Another beautifully executed image.
A question, more than a comment - Kelsey is not looking straight at the lens. Her gaze is focused just over my left shoulder. I wondered if there's a confusion created because it is 'just' over my shoulder? She is neither clearly looking straight at the camera or at something at a greater angle (say 45 degrees from the camera). To use psycho-babble, it creates a cognitive dissonance.
Edit - So spoke the non-person photographer who wouldn't know where to start getting this sort of image.
Last edited by Donald; 27th March 2010 at 08:50 AM.
Thanks for the kind words
Probably the best response to your comment is simply "luck of the draw" - I (finally) talked my daughter and her friend into letting me take some shots (I reckon it's getting harder and harder!) - at which point "controlling" them becomes a bit like trying to control a car sliding on gravel in that you can only do so much. As such, the best shots were the "casual snaps" (or so it appeared to them) between the "official takes" - so shots like this are 50/50 good luck -v- conscious composition (eg shoot-through umbrella with dual 580EX II rig on ETTL - camera at the ready - try to hit the button at the right time).
Also, when I'm posing people these days I tend to go more for roughly equal portions of whites in the eyes visible - and if that happens to direct the gaze elsewhere then "so be it" - I think it kinda works.
Another excellent shot with so much more to commend it than the tiny, nit-pickety point I'm about to make
Slight whiten/brighten to the teeth maybe?
Edit: I've just updated the first image.
Edit #2: I found the problem - normally for teeth whitening I just throw on a masked HSB layer - decrease the yellow hue by 70% and then raise the brightness of all hues by around 10% - on this occasion I'd decreased the yellow by 80% and increased everything by 15%, but as it turns out it wasn't enough ... I eventually traced the problem to a small red component in there (which is a first for me) - so I dropped that by 25% and "viola"
Last edited by Colin Southern; 27th March 2010 at 09:54 AM.
You bet. It's a beautiful record of two friends together. And I'm sure both these young people will be glad to show it to others in 30/40/50 years time.... but I thought it was worth keeping anyway.
Colin, the first image is good. No more than that. Not at your level. Sorry my friend.
What is it that I don't like in the image ?
The focus is missed, the crop with rotation looks like she is falling, the left light too "equal", too artificial. BBrrr. No. May be it is just me.
While the second image is quite interesting. Doesn't matter to me if your daughter has the glasses the way she does.
The image has movement, dynamism, is sharp, may be you have rotated it too much but that is a "may be", the colors are warm and nice you could clone the leaves behind but OK, just a small detail.
They are spontaneous, they are young and beautiful.
I also like the non-uniform light you have on them. Homogeneous light is not very much of my liking.
Did you use the flash here ? For me it is not obvious and I like that way to use it.
Must be just you - I think it's one of my best
Some thoughts ...
- The focus isn't missed, although it does have a narrow DoF (being shot @ F2.8). Probably what you're seeling is the soft-focus processing (that I mentioned in the text) - similar to how I've often seen Monte Zucker process shots.
- Image wasn't rotated in PP - I rotated the camera at the time to give a powerful diagonal through the image, and symmetry with the green foliage, which I think works very well.
- Not sure what you're meaning with the lighting being too equal - it's a loop lighting pattern which can be clearly seen off the nose. I think the light drops off quite considerably. Puzzled. It was shot using a shoot-through umbrella for fill light from camera left.
Thanks for that
Of course the rotation can be done "at the time" or "in PP afterwards", but I like to do it "in camera" for 2 reasons ... (1) because I like to get everything as right as possible in camera (same goes for lighting etc), and (2) because it changes the "dynamic energy" of the shot so much you can instantly see "if the shot worked" (and thus either take more like it, or adjust the angle).
Out of interest, what do you think of the angle? Personally I think it works, but is pretty much "right on the limit" (in fact, probably over the limit, but still "works" because of the powerful diagonals and the way the background is bisected) ... but interested to hear others opinions.
I think the angle works well artistically, looking at the photo as someone who doesn't know the subject. I don't know if I'd appreciate it as much if it was a portrait of my daughter, for example. But even then, I think it would work well as part of a larger series: if you have 20 photos in a slide show, for example, it would break up the, "Yeah, there she is again," feeling. Something like half a dozen fairly unusual shots like this would keep the series interesting.
I'm thinking of printing a 20" x 20" framed canvas as a present for the parents - so my dilema is "would they like it as is?"
At this rate, Colin, you will soon be able to give up the day job. Or does the day job pay too well?
Very good Colin. Great expression and lighting including catchlite in the eyes.
Absolutely! When I suggested that it might not work for someone looking for "a photo of my daughter," I wasn't thinking about that. I think the concept of being a breath of fresh air in a slide show fits better. I imagine they have photos of her on the wall already, and one more isn't that big a deal, but this would be something special that would really stand out.I'm thinking of printing a 20" x 20" framed canvas as a present for the parents - so my dilema is "would they like it as is?"