DSLRUsers.com

It has been ages since I posted a photo for review, and even longer since I have posted one that isn't of the boys. Well, this isn't one of those, but I would appreciate feedback, particularly in the context of whether you think the treatment is sympathetic to the image.

Reschsmooth wrote:particularly in the context of whether you think the treatment is sympathetic to the image.

hmmm, tricky one, I think it depends on what the end result of the image is going to be.

The treatment for me (on teh first) results in a cold, desolate feeling that I would normally not associate with a family portait shot, however it is something that has alot of merit as a fine art image, the solemn expression the eyes and the desat all help in this regard.

Does the expression in shot give the viewer a sense of the childs personality? for me I can read a personality from this image but it is what I would associate with a fine art image not a image of child I knew (even vaguely)

The second one does not ring my bell, I think the BW conversion is not helping here, i also think the same previous thoughts above apply to this image, as a fine art style it could work, as a family portait to stick in a album, no.

I think the first one works magnificantly. While I don't think they are, the eyes could almost be colourised.

The second, not so much. It took me a while to perhaps work out why. I suspect the highlights on the top of the head need to be held back more and perhaps the face lightened. Perhaps reduce the sharpness of the hair and/or make the eye somewhat sharper. The image feels soft which may or may not be the case and in any case may not be a bad thing but the eye should be sharp and dominant and I'm not sure it is. Perhaps also a bit more negative space. As far as monochrome and the tones, that's fine.

biggerry wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:particularly in the context of whether you think the treatment is sympathetic to the image.

hmmm, tricky one, I think it depends on what the end result of the image is going to be.

The treatment for me (on teh first) results in a cold, desolate feeling that I would normally not associate with a family portait shot, however it is something that has alot of merit as a fine art image, the solemn expression the eyes and the desat all help in this regard.

Does the expression in shot give the viewer a sense of the childs personality? for me I can read a personality from this image but it is what I would associate with a fine art image not a image of child I knew (even vaguely)

Thanks for the feedback, Gerry. Given the expression, I had in mind a simple, fine art style image rather than a more typical child-portrait. Ideally, the background on camera left would have mirrored camera right, but alas that was not the case. When I saw the image in camera and his expression, I was after an 'aged' look, hence the desaturation and processing.

The second one does not ring my bell, I think the BW conversion is not helping here, i also think the same previous thoughts above apply to this image, as a fine art style it could work, as a family portait to stick in a album, no.

This was more intended as a portrait rather than fine art. Given the background, a colour version would not have worked as well, in my opinion (the dark section at camera right is, in fact, a bright yellow and green bath-toy bag). As it is, I think the shape of the various tones is distracting, hence I darkened using the B&W filter I have.

Murray Foote wrote:The second, not so much. It took me a while to perhaps work out why. I suspect the highlights on the top of the head need to be held back more and perhaps the face lightened. Perhaps reduce the sharpness of the hair and/or make the eye somewhat sharper. The image feels soft which may or may not be the case and in any case may not be a bad thing but the eye should be sharp and dominant and I'm not sure it is. Perhaps also a bit more negative space. As far as monochrome and the tones, that's fine.

Murray, it may be a function of compression, but the right eye is quite sharp (it was shot at about 1.4 given ambient light, but managed to get the one eye in focus).

You are right that the highlight on his head is likely to be distracting. Unfortunately, I had very little additional negative space. The image is cropped to 6x8 proportions.

These are both excellent with, maybe, a hint of critique.

In the first I feel that the right hand side is just a tad too bright. Also with the young lad looking to the right I would have preferred to see him over to the right rather than the left. The look on his face is classic and reminds me of someone that waiting for something to happen in a fearful but expectant way.

In the second pic I just love the laddies expression, lighting and concept the only thing missing is a bubble in the line of sight.

Overall, I love ’em

My first thoughts on the first was "is it IR?" the yellow/sepia tones with the slight blue in the eyes as well as the alabaster skin tones all add up to a desaturated false colour IR protrait with the red and blue channels inverted. It works amazingly well with this image of Tommy, a very classic/vintage portrait look and feel with a healthy dose of intrigue and surrealism.

The second is a nice capture with good usage of space, a bit grainy but it all works together and will give you nice feel at the same time. I can see this printed large (to show off that grain!) and proudly hung.

Based on immediate appeal:
#1 - stupendous
#2 - does nothing for me

As my poker mates used to say: "A quick game is a good game!"

Thanks chaps:

1. Chris, I appreciate the comments, and, unfortunately, there were no bubbles forthcoming. For the first image, unfortunately the background to his right was more distracting than his left, but agree with your suggestion. Not relayed in the image, but he was mucking around just prior to this shot, having a ball. I will post a couple of 'before' pictures which may provide some context.

2. Cam, thanks - I was thinking of printing one or both - I have some lovely warm base paper waiting for some more prints (something I haven't done for ages).

3. Trevor, thanks; you're right.

I like both first and second. But, first has too
much neutral space on the left, which does not
work for me because it is a tight portrait. Meaning
you are cutting the top of the head so I would
crop out the unnecessary space to create a more
balanced effect.
The second it is bit more tricky because if believe
there is an element missing on the right to make
the picture a bit more interesting - the buble. The
light on the head does not spread enough to light
the hair of the subject more evenly, but I still like
it.

You have to trust your gut feelings....your first image is supurb! Change nothing! It is a high quality fine art image that demands to be printed on the finest 100% cotton rag acid free paper and museum mounted and framed. Don't make the print too large. Second image lacks the charm of the first.

Simple solution for the second one is to crop down to eliminate the blown highlights then crop in from the left to balance.

Murray Foote wrote:Simple solution for the second one is to crop down to eliminate the blown highlights then crop in from the left to balance.

Here are a couple of cropped versions, incorporating your suggestion, Murray.



I am not sure the crop adds much as, for me, I liked the highlight on the hair as it added to the sun-touched innocence of the scene, if you will.

I think you're right. I think the original version of both are better before the crop.