CC What do you think BE HONEST! I want your advice!

KDPhotography · Jan 7, 2011

>> I know the bib isnt facing to where you can read it, but otherwise...?

Bram · Jan 7, 2011

You didn't get the MEMO about posting pictures of your children? (assuming it's yours, sorry if it's not)

Honestly? The spacey, cloudy, PP is distracting. Lots of blown out open empty space. Selective coloring was cool in 2003. Honest opinion, not a personal attack.

reznap · Jan 7, 2011

Too much processing for me. The white haze/soft focus effect is too strong and the selective color puts more emphasis on the clothing than the child.

Haha I just noticed the kid's naked

Jessielee13 · Jan 7, 2011

I think the cloudy fuzzy softness in the backround is a little much. It seems to screw with me eyes (for lack of a better way to say it) I think he/she would look much better in full color thats just my 0.02cents

KDPhotography · Jan 7, 2011

Here is the original--- your right about the background. This is when I first got my camera and was playing with it. The cute model is my nephew! I had no backdrops, so used a blanket.lol. I hated it. Thanks for your advice!

simo110 · Jan 7, 2011

Why didnt u try another PP??!
I dont get this one, sorry

ringokid · Jan 7, 2011

I think if you could make him hop out of the clouds a little better that would be better. Picture just looks a little "dull" no offence. just my opinion.

reznap · Jan 7, 2011

The original looks pretty good to me (even though facebook kinda ruins the image quality). Maybe a half stop underexposed..

I think that vertical crop along with some levels adjustment red eye reduction is all you really need to do for processing.

Look into off-camera lighting if you want to get more serious about portraiture. The popup flash is kinda evident on this one - there are harsh shadows behind the child on the background and the lighting is somewhat flat. You don't need off-camera flashes or strobes - you can use work lights or fluorescent (CCFL) bulb lamps. Try not to mix different light temperature types though (CCFL are generally cooler than tungsten or halogen) and remember to set a custom white balance if going that route.

Buckster · Jan 7, 2011

My eyes are naturally drawn to the brightest thing in a photo. In this case, it's a snowman head. Thus, in my mind, this is first and foremost a portrait of a snowman characature, with a half-naked toddler as a background.

Lighting is not very good, in my honest opinion. Soft baby/toddler portraits should be done with large diffused light sources that don't leave the hard shadows we see here; Shadows that come off like snapshot quality with the camera's pop-up flash.

Expression on the toddler might be good for the parents/grandparents, but doesn't do anything for me personally. It's not cute or endearing or happy or loving, and because he's looking away, he's not engaging me, the viewer.

The kid's wearing a winter hat and elaborate bib that might as well be a shirt or sweater - but no diaper or pants - this make neither functional utilitarian nor fashion sense to me, and sorry but, no, I don't find it 'cute'.

The selective color doesn't do anything for me either. It rarely does, unless used really well to enhance in a meaningful way, rather than come off as a cheap trick done just because it can be done. At least the colors aren't gaudy, but that's the only positive thing I can manage about it's use in this particular composition.

The soft focus / white vignette isn't working for me in this particular baby shot because, frankly, the kid looks like a brute who's about to throw down on whomever he's looking at. His body is erect and he's even making a fist. This will probably be repeated as he gets older and has to suffer through seeing this paraded out to his future girlfriends by his loving mom. No, use soft focus on a smiling, happy, tender and fragile looking child who appears to need to be cuddled in it's softness. Football players don't get soft focus treatment.

Hand in hand with the soft focus, the contrast is too deep in the middle because the white vignette has turned the shadows gray to white everywhere but in the middle; With that, the eyes are two black pits in a composition that's otherwise shifted to the bright end of the scale. In addition to the body language and facial expression, this introduces a harsh element into this attempt at a soft baby portrait.

I'd personally not count it as a 'keeper'. I'd shoot it again.

KDPhotography · Jan 7, 2011

Thank you for all your input!

mrpink · Jan 7, 2011

Buckster said:
My eyes are naturally drawn to the brightest thing in a photo. In this case, it's a snowman head. Thus, in my mind, this is first and foremost a portrait of a snowman characature, with a half-naked toddler as a background.

Lighting is not very good, in my honest opinion. Soft baby/toddler portraits should be done with large diffused light sources that don't leave the hard shadows we see here; Shadows that come off like snapshot quality with the camera's pop-up flash.

Expression on the toddler might be good for the parents/grandparents, but doesn't do anything for me personally. It's not cute or endearing or happy or loving, and because he's looking away, he's not engaging me, the viewer.

The kid's wearing a winter hat and elaborate bib that might as well be a shirt or sweater - but no diaper or pants - this make neither functional utilitarian nor fashion sense to me, and sorry but, no, I don't find it 'cute'.

The selective color doesn't do anything for me either. It rarely does, unless used really well to enhance in a meaningful way, rather than come off as a cheap trick done just because it can be done. At least the colors aren't gaudy, but that's the only positive thing I can manage about it's use in this particular composition.

The soft focus / white vignette isn't working for me in this particular baby shot because, frankly, the kid looks like a brute who's about to throw down on whomever he's looking at. His body is erect and he's even making a fist. This will probably be repeated as he gets older and has to suffer through seeing this paraded out to his future girlfriends by his loving mom. No, use soft focus on a smiling, happy, tender and fragile looking child who appears to need to be cuddled in it's softness. Football players don't get soft focus treatment.

Hand in hand with the soft focus, the contrast is too deep in the middle because the white vignette has turned the shadows gray to white everywhere but in the middle; With that, the eyes are two black pits in a composition that's otherwise shifted to the bright end of the scale. In addition to the body language and facial expression, this introduces a harsh element into this attempt at a soft baby portrait.

I'd personally not count it as a 'keeper'. I'd shoot it again.

Buckster just saved us all a lot of typing. He is spot on in everything he says.

Read it, then read it again.

Here is one I took of my 6mo for the holidays.

DSC_8520ww by Matt Francosky, on Flickr

Setup was a simple white sheet background draped over my kitchen counter, a light up star thing for the background "bokeh". Glass backdoor for fill light, strobe fired into an umbrella for key light.

My point is, with a little more setup thought, the photo is substantially improved.

Keep at it. It will click.

p!nK