Scary or Cute?

PhotoLasVegas

Did a kids (outdoor) session with this little boy and got a ton of nice shots, but this one stood out - we're just not sure if it stood out "Good" or "bad".

Mom is coming to see the proofs on Monday so I'll let you guys know what she thinks... but wanted some input here first.

I'm not big on the shadows, I'm more interested in comments on composition, pose, facial expression and PP.

Go at it!

Surfdog

Both.

But leaning toward scary.

Composition is nice. I like the strong contrast & desat in the pp. The eyes are unsettling, though.

anonymouscuban

Scary.

PhotoLasVegas

What's scary is we did next to nothing to the eyes. The entire photo has an increase in clarity and contrast, and all it did was accentuate the eyes - it didn't change them.

Surfdog

Then I change my answer to all the way scary.

rstwohee

Just a comment from a non-professional photographer who is a mom. It's not that the picture is so much scary as it conveys a sense of knowing that we don't expect from a toddler. When I looked at the picture my first thought was this little guy had the look of "I'm a baaaaaad boy and I know it!"

PhotoLasVegas

Well here's the verdict... just met with mom... the boy is actually only 18 months old, the hair just makes him look much older...my wife shot this session so I have nothing "invested" in the photo, so I feel I can be fair with an opinion.

The mom LOVED this photo, but didn't like the PP version as much as the fairly basic "original". She LOVED his eyes on this one, even with the PP. Her comment was "man, this is like a GQ photo". "rstwohee" comment was similar to hers, she used "mischievous" as an adjective. I think if he was 17 or 18 years old, this look would be the "bad boy" look. She didn't see "freaky" even after I (carefully) asked her if she thought the PP looked a little over-the-top.

Oh and she chose this as one of her Top 10 photos....out of about 50 that we showed her. Really she originally "marked" 23 of them then whittled down to 10 and this was one.

I don't know, for some reason I can't stop looking at this one - in my eyes there's just SOMETHING that pulls the viewer into the photo. And I still can't decide if it's something "good" pulling me in, or something "bad" pulling me in.

I guess, though... if mom loved it then something must have hit a "good" nerve with her!

Joie

My first reaction to this thread? How could anyone think this adorable kid is scary. After closely examining the photo, I think one problem is the constricted pupils. Is it too late to edit the pupils to make them larger?



J.



Edited to add this copied and pasted sentence from Wikipedia. I don't have any idea if it's is accurate:

Dilated pupils indicate greater affection or attraction, while constricted pupils send a colder signal.

PhotoLasVegas

I think it's the eyes that push it towards "scary". Yeah we could probably open up the pupils a bit, if she chooses it as a print we'll probably do that. I'm tempted to post a few more from this shoot, the entire shoot seemed very "GQ"... probably a lot because we had a problem getting him to look at the camera, he looked a lot like a "disinterested model" style.

rstwohee

If you do enlarge the pupils, please consider posting so that we can compare. My initial reaction is that it won't make much of a difference as the expression on the child's face says a lot.

I'm not surprised mom selected that particular shot. It really does have something about it!

Betsy

PhotoLasVegas

"Something" is right

I decided to post a few more from the shoot... remember this kid is only 18 months old so there's no "posing" happening. He never stood still..

continued C&C is big-time appreciated!

#2



#3


#4

rstwohee

In some ways its hard to relate #4 with the "bad boy" of your first picture. How could such a cutie have that GQ bad boy look in the other picture?

These are all wonderful pictures and reallly capture a spirit of this little guy. My favorite of the 4 posted is #2 - the desaturation really makes him stand out in the picture and his expression is terrific. This all goes with the caveat that I'm looking at these as a mom. I'd buy them all

Betsy

PhotoLasVegas

Thanks, and #2 was her absolute favorite also.

Unfortunately I don't think she's going to buy any of them - she was part of our huge marketing experiment and got the sitting for $50 which includes 10 web-quality photos, we did this to get a LOT of business and push after-sales (overall after-sales are great). I just got an email from her about 20 minutes ago saying her intention for the shoot was to get some Facebook photos (that's fine) to show off... but get this... "I like 15 of them, can I pay you $25 extra for the 5 extra web-quality shots"?

Ummm, no.. quit being a cheap-ass.. for $150 you can get ALL the shots in HiRes with full printing rights! << What I want to reply.

What I will reply is that our web-quality shots are $10 each and don't include special processing...

rstwohee

I wish I lived near to you - I'd have no problem paying $150 for a disk full of pictures of this quality. I've been paying "professional" photographers around here to take photos of my 2 girls (age 5 & 12) and I keep coming up with mediocre quality pictures. The poses are pretty good though dated in style but the post processing is where it all goes "pear shaped". There are a number of photographers who need to learn what white balance is & how to actually use post-processing software to advantage.

I really don't get why someone would pay to get web-quality pictures and not have something print quality for longer term It's interesting reading these tales of dealing with "the public". Thanks for sharing.

Betsy