First family portraits!

[MagicalMomentsbyAmanda]

What do you guys think?

 

[Designer]

#1 More even lighting front-to-back. The light is quite flat. You don't need it to be so flat. Subject in back needs more light.

#2 Cute, but where's her other arm?

#3 Cute pose.

Are you using flash? A re-positioning of the flash would help #1.

 

[MagicalMomentsbyAmanda]

No flashes was used. I was using natural window light. I was worried a fill light would have washed them out. They are so light complexed. I'll work on the balance of the fill out. Thank you!

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

#1 needs light, might fix it with a simple graduated filter. Is that a dining room backdrop?
#2 little more dof or maybe you miss focused?
There is a weird rectangle in the middle of #3. Check you edit maybe didn't apply the layer mask for the exposure fix.

 

[vintagesnaps]

In the first one the girl near the bottom of the frame seems brighter than the girl at the top; color and/or white balance and/or exposure look a little off. I think this may have been metering the light from the window instead of the light on the girls. The background looks particularly grayish.

Mostly what I see are visual distractions in the background - look where the light fixture is, and the family photos off to the left. Think about why something is in the picture; if isn't somehow part of the photo then it should be out of the frame. And looking at the window it seems the camera wasn't straight but it might be the perspective if you were just at a bit of an angle.

The framing is tight enough that the subjects are barely in the frame, and the last one doesn't have all of the boots in the frame. I think the second one is a fun idea and you got some great smiles and expressions.

The last one too seems slightly crooked, which might have again been the angle or perspective; particularly if you use a background with lines it's noticeable if they're not quite straight (look at the vertical lines, those need to be parallel to the sides of the frame).

I saw similar issues in the first set of portraits you posted. I think you need to get better at using the camera - learn and practice how to frame shots; how to change your vantage point to change the perspective. You seem to just be seeing the subjects' faces, not all of them or the backgrounds; you need to learn how to see everything in the frame. Takes much more practice. If you learn how to use the camera better before you try to do photos for other people then you could be successful if you intend to do portraits for others.

 

[tirediron]

How do you know when you need fill light? When you didn't use any! If you're worried that fill light will "wash" things out, take that as a learning opportunity and practice getting it right. A little fill would have made a huge improvement in these images.

 

[tecboy]

I think she meant that she was using a bared flash and caused the subject to white out and the background dark.

 

[JayG1372]

In my opinion, it appears that focus was missed. Maybe it is my computer screen, but when zooming in I really do not see sharpness. Also, I definitely agree on needing flash. While using natural light can give great results, I would have definitely used lighting here. Just my 2 cents.

 

[KmH]

Do you have a 'protection filter' on your lens?

All the posted photos are under exposed (at least a full stop), and the light quality is poor.
Ideally, facial highlights should be at about 235 in the Red channel. In the middle photo the brightest highlight, a spot on her nose, is at 184 in the Red channel.
The brightest highlight on her chin is at 162 in the Red channel.
I'm looking at the photo using the cursor and zooming into the photo in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) which allows us to see the Red, Green, and Blue (RGB) values at any point in a digital image.
What metering mode did you use?

The position of the catch lights in her eyes in the middle photo is not flattering.

Direction & Quality of Light: Your Key to Better Portrait Photography Anywhere

In the shot with the 4 of them the girl in the back is underexposed the most, likely because she is furthest from the window.
Light intensity changes as a square function. If the distance is doubled to what you want to light, only 1/4 as intense light gets to the further position of the subject.
If the distance is 4x the intensity of the light source is 1/16.
Or if you have 2 subjects at different distances from the light source, the one further from the light source gets less light.

At the least a reflector could be used to supply light from a 2nd direction and to provide some facial mask modeling shadows to promote a stronger sense of depth.

Lighting from a strobe (flash) or even constant 5500° (sun light equivalent color temperature) lighting (both natural lighting) give the photographer the most control of the light direction and quality.
On-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
Off-Camera Flash: Techniques for Digital Photographers

 

[Tee]

A light meter is a great investment and greatly reduces the fear of blowing out images. In this case, all of your images are underexposed and could pop with a slide to the right on the histogram.

Aside from the above critique, just a reminder to look at your background. In the first picture the chandelier is distracting behind the girl.

 

[MagicalMomentsbyAmanda]

Thank you all so much for the feedback