More Family Photos for Critique

[cherylynne1]

My friends own an almond orchard and asked if I could take a few pictures while the almonds were in bloom. This is their backyard! So jealous.

Anyway, I'd love to hear any feedback on improvements that I can make.

Thank you!

#1 DSC04430-Edit by cherylynne1, on Flickr

#2 DSC04285-Edit by cherylynne1, on Flickr

#3 DSC05078 by cherylynne1, on Flickr

 

[The_Traveler]

People are great, natural, good looking, etc.
IMO, the background is too light.

 

[cherylynne1]

Thank you, The_Traveler! I agree, getting the background darker was one of the biggest problems for me. The problem I had was that it got so saturated, like your version, if I tried to go any darker. Since the location is so important to them, I wanted to maintain the "idea" of white blossoms (I know they're not pure white in my version either.) Any ideas on a way to compromise?

 

[The_Traveler]

How about leaving the color as is but moving the trees in so that the branches are more behind them and cover the brighter sky and thinner branches?

 

[cherylynne1]

So, it looks like a tighter crop and some cloning, right? That could work! Thank you! Would I need to do it on a few separate layers with increasing levels of blur and resizing to make it look realistic, do you think? Or is there enough to clone from as is? Maybe I'm overthinking this...

 

[The_Traveler]

PM me your email and I'll send you a Photoshop file

 

[Ysarex]

It's a photo of the family or it's a photo of the trees. The trees are sidelit by direct sun and the family is in full shade. Those two conditions are at odds and have to be balanced. Balancing those two disparate conditions means fill light on the family. No fill light on the family is a critical error and jumping processing hoops is ultimately a bad idea.

Joe

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I think you served them well. The only thing that I have to say is that when I photograph a family, I would increase the dof. Subject separation is great and believable in one to two subjects shots, but when you have more, it almost appear green screened. Otherwise, great job. I think the oversat of the orange is a bit overcooked.

The saying goes: any idiot can make the background blur in a portrait. It takes an artist to bring the background into the subject and give the photo some context.

 

[cherylynne1]

Thank you both for your thoughts! I did have a reflector, but it didn't really help much. I would have had to set up the flash to really balance the background, I think.

As for the DOF, I know the effect you're describing, and I was hoping that since the trees are gradually getting more out of focus that I could avoid that, but maybe not. So, instead of f4.5, you think I should have tried something closer to f8?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Thank you both for your thoughts! I did have a reflector, but it didn't really help much. I would have had to set up the flash to really balance the background, I think.

As for the DOF, I know the effect you're describing, and I was hoping that since the trees are gradually getting more out of focus that I could avoid that, but maybe not. So, instead of f4.5, you think I should have tried something closer to f8?

Yup. Backgrounds this pretty should not be left as a second thought. The main point of focus is always the lady of the house. So if you increased the dof, the dof wouldn't take away from her. But when looked at in the larger context, the background does not look like it belongs. Looks...disjointed.

 

[cherylynne1]

I understand what you're saying. I originally wanted to have both foreground and background blur, which is why I was thinking along the lines of a wider aperture, but in practice it was more like a picture of the trees and not the family, so I changed it. But I should have adjusted my thinking even more. At least it was good practice!