If, however, this is cropped some, not losing anything of importance and putting the face at the edge - a clear hint, along with the lack of focus, that it is not important, and letting the in-focus animal be more important in the frame , it is easier to understand what you want up to look at.

 

[Designer]

I did think it was a good pic, from a photography point...but maybe not.

Not in my book. I think the focus should have been on the child's face. Or perhaps both. It seems you could have gotten both his face and the toy in focus by moving a little to the left so the plane of best focus would coincide with both areas of subject.

 

[kschalo]

A nice bounced flash shot done at f/9.5 at around ISO 500 would have pulled enough DOF to make it better, technically. It's a minor nit, but the Mickey Mouse PJ arms are a distraction. The out of focus hands extended are not all that appealing, nor is the out of focus face with the mouth covered up. A small amount more space at the bottom of the frame and a tiny bit less space at the top, along with more depth of field, and this would be a stronger shot. If the monkey is the subject, moving the monkey a bit more to the left would have made it seem as if the monkey was the main subject. The bit of open space above his head, at the left edge of the frame, is not helping the shot...white advances, dark recedes...cheating a bit and rotating the monkey's face toward the camera a little bit would also have helped...he probably would not have awakened if he's been out for very long.

I spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of images photographing my son. Photographing small kids takes a TON of work, and attention to many,many aesthetic and technical details; Focal length, framing, camera position, camera height, background, kid cleanliness, as well as making sure that one is SHOWING what one wants to **show**, as opposed to recording happy moments. Kid photography is actually MORE-difficult than photographing grown ups or landscapes. Kid photography can be fast, fluid, and demands tremendous concentration to a myriad of small details. When the child is sleeping though, you can work as slowly as needed to get everything just right. This is in no way a "fantastic" shot. No offense intended. It's a cute moment, but it has a lot of things that are lacking for me, as a disinterested third party.

Agreed on the mickey mouse pj's but he was sleeping and it was an opportunity to shoot and it bees what it bees. What would you suggest I do with his hands? It seemed like a natural pose to me. Would cropping the photo (like you suggested) have made the out of focus face more appropriate?

Also please don't worry about offending me. I'm here because I want to learn. If I wanted people swooning with fake comments I'd post it on Facebook

It's my theory that a viewer first looks at a picture, he/she tries to figure out what and why he is being shown this and to do this gets hints about what is important from the color, tones and position of everything in the frame.

His/her eyes are drawn to faces, objects in focus, objects at the power points (thirds), bright areas or objects. Those are seen as important.
Objects that are out of focus, not at the power points, at the edges or dull are generally seen as unimportant.

If your composition is unambiguous, that is the important things are bright, in focus and at the power points, the statement is clear about what the photographer is showing.
The photographer can shock and surprise the viewer by putting something important at the edge but the rest of the composition needs to support that.

When your composition is ambiguous, it's left up to the viewer to muddle around and decide what to look at. The viewer knows the photographer has placed everything in the frame and thus the viewer tries to parse all these visual information to get to the photographer's intent.

Your original image: the face is at the thirds (powerful) but oof, the toy is in focus but in the middle - not usually seen as important

If, however, this is cropped some, not losing anything of importance and putting the face at the edge - a clear hint, along with the lack of focus, that it is not important, and letting the in-focus animal be more important in the frame , it is easier to understand what you want up to look at.

Thank you Traveler! I'm a visual person so this really helped me understand what you (and Derrel) were saying about the crop. I do like this crop a lot more.

 

[Bo4key]

Wow, what an improvement that crop makes.

Makes me wonder what color the PJ's are. I'd love to see this crop with the monkey in color.