Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Jcolman, Mar 29, 2008.
My second attempt at traditional family portraits. Should I include any of them in a portfolio??
ONE MILLION DOLLARS.....
but seriously they're good stuff
you broke a couple of portrait rules but the only one that kind of bothers me is the crop on the last photo....
because you can't see her hand? I had to do that to crop out the mom's hand who was supporting the baby. Thanks for the input. I want to try some "non-traditional" portraits next.
Looking good. #4 makes me lol
ya...since you have to chop...don't chop at the wrist...I'd crop it about an inch or two higher on the baby's forearm. I'd also prob adjust the lean a tiny bit
get some gels for the background for some color, the blown out white is distracting IMO
I have gels. I didn't want a colored background. I purposely wanted a clean, white BG.
The mom would look a lot cuter if you could PS out her double chin.
2nd and 4th are my favorite... I'd include them in the portfolio.
Though I don't think you need to gel the back ground per se, I think the clothes are colored to close to the back ground and the subjects are not standing out enough.
#3 is killer. I'd heal the spot off his neck and put it straight in a portfolio.
actually now that you mention it I think that's what is doing it, not enough contrast between the two
the lighting feels a little hard, even though it's not a contrasty lighting situation. More diffused lighting would give it a softer feel. Right now, when i look at these images, i feel like the subjects are hot (and not exposure wise, i mean like they look like they're under a bunch of hot lamps)
and yeah as someone else pointed out, the background is too close in color/tone to their clothing.
I can't get the light much softer than two chimeras and an umbrella. Maybe next time I'll shoot thru the umbrella instead. That might soften the key light a bit.
As for the background, maybe it is a bit too close to the tone of their clothes. I was taking a page out of this tutorial
and trying to have their faces as the center of attention.
Thanks for the feedback.
Definitely shoot through the umbrella rather than bounce off it, and also bring your soft boxes in closer to create a broader source. I'd knock down the hairlight/kicker just a bit so it's not quite as noticable also.
I'm not sure people in light clothes work best on a white BG. White is usually reserved for product photography, not portraits. It's too harsh, and makes your lighting look overdone and too direct. Which is nuts, considering how soft the reflections look on the subjects themselves.
These shots on a textured blue or grey BG would be exponentially more effective.
#3 is your best shot, but not only because of the subject and emotion captured. It's also the one with the darkest BG. Not a concidence.
are all babies that ugly?
The light on the left was a 48" chimera. I couldn't get it closer without it appearing in the shot. The hair light was shot thru a smaller litedome softbox...18 x 14 I think. I had the hair light just where I thought it looked good but I could turn it down a notch.
I'll try shooting thru the umbrella next time, or using the big chimera as my key.
That baby is gonna be sooooo fat.
My oldest wasn't the cutest baby...big ol' round head and all but she turned out just fine.
and no....I'm not posting pics.
Yeah i'd say for this type of portrait, soft box as your key is the way to go rather than the umbrella, but maybe shooting through the umbrella will be just enough to get you there. Post and share next time
that kid looks just like [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Harland Williams
You should probly make it white then.