Be honest

KTBoom2006-E510

How will this picture look as a 16x24? The cliet wants the first 2 photos in that large of a format.




and this one





Is there anyway I can put their smiles on this one, b/c the other one is a little blurry.

i_worship_the_King

Wow you get bonus points for what looks like great flash use on that first one!

Obviously, the customer gets whatever they want - but I think the second picture is the candidate for a big blow up. Despite being a little blurry if there is enough data in the original I think you can make it work. Smiles, in my opinion, are more important than a small technical glitch.

du8die

!
Nice shots.

Personally, I think that if you moved them 3 feet to the right in #1, that hot spot on dad's head and standing daughter's head would not be there, and it would be a much more balanced image lighting wise.

Your location is awesome. I like the walls.

Nice stuff.

erson83

I think either or would look great blown up...great for your wallet!

Awais Yaqub

Lovely i think 2nd is very nice. In 1st i would have cropped the stream 1 inch from bottom and 1 inch from left side

crockett

I think #2 looks pretty good myself.

KTBoom2006-E510

I made the pictures a little larger

PineapplePhoto

KTBoom2006-E510 wrote:

Is there anyway I can put their smiles on this one, b/c the other one is a little blurry.

What smiles?

KTBoom2006-E510

The little smiles they did have, lol. They twins did not want their pictures done.

Elaine

The setting for these is pretty. I think I would crop the first a bit more, as they seem a bit small in relation to their surroundings. The second shot has very slightly better expressions than the third, but mostly just on the lady. Honestly, I don't think I would have shown them the second shot, because of the blur/softness, but this is something I tend to be rather picky about (maybe too much so). But perhaps some sort of treatment would make that less of an issue? It's hard for me to say (someone else would probably know better) if a 16x20 would make the blur worse or not really matter. At that size, you don't stand right next to it to look at it, so ???
Sorry, that probably wasn't very helpful!

beetle8

#2 is way too blurry to blow up,
I like #1 but a crop will help, as was mentioned bottom and left to hel bring them at least to the third mark.
As for the moving of the smiles, you'll have to move more than that because they moved too much between shots, but it's actually really easy if you have cs3 the feature is probably in cs2 as well.
Open both images in PS click "V" to get the move tool then drag one image onto the other. Shift click on the BG so both layers are selected, then goto edit "Auto align layers" after that you create a layer mask on the top one and paint away what you don't want.
If it was just a matter of the smiles then it'd be really easy, but with the movement it will take more work, and since #2 is OOF you'll probably end up with a not so good result.

Qarik

#1 needs a major crop and I don't like the lighting much. #2 is waaay soft. #3 is sharper but still not really doin it for me...but the customer gets what they want *shrug*

Ed911

Too soft
Both two and three look too soft. I think the camera was focusing on the wall...it appears very sharp. Three is not as soft as two...but still too soft for enlargements...in my opinion.

KTBoom2006-E510

The problem was that the little girls wouldn't hold still, so the parents were trying to keep them still and looking at me. Which caused everyone to have some sort of movement. I asked if we could redo the pictures for the ones they wanted enlarged, but not sure if they will.

Elaine

KTBoom2006-E510 wrote:

The problem was that the little girls wouldn't hold still, so the parents were trying to keep them still and looking at me. Which caused everyone to have some sort of movement. I asked if we could redo the pictures for the ones they wanted enlarged, but not sure if they will.

What ISO and aperture were you using? I'm thinking using a wide aperture and bumping the ISO (and therefore shutter speed) should have enabled a sharper shot. I've learned I'd much rather deal with a bit of ISO noise than blur from movement.

KTBoom2006-E510

Elaine wrote:

What ISO and aperture were you using? I'm thinking using a wide aperture and bumping the ISO (and therefore shutter speed) should have enabled a sharper shot. I've learned I'd much rather deal with a bit of ISO noise than blur from movement.

i didnt even use flash bc I wanted natural light on the stone ones. I really wish I could redo them... But I have to let them get the photos they want

Elaine

KTBoom2006-E510 wrote:

i didnt even use flash bc I wanted natural light on the stone ones. I really wish I could redo them... But I have to let them get the photos they want

Katie,

I just sent you a PM.

Blaker

Maybe it's just me, but the mom's big foot hanging down off the wall does nothing for me!!!!

System

I agree with the concensus that #1 needs to be cropped down by quite a bit. Having the subjects much more in the foreground would have really helped this shot. Blowing it up as is would make for a huge picture of scenery with little tiny people stranded off to the right of the frame. Try cropping it and showing it to the clients, see if the like it better. #2 and #3 are too soft to be enlarged to that size IMO.

But of course if they are happy with the shots, finish up and move on!

KTBoom2006-E510

Swartzy

Want to be honest so please don't think I'm being mean, ok? The color balance is significantly off on these. Printed bigger will not make them look better. The overall treatment is much too plastic looking with accentuated blur. The focus is much too soft. A soft shot will look even softer in larger print. The poses are not very good and don't allow viewing room...everyone is crammed together in a vertical line. If the client wants them, then it's their choice but someone selling work should first learn how to tackle the basics of photography....focus, aperture and shutter speed. Work on those things first Katie because trying to "fix" them in post processing will not work. You must get it right "in camera" to begin with.

Sam

Hi Katie,

First to answer your question. In my opinion they will not print with acceptable quality.

When printing at larger sizes it's absolutely critical to start with a clean sharp image. The larger the print the more noticeable each, and every flaw.

I went to your Smugmug site, and took a look at the series, and found all were taken with (what I consider) very low shutter speeds ( 1/25 to 1/80 at 100 mm or so) causing camera shake. I know of no way to fix this.

Not sure why you couldn't get a higher shutter speed at ISO 400, and f 5.6?

If the lighting conditions regulate you to these settings, I would have definitely used fill flash.

I also would have tried f8 to gain a little more DOF. In one image I liked with the two little girls on the slide, the front one is in focus, but the one just behind, (by inches) is not.

Also I was able to access your original image size, and download it. This isn't a good idea. Many, as you will find out, will simply download the original file, and print themselves.

If you are going to be selling larger prints, I would recommend printing some test images so you can get an idea of what to expect.

Sam

KTBoom2006-E510

Sam wrote:

Hi Katie,

First to answer your question. In my opinion they will not print with acceptable quality.

When printing at larger sizes it's absolutely critical to start with a clean sharp image. The larger the print the more noticeable each, and every flaw.

I went to your Smugmug site, and took a look at the series, and found all were taken with (what I consider) very low shutter speeds ( 1/25 to 1/80 at 100 mm or so) causing camera shake. I know of no way to fix this.

Not sure why you couldn't get a higher shutter speed at ISO 400, and f 5.6?

If the lighting conditions regulate you to these settings, I would have definitely used fill flash.

I also would have tried f8 to gain a little more DOF. In one image I liked with the two little girls on the slide, the front one is in focus, but the one just behind, (by inches) is not.

Also I was able to access your original image size, and download it. This isn't a good idea. Many, as you will find out, will simply download the original file, and print themselves.

If you are going to be selling larger prints, I would recommend printing some test images so you can get an idea of what to expect.

Sam

Thank you Sam... I didn't notice that they weren't protected. And to be honest, I really don't know why I had it at a lower shutter speed. Scott has told me before to use no less than 125, and usually.... I stick to that and adjust my ISO and flash before I do the shutter. And I had a gut feeling this wouldn't be a good photo to blow up, I wasn't even expecting the family to want a large one... Especially that size. I have been trying to talk with them and get them to let me redo the photo's they want with the hope that their little girls might be in the mood to do the pictures since they know me a little better. ( I just did their older sister's wedding reception this past Saturday in which I got to play with the little ones more. )

Thanks

picturegirl

I went to the gallery and personally I like the 1st photo in the gallery #2847 the best. Seems to be sharper and the lighting is nice. Some straightening and cropping would make it a spectacular photo!