Portait Please Critque
- Thread starter Nokkie
- Start date
That's a very cute kid and nice photo. Instead of directly critiquing your image, I'm just going to say that portraits work best when there is nothing other than the subject to distract the viewer from the main object of the image. The above photo is nice, no doubt, but might be even better if it were less "busy". I would also caution using too much fill flash on portraits. You tend to lose the subtle details that directional light will impart on a subject. I'm not sure this really applies in your case but it's something to be aware of, especially when shooting a complicated portrait with lots of details.
In both snaps you are shooting from slightly above eyelevel. This is ok but you may want to try shooting at eyelevel. With children in particular you really want to shoot from below eyelevel - from a low camera angle. The importance of keeping the background uncluttered cannot be expressed enough. In the first snap above that fence is growing out of his head big time.
Child photography is very very difficult to do well. Don't force them just let them do what they want to do. Don't ask them say cheese or any of that crap. Sometimes you can sort of "bribe" them into posing by giving them a lollipop, cookie, or ice cream cone. This distracts them from the picture taking process and allows the photographer to get a more natural type of shot.
Child photography is very very difficult to do well. Don't force them just let them do what they want to do. Don't ask them say cheese or any of that crap. Sometimes you can sort of "bribe" them into posing by giving them a lollipop, cookie, or ice cream cone. This distracts them from the picture taking process and allows the photographer to get a more natural type of shot.
Thank You everyone you guys are AWESOME !! Fotojack Thank You yes it looks a lot better .What about this 1View attachment 19448
Well....tell you the truth.....not much to look at in this one. He's looking down, so there's no point of interest in this shot. Would have been much better to see his face and the expression on it. In a portrait, you want to see the eyes. Even if the subject doesn't smile.....you need to see some kind of an expression, but it's the eyes that make a portrait.
I agree with fj, it doesn't hold a lot of interest. We don't get to see the expression in his face and especially the expression in his eyes. But more over, I am now seeing a pattern with your portraits, you're not filling the frame with your subject. For portrait photography and many other types too, you want to fill that frame completely up with your subject, get in their close, intimate, and let the viewer see the person up close and personal. There's a Robert Capa saying that goes "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough". Next time you do portraits, get right in there, fill the entire frame up with them, give the viewer a look at the person that could only occur by an invasion of their personal space. I think you will really like the results.
You know, I'd like to talk more about your photo of the boy looking down towards the ground. There's two things I want to say. The first thing is this - The problem with this photo is that we don't know anything about this boy, is he shy? is he in trouble? is he angry? We just don't know. If instead you were taking a photo of a tortured artist or Bob Dylan or if he were wearing a punk tee-shirt with lots of tattoos and piercings, we the viewer would understand what is being said and the photo would work. But with the boy above, the viewer doesn't have enough information to connect his stance with who and what he is.
The second thing I want to say is that we here are all photographers and as such everything we say only applies to us and in many respects is complete BS. We've all made up our minds about what is or isn't a good photo and so if you listen too hard to any of us, you'll never find your own vision and will end up being just another one of us. Now I'm not saying our advice isn't good, what I'm saying is that our advice applies more to our photography than to yours. You may well have a whole new vision and a way of presenting your subjects in a manner that we simply don't understand. This is a critical aspect of art, your peers will never like your art and if they do, you stand a good chance your art will not be remembered. There are many celebrated artists who during their lifetimes were considered great but their art didn't make it past their generation. On the other hand, most of the famous artists we think of today were despised by their peers and only appreciated by later generations. Van Gogh is the first to come to mind but there are a host of others out there. In the world of photography the whole "Dead Pan" movement comes to mind. I'm not sure I understand "Dead Pan" artists but I suspect future generations may find them geniuses or may find them idiots, who knows. But certainly they fall into that category of artists who's peers do not like their work.
So to distill this all down, take our critique for what it is - our personal beliefs on photography and use them as such. But do not let our beliefs taint your vision of what *your* art should be and not be. Let your art express your vision of the world and run with it.
The second thing I want to say is that we here are all photographers and as such everything we say only applies to us and in many respects is complete BS. We've all made up our minds about what is or isn't a good photo and so if you listen too hard to any of us, you'll never find your own vision and will end up being just another one of us. Now I'm not saying our advice isn't good, what I'm saying is that our advice applies more to our photography than to yours. You may well have a whole new vision and a way of presenting your subjects in a manner that we simply don't understand. This is a critical aspect of art, your peers will never like your art and if they do, you stand a good chance your art will not be remembered. There are many celebrated artists who during their lifetimes were considered great but their art didn't make it past their generation. On the other hand, most of the famous artists we think of today were despised by their peers and only appreciated by later generations. Van Gogh is the first to come to mind but there are a host of others out there. In the world of photography the whole "Dead Pan" movement comes to mind. I'm not sure I understand "Dead Pan" artists but I suspect future generations may find them geniuses or may find them idiots, who knows. But certainly they fall into that category of artists who's peers do not like their work.
So to distill this all down, take our critique for what it is - our personal beliefs on photography and use them as such. But do not let our beliefs taint your vision of what *your* art should be and not be. Let your art express your vision of the world and run with it.
Hi MJ
Thank You I understand exactly what you are saying i greatly appreciate all tips i receive on here .I took several pics at the same time when i took this 1 & this 1 is my favorite because to me its reflects a lot about my son to me. I believe our pics we take of our loved 1s say something to us that only we really see. I used this pic as an example to show the use of background . I do really like the colors in it Thank You again
Thank You I understand exactly what you are saying i greatly appreciate all tips i receive on here .I took several pics at the same time when i took this 1 & this 1 is my favorite because to me its reflects a lot about my son to me. I believe our pics we take of our loved 1s say something to us that only we really see. I used this pic as an example to show the use of background . I do really like the colors in it Thank You again
Some folks will tell you to watch out chopping limbs off.
Black on white background in the third shot begins to say something...I like his face and how it exposed the highlights hit the right places but his collar is weird...what settings did you use on that shot?
The most interesting thing to me about what you have shown us so far is the B&W itself...not very often do you see people playing around with B&W...well at least not compared to color.
Black on white background in the third shot begins to say something...I like his face and how it exposed the highlights hit the right places but his collar is weird...what settings did you use on that shot?
The most interesting thing to me about what you have shown us so far is the B&W itself...not very often do you see people playing around with B&W...well at least not compared to color.
Last edited: