DSLRUsers.com

Can anyone answer a question I have about the eyes of this little kid? Did the photographer enhance the size of his eyes. I think I can tell that she did a little dodging and burning, but the size looks a bit abnormal. What do you think?

Here's the link: (I can't get the props for this image so do this to get to the little guy to which I'm making reference).

http://www.alwphotography.com/index3.php

click on "kids"
at the bottom of the thumbs click the down arrow for the next page
the little guy is top center.

Thanks a million,

David

Definitely looks enhanced to me, but I have no idea what the process was.

Looks like the blur tool has been used. Nice sharp eyes with th esurrounding areas soft. Nice job. but the more you look at it the more it starts to look wrong IMHO

I agree - it just doesn't look right.
I think that the blur that is obvious around his ears ends quite suddenly and quite close to his eyes. The eyes in contrast are very sharp. This rapid change from blurry to sharp seems to make his eyes appear quite flat instead of following the normal curve of the face. I wonder if that is part of it...

she posts on another board that I frequent. She photographs these kids with a lot of shallow depth of field....around 1.4-1.7 I believe.

When she posts pictures you can see her EXIF data, and her depth of field is very shallow which is why her backgrounds are so blurred.

It is sheer talent to photograph moving children with depth of field that shallow, and natural light to boot.

I don't think she enlarges eyes. Why would a parent buy pictures of their kids with eyes that are wider than they are? That doesn't make sense.

D

children seem to have 'large' eyes anyway - or at least that's what I've always felt ... I found this site to be absolutely beautiful - even though they have shallow DOF, they go to the soul of the child .... at least IMHO.
Rel

I believe MHDs daughter has beautiful big eyes from the photos I've seen of her. They're not enhanced. Sometimes kids do have these big eyes. I think the way this photographer works is to draw you to a certain quality feature of that child.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Dane, don't get me wrong, I think she is a marvelous talent. I've shot kids myself and its no easy task. It's just the eyes in this one shot seemed different. I would agree with you that a parent wouldn't nomally buy a photograph of their child with eyes that look abnormal. However, if the change was slight enough that the average person couldn't tell there was alternations made, then there is a good chance they would buy albeit unaware.

I think, although not in this case perhaps, a little burning and dodging can be tastfully done to enhance the final look. I didn't always think this way. I was a purest and thought it a desecration to alter an image. Silly me. I learned real fast that if you want photography to be your sole means of supporting your family; you'd better be willing to do what's necessary to make the paying customer happy. I still want to shoot like Ansel Adams, or rather capture his vision not copy his work. But I mainly have the responsibility, willingly, to provide for my family.

I love shooting kids. I shoot my own more often than I'm sure they like (they are very patient with their dad). The purpose for this post was to learn her (Audrey's) techniques and use my style to the pleasure of my customers and to edify me too.

Again, I appreciate everyone in this forum; their insight, talent, and willingness to share everything truly makes this my favorite forum.

Thanks a million,

David

Oops, please ignore my comments, I was looking at the wrong shot.

[quote="dk"]Can anyone answer a question I have about the eyes of this little kid? Did the photographer enhance the size of his eyes. I think I can tell that she did a little dodging and burning, but the size looks a bit abnormal. What do you think?

If you enlarge the image it appears as though 'eye liner' has been applied to the upper eye lid. This may have been done prior to taking the picture or digitally. By the way; has anyone ever used Macromedia Fireworks for image editing? I use it and like it and it's a lot cheaper than Photoshop!

Wonderful portraits of children.
This is an excellent site, showing the photographer's talent to the max.
It looks like she features eyes - many of her subjects seem to have outstanding or unusual eyes.

not sure if actually making a selection on the eyes and scalign them up is a good idea, nor would the photographer do this as it takes time and if not doen right would look out of proportion

but i did work experience at Ralph magazine (australian glamour mag girls sports etc)

the guys there had to photoshop each model shoot image especially the eyes dodging the eyes white it was really important to get the models eyes looking vibrant but they did nothing else apart from cloning out spots and tweaking contrast

What a shitty site.

Inappropriate use of Flash, sickeningly schamltzy muzak .... images are ok, but the actual site's design and layout make this, for me, a totally unpleasant place to be.

I think I'm getting sugar poisoning!

Gary,

Help me with the flash thing.

I agree the music is a bit over the top. Did you catch her rates?

thanks,

dk

Dk I believe Gary is refering the the website using flash software, rather then the use of flash in the actual photography.

dk wrote:Gary,

Help me with the flash thing.

I agree the music is a bit over the top. Did you catch her rates?

No. I was too busy trying not to puke because the Flash was getting in the way of something so simple - looking at her website.

If you're a web designer trying to push how good you are in web design, then I suppose that a Flash animation might work, but for a photographer requiring just a simple gallery displaying their portfolio, I fail to understand why people go to so much trouble to totally screw up the process.

They probably think it's cool, but the reality is that a lot of people don't like it, and I would think that, if you're trying to attract people towards buying your services, pissing them off with an obnoxious website would be somewhat counter productive.

Now, what is your question regarding the Flash thing?

Alpha_7 wrote:Dk I believe Gary is refering the the website using flash software, rather then the use of flash in the actual photography.

Craig, yes.

Whoa, Gary!

Why are you getting be short with me? I just had a question about your flash comment. I didn't know you were referring to the flash player until Craig answered.

Be that as it may; I believe at first glance her site would have some appeal to her clients. She is very well known inspite of her lack of taste regarding her site design. She has a resume as long as your arm. And did you check out her prices and her shooting schedule? She must be doing something right.

Her website aside, do you think she's altering the kid's eye; burning and dodging? That was my original question.

Thanks a million.

dk

Dk - I dont' think Gary was being short with you, I think you mis-interpreted his tone.

dk wrote:Whoa, Gary!

Why are you getting be short with me?

I wasn't; I'm not sure that I can see where you'd be getting that from.

I just had a question about your flash comment. I didn't know you were referring to the flash player until Craig answered.

Yep; I didn't quite understand your question at all.

She has a resume as long as your arm. And did you check out her prices and her shooting schedule? She must be doing something right.

I have very short arms.

More seriously, McDonalds also has a lot of clients. Apart from clever marketing, what would you say they're doing right?

I've still not looked at her prices, and I have no intention of doing that - it would throw my blood sugar way out of kilter, I suspect.

As to her shooting schedule .... hmmmm ... That's what she is publishing, right? While I'm not suggesting for a moment that she might be lying, I will observe that the's heavily marketing herself.

Hor far can you trust (or throw) a marketing person?

My question really pertains to what she's actually doing, as in what is her primary business objective. Making images, or marketing herself?

I suspect it's the latter.

Her website aside, do you think she's altering the kid's eye; burning and dodging? That was my original question.

No, I don't. Some kids - some adults - have beautifully gorgeous eyes. This kid is one of them.

Did you happen to notice, btw, the absence of the ordinary kid down the street from her images?

Where are they portrayed in her portfolio?

Maybe Michael needs to read her the riot act on PP techniques?

This reminds me of a roomate I had once when I was in school in Idaho.
everyday he ate potatoe chips, with a grilled cheese sandwich made of processed cheese and 'Wonderbread' (refined white cheap bread) and a tall glass of Kool-aid (coloured sugar water). Every day.

Being from Vancouver, I grew up on all sorts of different international cuisines. Eventually I got so nausious at the sight of it that I never came home for lunch. It was just too much.

I've noticed the same about photography. My brother does wedding videos. He's quite good, but the photographer he works with does the cheasiest work you could imagine. I see her work and wonder who likes such dross, but she rakes in the money, so yes she's doing something right, and the masses love it. More refined tastebuds tend to shy away though.

I'm not saying this about the aforementioned photog though. The music was perhaps the most annoyingly manipulative thing I've ever heard, but the photos seemed like decent kids portraits (nothing truly unbelievably ground breaking though).

Another interesting thing is how different opinions vary from place to place. The opinions from this forum vary to quite a degree from some of my mates on flickr.

Now, what is your question regarding the Flash thing?

Here's where I got that. The "now" seemed short. Could be that I'm way to sensitive; beside, I haven't gotten over 24 killing off Edgar.

Thanks for the smiles.

Dooda, the varying ops is exactly what I like about this place. And btw, did you tell your roomy that processed cheese is made of things that were never alive much less intended for consumption? And cool-aid; good grief, do they still make that stuff?

This has been a fun thread.

Thanks a million,

dk (a.k.a., David to my mates - and hope we still are)

dk wrote:Here's where I got that. The "now" seemed short. Could be that I'm way to sensitive; beside, I haven't gotten over 24 killing off Edgar.

Well Chole (sp) is still alive, and they managed to kill Lynn as well, I just hope they didn't really kill Tony.

Dave,

dk wrote:

Now, what is your question regarding the Flash thing?

Here's where I got that. The "now" seemed short. Could be that I'm way to sensitive; beside, I haven't gotten over 24 killing off Edgar.

I intended it as more of "oh yes, I almost forgot this point" sort of now, if that makes any sense. Sorry for the confusion.

As to 24 ... hopefully we'll see a new ep of West Wing somewhere on my LAN here this morning.

Dooda, the varying ops is exactly what I like about this place. And btw, did you tell your roomy that processed cheese is made of things that were never alive much less intended for consumption? And cool-aid; good grief, do they still make that stuff?

Would you rather have some Thunderbird?

A sloven of Night Train perhaps?

dk (a.k.a., David to my mates - and hope we still are)

No issues here.