Do we need to see what they are looking at?

[Rebekah5280]

I found this beautiful park over grown with "wishers" (the little dandelion puffs) as I was driving back to my house at the end of the day. And so I got home, fed the kids, dressed them in cute spring/summer outfits, grabbed my camera and took off on a walk to the little park about three blocks from my home...
On the way there, I was practically drooling over the gorgeous sunset backlit pictures that I had already taken in my head of my children frolicking around and blowing "wishers" running and playing....
Got there, only to find that all the entrances were padlocked.
So I slumped my shoulders and started walking back... My kids were getting restless. Since they were all dressed cute and I had pictures on the brain, I found a little spot off the sidewalk where there were some over grown grasses and we stopped and I took pictures in the usual manner (me telling my kids not to make that face, just look at me, LOOK AT THE CAMERA! No, put that down, Stop it Ryan, Stop it Connor, MIA! Come here!, Now everyone look at me! Connor, Connor, CONNOR! LOOK.....), and it ended with me thinking in my head "never again" and a feeling of defeat washing over me. lol

Here is one of the pictures I got when the boys were not looking at me and smiling pleasantly... My question is, do we have to see what they are looking at? Or can this picture stand as is?? C&C welcome

#1

And here is one of my little princess.
#2

 

[Designer]

No, not really, but it would be nice to see more of their faces. I think you can get them to pose with your camera just over the object of interest, with them looking downward, but so you can still see their eyes.

 

[sm4him]

First of all, I'm not a professional and I don't play one on TPF. I'm not even up to "amateur" status as a portrait photographer, unless birds and bugs are the portrait subject.

That said, I have two immediate responses to your post. First and foremost, I find myself wondering whether these pictures are meant to be practice/examples for portrait work you do or intend to do, or if they are just pictures of your kids for you and your family to enjoy. If they aren't meant as portrait practice, then it only matters whether YOU love them or not. If you love them, and you probably do, because they're pictures of your kids, then they are GOOD.

If they were meant as practice for how you'd do portrait photography for others, then I'd say I've seen worse, and I've seen better. Gotta start somewhere, right?

MY observations, which again are those of a largely unskilled goof with a camera:
Photo 1: The boy on the right being half out of the frame bothers me way more than not being able to see what they're looking at. I *do* wish, however, that they were at least looking up enough to see their eyes.

Photo 2: Cute little girl. I'm not a fan of trees right behind a person's head. Even more than that, I'm especially not a fan of those little frou-frou things people put in girls' hair, and here, the one on the left is kind of overexposed and because of where it is on her head, it kinda looks to me like something growing OUT of her head. I'm not saying that to be harsh, just that's honestly how I first saw. I didn't realize what it was until I saw the one on the right.

They are cute little kids, and you should take all the pictures of them you possibly can, before they do what mine did...grow up. (In the case of mine, grow UP. and UP. and UP. 6'5" and 6'8"...)

 

[PropilotBW]

I think that adds mystery to the photo, and in my opinion, makes it more interesting.

 

[Rebekah5280]

First of all, I'm not a professional and I don't play one on TPF. I'm not even up to "amateur" status as a portrait photographer, unless birds and bugs are the portrait subject.

That said, I have two immediate responses to your post. First and foremost, I find myself wondering whether these pictures are meant to be practice/examples for portrait work you do or intend to do, or if they are just pictures of your kids for you and your family to enjoy. If they aren't meant as portrait practice, then it only matters whether YOU love them or not. If you love them, and you probably do, because they're pictures of your kids, then they are GOOD.

If they were meant as practice for how you'd do portrait photography for others, then I'd say I've seen worse, and I've seen better. Gotta start somewhere, right?

MY observations, which again are those of a largely unskilled goof with a camera:
Photo 1: The boy on the right being half out of the frame bothers me way more than not being able to see what they're looking at. I *do* wish, however, that they were at least looking up enough to see their eyes.

Photo 2: Cute little girl. I'm not a fan of trees right behind a person's head. Even more than that, I'm especially not a fan of those little frou-frou things people put in girls' hair, and here, the one on the left is kind of overexposed and because of where it is on her head, it kinda looks to me like something growing OUT of her head. I'm not saying that to be harsh, just that's honestly how I first saw. I didn't realize what it was until I saw the one on the right.

They are cute little kids, and you should take all the pictures of them you possibly can, before they do what mine did...grow up. (In the case of mine, grow UP. and UP. and UP. 6'5" and 6'8"...)

I'm not a fan of the tree in the background either. My intention was to get these pictures in a field of dandelion puffs with the sun setting behind them. lol behind the tree to the left was a black shingled rooftop, and to the right was a chainlink fence. I chose the tree because I wanted to get down to her eye-level instead of shooting down at her to avoid the tree/fence/rooftop.
It was not an ideal setting, but I think it kinda worked. lol

 

[kathyt]

Why not let the kids just play and be themselves? Then just start shooting. You will in turn get such a natural image.

 

[Rebekah5280]

Why not let the kids just play and be themselves? Then just start shooting. You will in turn get such a natural image.

That was the idea, with the field... but when that wasn't possible, I opted for a little overgrown grassy area off the road next to the side walk. The background was messy, so I really needed to be particular with where they were standing/sitting etc... So it wasn't anywhere near the pictures I had wanted to get of them playing in the field. I had to also worry about the road traffic, etc... It wasn't ideal. It is what it is. :/

 

[Big Mike]

Do we need to see what they are looking at?

This is a very good issue for discussion, not just in terms of your image, but overall.

The underlying issue (to me) is whether or not you have (or even want to have) a connection with the viewer. Obviously, if the subject is looking at the camera, they are looking at the viewer and a connection is created. But if the subject isn't looking at the camera, then what are they looking at? If we can see what it is, then the viewer can look at it too (or imagine the are looking at it) and thus a connection can be created.
But when the subject is looking at something off-camera, it can create a disconnect between subject and viewer. Sometimes the scene/background can help to infer something for the viewer to imagine the subject is looking at. Kids at the fair, for example. They could be looking off camera and it would be easy to imagine what types of things they may be seeing. Your photo could be like that, if maybe we could see more of the surroundings.

On the other hand, having the subject look away from the camera can be useful when you want the viewer to disconnect with the subject, and instead notice the clothing or accessories etc. So part of the issue is whether or not you're shooting a portrait or something else (advertising etc.).

 

[Rebekah5280]

Do we need to see what they are looking at?

This is a very good issue for discussion, not just in terms of your image, but overall.

The underlying issue (to me) is whether or not you have (or even want to have) a connection with the viewer. Obviously, if the subject is looking at the camera, they are looking at the viewer and a connection is created. But if the subject isn't looking at the camera, then what are they looking at? If we can see what it is, then the viewer can look at it too (or imagine the are looking at it) and thus a connection can be created.
But when the subject is looking at something off-camera, it can create a disconnect between subject and viewer. Sometimes the scene/background can help to infer something for the viewer to imagine the subject is looking at. Kids at the fair, for example. They could be looking off camera and it would be easy to imagine what types of things they may be seeing. Your photo could be like that, if maybe we could see more of the surroundings.

On the other hand, having the subject look away from the camera can be useful when you want the viewer to disconnect with the subject, and instead notice the clothing or accessories etc. So part of the issue is whether or not you're shooting a portrait or something else (advertising etc.).

This is great information. I have filed it my brain to use in future sessions!! Thank you for your thoughts on the question "Do we need to see what they are looking at". I have always wondered why in some pictures it seems to work, while in others, it seems unappealing.

Thanks!!