here we go again!

paigew · Jan 11, 2012

Okay, I am nervous about posting these! I go back and forth with my photos, do I love it because its good? Or do I love it because its my kid? So hard to tell!! Anyway, I think it is important for me to say that my photos (unless stated otherwise) are pretty much snapshots. I stay at home with my kids and live in a tiny house with no room for a real set up. Most my photos are taken on a whim when my husband is home to help with the kids. I do however strive to get REALLY good snapshots and really learn how to use my camera so that when I do get a chance to try 'for real' they look good. So here we go:

1) I love this photo because of the way the lighting is. I like the hazy look I got; out of my whole yard only a certain spot gave me this look on my photos! I can't really tell though, if she is focused well, or if the hazy light just gives the apperance of a less clear focus? Thoughts? I know her hair is blown out, and while I like a little blow out to really show how beautiful the moment was with the light shining through her hair, I think a bit less would be better. Please tell me a honest critiqe on exposure ect....the only thing I can't really control is the background and/or position of her. She stayed here for...oh.....5 seconds? sooc besides crop
f3.2; iso 100; ss 1/250

sunlight by paige_w, on Flickr

2) another photo (that I obviously love). What I like about it is how the lighting is on her hair, and just how you can see her lashes and tiny nose. I am a sucker for close up shots. So if this doesn't work, please give me some pointers on how to get those beautiful up close and personal photos. I am not sure how to really place them composition wise since I pretty much want to fill the frame and excentuate certain features. I wish her lashes were a bit more focused...sooc besides slight crop
f3.2; iso 100; ss 1/250

my sweet girl by paige_w, on Flickr

3) a sort of abstract photo of a tree in our yard. I think this one looks cool; thoughts? sooc
f5.6; ss 1/320; iso 400

branches by paige_w, on Flickr

4) my dog; She always looks out like this and I thought it would be a good photo. I like the picture, but I think it could be better. Adjusted exposure
I think since I edited this one on flickr it deleted my exif data

nisha by paige_w, on Flickr

**can someone tell me how to view the info of the photos in flickr? I would post it but I can't seem to find it!

jowensphoto · Jan 11, 2012

When viewing the photo in flickr, look to the right hand side. It says "The photo was taken on ---- with --- camera". Click on that to pull up EXIF data.

paigew · Jan 11, 2012

thanks! added it

Derrel · Jan 11, 2012

The first photo is focused very well on her face. The exposure used, and the overall results look pretty good for strong backlighting with no fill light. Her hair is pretty "blown" or "hot", but she has a lovely rim of light around her body and arms. This is a perfectly viable way of shooting portraits. The lighting has a definite "look" and a "feel" to it. It is most decidedly not safe or easy lighting to work with, but it does sort of push the envelope a bit, and the results CAN BE as good as the poses and expressions you get. I like it the most of all your photos simply because of the lighting being so nice.

There does appear to be some loss of contrast over the entire image, most likely due to the backlighting flaring the lens a bit. Again, very common, expected with MOST lenses, and avoidable only with the absolute best lenses and with a big lens shade in use. The photo could have the contrast and saturation boosted ever-so-slightly to counteract that slight loss of contrast across the frame. That however, is an artistic decision; you could make the image look even LIGHTER,and more ethereal if you'd want to go that way. SO, IT'S UP TO THE ARTIST on this shot!

paigew · Jan 11, 2012

Derrel said:
The first photo is focused very well on her face. The exposure used, and the overall results look pretty good for strong backlighting with no fill light. Her hair is pretty "blown" or "hot", but she has a lovely rim of light around her body and arms. This is a perfectly viable way of shooting portraits. The lighting has a definite "look" and a "feel" to it. It is most decidedly not safe or easy lighting to work with, but it does sort of push the envelope a bit, and the results CAN BE as good as the poses and expressions you get. I like it the most of all your photos simply because of the lighting being so nice.

thank you! this is by far one of my favorites so far, but I didn't know if it was a 'no-no' since I blew out her hair.

Derrel · Jan 11, 2012

Well, most people would prefer a bit less blow-out on the hair. Perhaps if the image was shot in raw, some highlight recovery could be used, to bring the highlights "down" as we say. Yes, the hair is blown out. And yes, she is adorable,. And yes, the dry grass stalks in backlight look lovely. And yes, it's a keeper shot of your daughter.

gsgary · Jan 11, 2012

As Derrel said #1 is not bad at all, the dog shot i wish you had used a smaller aperture to get the eye in focus

Robin Usagani · Jan 11, 2012

#1, if you want the subject hair not as blown, put a tree(not very dense) between the sun and the subject (light still go trough to still give you back lit but not as strong). Kinda like this

KmH · Jan 11, 2012

But be careful of their still being so much light that they squint so much you can't see the their eyes well.

Investigate 'open shade'.

rambler · Jan 11, 2012

Paigew, I am glad you got a thoughtful critique from Derrel, because I think these are wonderful images of your child.

Shewtylens have you tried Vignetting options found in Adobe Camera Raw? You can darken the corners and bring in a darkened circle effect to emphasize even further the subject of that photogenic family.

Natalie · Jan 11, 2012

I really like the feel of the first one with the backlighting, however there were some issues that detracted from the photo. As mentioned previously, the backlighting zapped the contrast and detail from your daughter's face - that was pretty much unavoidable without the use of filler flash. Second, the photo appears to have a bluish cast. This is because the AWB made the overexposed part of her hair to determine what part should be white, which made the photograph too cool. Because the sun is low on the horizon and the sun is shining through your daughter's hair, it's actually not a true white in life, but a warmer shade. I warmed up the photo in Lightroom to get rid of much of the blue cast (also increased contrast).

paigew · Jan 12, 2012

thank you natalie! I love the edit! Wish I had more time to play around in photoshop. You did a wonderful job bringing out her eyes! I do need to learn the custom white balance. I played around with it once but ended up messing it up...I watched a tute on youtube where it said to use a white piece of paper to set it and everything came out blue. So I need to buy a greycard. I will keep in mind that shooting in raw could have allowed me to edit the blown parts better. For everyday shooting though, raw just takes up to much room on my computer. When I go shoot them a bit more seriously I will shoot in raw

...and thanks again! I just love the edit!

Natalie · Jan 12, 2012

I've never really read anything about white balance, I've just experimented enough in Photoshop and to a greater extent Lightroom to get it right. And when I use the term "right", I mean the color temperature that matches the situation when I took the photograph, what my eyes actually saw at the time and not what the camera thought I should have been seeing. If I'm shooting with a rapidly setting sun, the color will be warmer; if I'm shooting in the morning fog, the color will be cooler.

Keep playing around with white balance, and eventually you'll learn what works.