Black and White Baby Portrait

[lynnma]

I had to go with black and white as he had yellow all over his face (dinner). I love portraits but I have trouble with them. All critiques very much appreciated. I'm ready! go ahead..:1drink
http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/26172294-L.jpg

[spockling]

I had to go with black and white as he had yellow all over his face (dinner). I love portraits but I have trouble with them. All critiques very much appreciated. I'm ready! go ahead..:1drink
http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/26172294-S.jpg

The only thing I might be able to offer would be that I'd would've like to seen more DOF and have the whole head in focus. That's it, that's all 0-)

[pathfinder]

I had to go with black and white as he had yellow all over his face (dinner). I love portraits but I have trouble with them. All critiques very much appreciated. I'm ready! go ahead..:1drink
http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/26172294-S.jpg

Pictures of babies are always appealing, kind of like shooting flowers - some more than others tho. :D

To my eye, Lynn, it looks like the focal plane is in the strands of hair on his forehead. The softness of the image IS appealing, but I think the eyes and the lips should be sharpened just a tad more. And perhaps just a touch of more contrast also - I know the lower contrast goes along with the softness of the image, but maybe just a little more pop might be nice. :dunno

[Khaos]

I really like this shot.:thumb The attitude captured is adorable. I'm one that doesn't demand full head focus, the ears can always be slightly OOF and I don't feel it detracts.

The one thing that does bother me slightly is that it seems the left eye (his right) seems sharper than the other one. I still like the shot though.:thumb

[Mike Lane]

Is it just my monitor or is there some wierdness going on with the hair? It gets clipped to black (measured with the eyedropper) above the ear. Kinda looks wierd to me.

[ginger_55]

For a portrait/portrait, I would like to have seen a cleaner background, or a background that spoke to the baby's lifestyle (same advice as birds........all this photography stuff never changes, smile).

And I would like to have the baby looking at you, unless there is a lifestyle reason, that is apparent not to.

I do those baptisms, I discovered awhile back that people want ME to take photos of THEM looking at the camera. Yeah, right, why don't They look at the camera, but it does seem to be somewhat key. My portraits are straight forward things.

Now if you can do an Annie Liebowitz, incorporate backgrounds, show all lifestyle, along with the essence of the person/baby, well then all these other silly rules can go in the trash.

That is what I noticed right off. The not looking at the camera, and the background. From that I extrapolated whatever I said.

7 AM, not having been to bed, sleep, since 5 AM, I am not really all here for much else, but I did get that from the photo.

So, if possible a reshoot, if not, try the PS stuff. That is my humble, :rofl , opinion.

Really all these are things are so intertwined, reading a wildlife photography book really helped me critique this photo. It is a library book and in the other room, Moose Peterson something........I have it on my wish list, meanwhile I can keep it from the library for awhile.
Carry a squeaky toy, that might get his attention.

ginger (I need to get one of those, too.............dogs)

[Mitchell]

I like this shot for a few reasons. Firstly, I really like the cropping. I'm not usually bold enough to crop this tightly, but you really engage the viewer with this crop. Secondly, I like that he is not looking at the camera. To me, this makes this shot more interesting than the standard portrait/snapshot look.

My only thought is what has been previously said. I think the eyes could be a bit sharper. This would really draw you in.

[lynnma]

These critiques are great. Thankyou so much. Yes there is wierdness in the hair and background.. I blurred it too much. Yes the eyes could have been sharper, specially the left (his). I see it's very soft.
All comments are much appreciated and very helpful.
:clap

[Shay Stephens]

The idea behind portraits is not to take a picture of a person, but to take a picture of their personality (or aspects of it). It's not the shell, it's what is inside that counts. Now this may sound contradictory, but, the facial expressions are what clue the viewer into what the personality is like, what they are thinking, and/or make them recognizable to those who know them.

So I guess it boils down to deciding when to take the picture of a portrait. Do you press the shutter when the person is properly framed? Generally no. You take the picture when their personality via expressions are animating them. You may be able to get that right away, it may take time and practice shots to draw out. It may never happen during the session, in which case you have to try again later.

How many times have to seen this played out:
You have a really bad photo technically (oof, camera shake, dark, bad color, etc) but the person depicted is animated in some way that excites the viewer (usually a family member) and they just love the photo. Why? It certainly is not because of the technicals of the shot, it's because the recognize something about the persons expression (usually a favorable or pleasant one).

So when it comes to portraits, I am interested in expression, composition, lighting, color, technicals, generally in that order.

What I see in your photo here is expression, they eyes are not dead like they often can be with wee ones. Instead they are saying something. The focus is shallow, but the fall off in focus is pleasant and not distracting to my eye, instead I think it helps focus the attention on the expression. I have a feeling that this photo is going to go over very well with the family of the wee one.

The square crop is functional and there are more opportunities to crop other aspect ratios that would look good too.

I think it could use a bit more contrast to turn it B&W for web display, but it may print just fine.

So my long winded way of saying that I really like this photo.

[erich6]

I like the way you caught the baby's expression and the DOF is fine by me also. I like the soft tones/contrast. I think the crop at the top is too tight.

Erich

[lynnma]

Thanks again everyone for your thoughtful critiques. I have to say I'm finding this critique very informative.. I'ts great to get some in depth feedback on a shot. Great learning process.
:thumb

[ian408]

Lynn,

What I like about this shot is the expression on the face. It's a look of
curiosity or maybe a puzzeling look. The catch light in the eyes is also
nice. The hair is what caught my eye though.

My suggestion would be to soften the hair and sharpen the eyes.

I like seeing baby portraits. The good ones capture a moment in the person's
life that a parent or child can look back on in the years to come. Your shot is
one of those.

Ian

[mercphoto]

How many times have to seen this played out:
You have a really bad photo technically (oof, camera shake, dark, bad color, etc) but the person depicted is animated in some way that excites the viewer (usually a family member) and they just love the photo. Why? It certainly is not because of the technicals of the shot, it's because the recognize something about the persons expression (usually a favorable or pleasant one).
Great advice again from Shay. I feel strongly that the digital age has made people pay way too much attention to proper color, proper exposure, tack-sharp focus, etc.

In the baby shot I feel the shallow depth of field is a big plus and should be kept. If the entire baby's head was in focus it would lose a lot of emotional impact. And there are definitely expressions in the eyes. Whether that is the expression or emotion you or the client wants is another matter.

[Angelo]

Is it just my monitor or is there some wierdness going on with the hair?
:agree but otherwise I like this photo mucho. :thumb