Improvements!...Improvements?? for Cc

[PropilotBW]

I had another paid shoot! Hey, I can get the hang of this!

I feel like I am improving, and people keep asking me to take their family photos, so I must be doing something right? I just wanted to get some critiques for the nit-picky things I am not picking up on.

I feel like this photo is pretty good. They wanted the barn in the background, so I composed it so that it wasn't overtaking the background. Yea, I cut off the two boys feet, on purpose. I had to get an object out of the background and the crop worked a little better. My own composition critique is that I don't like the window right on the dad's head.

I feel like I did well with the late afternoon lighting. I had to raise the shadows a bit and lower highlights.

Shot at 28mm, ISO200, 1/500, f/2.8

 

[Braineack]

I probably would have put the up against it so that was the only BG, or moved it so it was off to the side behind them. Besides that, I would have backed up as to not crop out any feet, and moved the back in the frame -- there's no enough foreground here.

 

[tirediron]

I probably would have put the up against it so that was the only BG, or moved it so it was off to the side behind them. Besides that, I would have backed up as to not crop out any feet, and moved the back in the frame -- there's no enough foreground here.

Actually, I think this works reasonably well. the more foreground you have the smaller the family will be relative to the overall size of the image. This makes them prominent which is what you want. I would have liked to see everything moved a bit left, and Mom should have been told to straighten her head. The thing that really stands out as an issue is how bright the background is. Two speedlights would have allowed you to knock that down at least a stop; as it is now, the brightness of the roof, sky and leave really compete for the eyes attention.

 

[Derrel]

My thoughts on this: YES, pretty good use of the natural light, in that eyes have catchlights, the faces and clothes have shadows and shape-modeling that works, and the lighting is not too flat, nor too shadowed, so yes, good lighting, lighting that looks natural on the people. The background and sky though, that lighting is a bit too bright for maximum impact.

I get the idea of the windows being a distraction by the father's head...that is an issue I noticed. I also see the corner of the barn and the strong line and all the dappled light on that one end of the building as being a distraction. The barn's concrete foundation, the corner of the building, and the slight "gap" there in the family group is kind of a space that draws attention. The head spacing on the little girl is not quite following the same as the others, and this is obviosuly a formal pose, and not a loose or informally posed shot, so I think that might be one of the minor nits.

The real issue though is the foreground/background depth of field or rendering: this is a bit too much in-focus on the barn, IMO...I think this would have benefitted from a longer lens length, you moving back, and the background being more out of focus, and a bit narrower in the angle of view behind the group. But that's another picture. What you have here is a group of people, four people in width, and then the entire length and some of the width, of a barn...psychologically, this is a barn shot, with people in front of it. Maybe this is an old family barn, or has meaning to the parents, but the red barn kind of dominates this scene. Maybe that was the goal, so if so, good deal on that! Perhaps it was just an equipment/lens/solution at the time issue: this is one time where the 4/3 format and 28mm lens even from fairly close range, and at f/2.8, gave a LOT of depth of field. I think the degree of background focus is a bit too clear to force the eye to the FAMILY; but again...they wanted this barn in the shot, so, maybe that's really a better shot than one where the barn would have been more out of focus, or shown as braineack suggested "as background", form up close?

I would try burning down the background a bit, or at least that left side of the barn; darkening that large expanse will force the eye more toward the family. I think there is a lot of good opportunity to reprocess this photo to make the lighting, that delicate fall time lighting, more of a featured item. I think the processing on this is not fully optimized.

 

[FITBMX]

I would knock the brightness of the BG down in LightRoom, using the adjustment brush,and zoom in and take your time.

But you really did a good job, the cropped feet don't bother me at all.

 

[The_Traveler]

I agree with everyone about the brightness of teh background and I think the figures could be a bit less bright and warmer.

 

[Desert Rose]

Natural expressions are very important to portrait photographs.

 

[DarkShadow]

The face expressions on all the kids is forced and goofy but this is normal for kids this age.It's tuff to get adults looking relaxed for a natural smile let alone children.Nice start though,all the power to you getting shots like this.

 

[PropilotBW]

I probably would have put the up against it so that was the only BG, or moved it so it was off to the side behind them. Besides that, I would have backed up as to not crop out any feet, and moved the back in the frame -- there's no enough foreground here.

Actually, I think this works reasonably well. the more foreground you have the smaller the family will be relative to the overall size of the image. This makes them prominent which is what you want. I would have liked to see everything moved a bit left, and Mom should have been told to straighten her head. The thing that really stands out as an issue is how bright the background is. Two speedlights would have allowed you to knock that down at least a stop; as it is now, the brightness of the roof, sky and leave really compete for the eyes attention.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions! I don't have speedlights, just natural light, mostly. I have used a fill flash on occasion, but I haven't liked the results (or perhaps I need to practice more...). I dropped the background highlights quite a bit, I guess it needs more, but it started to look flat when I did that.

My thoughts on this: YES, pretty good use of the natural light, in that eyes have catchlights, the faces and clothes have shadows and shape-modeling that works, and the lighting is not too flat, nor too shadowed, so yes, good lighting, lighting that looks natural on the people. The background and sky though, that lighting is a bit too bright for maximum impact.

I get the idea of the windows being a distraction by the father's head...that is an issue I noticed. I also see the corner of the barn and the strong line and all the dappled light on that one end of the building as being a distraction. The barn's concrete foundation, the corner of the building, and the slight "gap" there in the family group is kind of a space that draws attention. The head spacing on the little girl is not quite following the same as the others, and this is obviosuly a formal pose, and not a loose or informally posed shot, so I think that might be one of the minor nits.

The real issue though is the foreground/background depth of field or rendering: this is a bit too much in-focus on the barn, IMO...I think this would have benefitted from a longer lens length, you moving back, and the background being more out of focus, and a bit narrower in the angle of view behind the group. But that's another picture. What you have here is a group of people, four people in width, and then the entire length and some of the width, of a barn...psychologically, this is a barn shot, with people in front of it. Maybe this is an old family barn, or has meaning to the parents, but the red barn kind of dominates this scene. Maybe that was the goal, so if so, good deal on that! Perhaps it was just an equipment/lens/solution at the time issue: this is one time where the 4/3 format and 28mm lens even from fairly close range, and at f/2.8, gave a LOT of depth of field. I think the degree of background focus is a bit too clear to force the eye to the FAMILY; but again...they wanted this barn in the shot, so, maybe that's really a better shot than one where the barn would have been more out of focus, or shown as braineack suggested "as background", form up close?

I would try burning down the background a bit, or at least that left side of the barn; darkening that large expanse will force the eye more toward the family. I think there is a lot of good opportunity to reprocess this photo to make the lighting, that delicate fall time lighting, more of a featured item. I think the processing on this is not fully optimized.

Thanks for the comment Derrel. The barn isn't special to them, it just a symbol of the area they live. I wanted to try To incorporate it into the shot. The reason it's off center is there was another family on the Right side of barn doing a shoot. I had to do what I had to do for that reason. (it's a popular shooting location).
DOF is something I have not been impressed with this M4/3 system. I knew this in buying into it. This shot was using the 12-40 PRO. (28mm=56mm). Maybe I don't understand optics, but if I move back and lengthen the lens to 40mm (80mm) increasing the distance beteeen camera and subject, that barn would be MORE in focus. I would have to move camera and family further from barn...is this what you were saying?
I will go back into processing and tinker a bit.

I would knock the brightness of the BG down in LightRoom, using the adjustment brush,and zoom in and take your time.

But you really did a good job, the cropped feet don't bother me at all.

Thanks for The comment. One of the kids fell in some mud...so the shoe was pretty nasty...another reason for cropping off the feet.

I agree with everyone about the brightness of teh background and I think the figures could be a bit less bright and warmer.

View attachment 130580

Thanks Lew. I appreciate the critique.

Natural expressions are very important to portrait photographs.

I agree! Are you saying that I achieved this?

The face expressions on all the kids is forced and goofy but this is normal for kids this age.It's tuff to get adults looking relaxed for a natural smile let alone children.Nice start though,all the power to you getting shots like this.

Thanks!! This was at th end of the shoot,so getting all three to cooperate for this shot was a challenge. I think, given my options at the time, it was a success!

 

[Desert Rose]

If this is the way they all look normally, yes.

 

[Derrel]

As far as the depth of field and the barn...I was thinking more of using something like 125mm or so, and being a little bit farther back (maybe 17,18,20,25 feet), and getting a sort of defocused barn. Or using a 300mm lens at f/4 from 35 feet, and blowing the barn mostly out of focus. These are all approximated distances. I would agree, with the 12-40mm PRO lens on that format, moving back but being at 40mm maximum focal length would not be enough to get the background to defocus to any great degree. I was thinking of a much longer lens being used, like say, an adapted 105mm f/2.5 or a 135mm f/2.8 lens, or something like that, or an older manual focus but quality lens, like the old 80-200 f/4 AiS Nikkor ($79 used). Something pretty "long"

The one thing about being farther back with the camera, and with a longer lens is the long focal length lens tends to narrow the angle of view behind the subjects in a family group, often to a pretty high degree. But the 12-40mm lens will not "defocus the background" too much, even with a 2x FOV factor, in a family photo type shot. I was thinking more of a medium-long telephoto lens length, from 25 feet or so.

I think you're right about the kids, and the end of a session. I used to work daily as a family photographer, and have shot thousands of kids and families; the soft skills, the family dynamics, handling the kids, handling the parents, all that stuff: challenging. But it gets easier with practice. Your job really is about getting the expressions on film/sensor. Making them look good. That's the harder part. The cameras and lenses and stuff are much easier to get a grip on. This is a tough age for you,regarding the kids: you have the fake smiler, the squishy-lips littlest kid, one great smiler, and also a dad, and a mom. There's a "window" when things go well, great, and then a past-due date in every session.

 

[PropilotBW]

As far as the depth of field and the barn...I was thinking more of using something like 125mm or so, and being a little bit farther back (maybe 17,18,20,25 feet), and getting a sort of defocused barn. Or using a 300mm lens at f/4 from 35 feet, and blowing the barn mostly out of focus. These are all approximated distances. I would agree, with the 12-40mm PRO lens on that format, moving back but being at 40mm maximum focal length would not be enough to get the background to defocus to any great degree. I was thinking of a much longer lens being used, like say, an adapted 105mm f/2.5 or a 135mm f/2.8 lens, or something like that, or an older manual focus but quality lens, like the old 80-200 f/4 AiS Nikkor ($79 used). Something pretty "long"

The one thing about being farther back with the camera, and with a longer lens is the long focal length lens tends to narrow the angle of view behind the subjects in a family group, often to a pretty high degree. But the 12-40mm lens will not "defocus the background" too much, even with a 2x FOV factor, in a family photo type shot. I was thinking more of a medium-long telephoto lens length, from 25 feet or so.

I think you're right about the kids, and the end of a session. I used to work daily as a family photographer, and have shot thousands of kids and families; the soft skills, the family dynamics, handling the kids, handling the parents, all that stuff: challenging. But it gets easier with practice. Your job really is about getting the expressions on film/sensor. Making them look good. That's the harder part. The cameras and lenses and stuff are much easier to get a grip on. This is a tough age for you,regarding the kids: you have the fake smiler, the squishy-lips littlest kid, one great smiler, and also a dad, and a mom. There's a "window" when things go well, great, and then a past-due date in every session.

I agree. I would have loved to use a longer lens to create separation. The venue just didn't justify it's use. Sometimes I go back and forth about purchasing some Nikon glass (for the D5100), but then I remind myself that people only call me in November for Christmas card photos. I'm determined to make this M4/3 work for now, until I start bringing in some cash to justify it's means. The clients have been enjoying the final results...I just am looking for help in finding that "edge" with what I have now.

Here's another edit. Perhaps it's too warm. It may sound bogus, but I reduced the clarity in the entire image, and added clarity back to the people only, to try to simulate greater DOF. Note: I wouldn't seriously send this result to a client, only experimenting with processing.

This is also un-cropped. The feet are missing anyway from the original shot...which is probably why I decided to go tighter.

 

[FITBMX]

Thanks for The comment. One of the kids fell in some mud...so the shoe was pretty nasty...another reason for cropping off the feet.

The fun of working with kids! LOL I bet mom was thrilled, when he "Fell" in the mud! LOL