Jenny #33

[Jenny]

I wasn't going to use this one, but it has been growing on me. I tried to crop out my husbands hands, but it just doesn't look right without them. Let me know what you think. Be brutal!:thwak lol!

[DoctorIt]

i don't have a problem with the hands (being so OOF and far in the foreground actually adds depth) so much as only seeing half of that little cutie's face!
:D

[Jenny]

This one her face isn't covered, but I don't think it is as powerful as the first one. She was watching my husband walk out the door for work. Such a Daddy's girl. Oh well, there are still 2 weeks to get it right. Should I even bother with these? Or should I just start anew?

[4labs]

i don't have a problem with the hands (being so OOF and far in the foreground actually adds depth) so much as only seeing half of that little cutie's face!
:D
I agree such a great shot if we could only see the babies whole face.

[DoctorIt]

This one her face isn't covered, but I don't think it is as powerful as the first one. She was watching my husband walk out the door for work. Such a Daddy's girl. Oh well, there are still 2 weeks to get it right. Should I even bother with these? Or should I just start anew?stick with the first one... second one is all out of focus.

I know you can't pose babies (my new niece taught me that), so it will be hard to recapture that first shot, but you it never hurts to snap away wildly when you think you have decent composition. maybe one will be free of the hand or foot in the face.

[johno]

I like this one... It doesn't bother me that the baby has her faced half covered... If the emotion was the baby then yes, not so good. However, the emotion is the father, right? I wish I could see more of the fathers face. But, I like this one as it is.

just my thoughts.

peace.
johno~

[amc]

Hi Jenny...

A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

Hope this was somewhat helpful...

Regards,

[Photosbychuck]

I wasn't going to use this one, but it has been growing on me. I tried to crop out my husbands hands, but it just doesn't look right without them. Let me know what you think. Be brutal!:thwak lol!Hi, Jenny
I love the first photo and I can see the fatherly love. :clap
Great shot and good Luck in the contest! :thumb

Take Care,
Chuck,

[fish]

Hi Jenny...

A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

Wow! And after only 30 posts! :rofl

[fish]

stick with the first one... second one is all out of focus.

And taken with too much of a wide-angle lens. Looks like she's got a baseball tucked into that cheek. Heh...funny coming from me, the master of 10mm portraits. :rofl

[gubbs]

Hi Jenny...

A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

Hope this was somewhat helpful...

Regards,
Sound like, excellent advice :thumb

[Jenny]

Thank you everyone for all the suggestions!!!! I will try to reshoot again this weekend when my husband isn't working. As for the original shot, (fatherly love) it was taken in color, but with the pink blanket behind my husband, well, it just didn't look quite right. If I had set this shot up I would have removed it. I was just playing around with the camera while they were playing and just happened to get this one. I'm surprised it turned out this clear , I had the rapid shutter on and was holding the camera since I still need to get myself a tripod. All the other shots of the two of them were really blurry, but the babies foot wasn't in her face. Oh well, I'll try again. In the meantime.... I fixed up the upper left corner and I'll also show you what the color picture looked like.

[Jenny]

HAHA, I forgot to attach the pictures. Oh well, here is the fixed black and white one.

[Jenny]

Here is the color picture, mostly untouched except for a few levels adjustments and resized.

[mslammers]

Hi Jenny...

A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

Hope this was somewhat helpful...

Regards,
I won't repeat what amc said, he nailed it.

I think the problem we all have is getting the pose arranged. Our "models" aren't always with us.

[Jenny]

ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.:dunno

[digital faerie]

ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.:dunno
that's a very good question and no you're not an idiot. :D

here's a quickie link but I'm sure SID has a much better article on hand.

http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html

[Seamus]

ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.:dunno

http://asp.photo.free.fr/Composition/photoProgramCompMainClass.shtml

But......


http://www.fredmiranda.com/A12_Straydog/

Shay.

[wxwax]

Here's one thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2076&page=1&pp=20) we have on it. And Charles submitted this highly technical (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2078) thread. It's fascinating.