Heartbreaker!

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...8/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/imag...0/original.jpg

Hope you all enjoy :)

The title says it all. Great work Colin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Ryan

The title says it all. Great work Colin.

---

Thanks Peter :)

Colin

The first one is beautifully captured and the black and white conversion and close cropping work a treat. No 2 is still good but not in the same league as No1. For me the cropping is too close to babies head. If you are keeping square format the subject may be better centralised.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirefox

Colin

The first one is beautifully captured and the black and white conversion and close cropping work a treat. No 2 is still good but not in the same league as No1. For me the cropping is too close to babies head. If you are keeping square format the subject may be better centralised.

Steve

---

Hi Steve,

Thanks for that.

You're quite right about the first, and dead wrong about the second! (and whoever says I can't take criticism is wrong too!).

:)

Nah - seriously ...

... When I retouched the 2nd I wanted to stay with a square format because it's a mockup for a square canvas proposal, and the paper underneath bubs had some quite nice tones to it (and nice placement of the transitional zone) so because I didn't want too much whitespace to detract from the subject I went for minimal clearance top & left, and tried for something close to even on bottom right. It's interesting that you like the first over the 2nd - for me it's the other way around by quite a big margin, although perhaps partly because the old desaturate everything but the eyes has been done to death in photography circles (but hopefully will still appeal to the parents). This crop also puts the right eye (camera left) on the intersection of thirds.

I prefer #2 as the expression on the model is much more interesting. Great shot. I agree with Captain Wirefox though about the tightness of the crop on the head. How about doing a version 2 using content-aware fill to extend the back drop all around? Let the people decide.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carregwen

I prefer #2 as the expression on the model is much more interesting. Great shot. I agree with Captain Wirefox though about the tightness of the crop on the head. How about doing a version 2 using content-aware fill to extend the back drop all around? Let the people decide.:)

---

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the kind words. No need for content-aware fill - the original has lots and lots and lots of extra white-space around bubs ... that's the joy of shooting a 3m wide by about 3m high paper backdrop, with with around 6 grands worth of high-power lights, using a long lens (200mm off memory). If I do print a canvas of it then I have to leave more around the edges to avoid wrapping body parts around the edge of the frame - but I still think that the more white space I add here, the more it detracts from the impact of bubs.

To be honest, on a canvas (which is the mental picture I have for this image) I'd like to have razor thin cropping all round, but there's no way I can do that and still keep it square and still keeping some of the texture of the paper on the floor (without distorting the image). I could certainly centre what space I DO have more, but then that would move bubs' right eye away from the rule of thirds, which is something I didn't want to do.

I do see what you mean though - I suspect though that on a canvas it would actually look better in that the small gap between head and hand would only be to the edge of the canvas on the frontal plane - there's still extra dimension in the thickness of the wooden frame.

FWIW I like #2 the exactly the way it is crop-wise, and 'other'-wise come to that (although I am at work in < ideal viewing conditions)

I also prefer #2 to #1, as Colin does.

(how'd I do Colin? was that good enough?) ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

Hi Rob,

I do see what you mean though - I suspect though that on a canvas it would actually look better in that the small gap between head and hand would only be to the edge of the canvas on the frontal plane - there's still extra dimension in the thickness of the wooden frame.

---

That's true. I was probably thinking more of it in a conventional frame where it would look cramped. But on a canvas it might be fine. Good shot anyway!

Beautiful photographs, but I know I'm in the minority when I sat that it doesn't need a title on nthe image. It is powerful enough to speak for itself.
Mike

Mike, we have had this out with our Mr S before. A whole thread dedicated to trying to prise his Wacom pen out of his uncompromising little mitts. But apart from getting a concession to reduce the font size by a couple of points...no joy.:)

Colin, I have fallen into this trap of viewing your images for web only again. I agree that the composition of the 2nd shot would probably work on a canvas. Hope you have brought along some custard to go with my humble pie

Steve

First shot is awesome. Love the eyes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

(how'd I do Colin? was that good enough?) ;) :D

---

Thanks Dave, cheques in the mail! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clactonian

Beautiful photographs, but I know I'm in the minority when I sat that it doesn't need a title on nthe image. It is powerful enough to speak for itself.
Mike

---

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that. For what it's worth, the actual canvases don't have titles or boarders ... I just add them to give folks something to refer to (Gets a bit more essential when someone says "I want to buy a copy of that sunset shot with the water in it" (that narrows it down to about 50). I guess it (hopefully) adds a bit of an "emotional connection" too (I sent both images to "Dad" who is no doubt missing bubs at the moment as both Mum and bubs have popped overseas for a week or two).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirefox

Mike, we have had this out with our Mr S before. A whole thread dedicated to trying to prise his Wacom pen out of his uncompromising little mitts. But apart from getting a concession to reduce the font size by a couple of points...no joy.:)

Colin, I have fallen into this trap of viewing your images for web only again. I agree that the composition of the 2nd shot would probably work on a canvas. Hope you have brought along some custard to go with my humble pie

Steve

---

Hi Steve,

Actually ...

... I was too lazy to get up - walk across the room - pickup the Wacom - walk back - and plug it in ... so this one was mouse only (alright, it would also have taken an extra 1/2 hour to clear a space on my messy desk to put it!) (although in my own defence, it is the extra large version). So mouse only for this one.

No humble pie needed - I think it's more a case of me only thinking in canvas terms, since that's all I (almost) ever print in the "real world". I'll post a photo of the actual print if the customer wants one (although with Mum being currently away, I'll have to get her to fax through a permission slip ... I've learned that men aren't allowed to purchase art for the home without written approval from the women (only kidding, a little bit!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sahil

First shot is awesome. Love the eyes!

---

Thanks Sahil, goot to know the old tricks still work :)

2 very nice pictures