My first PAID FOR shots...think I did ok?

Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
edited November 9, 2010 in People
So, I tried again...another photo shoot, lights still very new to me. Went with a white backdrop and white "props".

How do these look?

Very little PP, just a little clarity/contrast...

5154190735_9fd5959aa0_z.jpg
Johnathan 1 by Bend The Light, on Flickr

5154959154_165b102fe0_z.jpg
Johnathan 2 by Bend The Light, on Flickr

5154352035_832841e424_z.jpg
William 1 by Bend The Light, on Flickr

Thank you in advance of your honest appraisal of this, my first PAID photo shoot. :)

Comments

  • jirojiro Registered Users Posts: 1,865 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    Congrats on your first paid shots! wings.gif I like the poses.
    Sitting quietly, doing nothing. Spring comes and the grass grows by itself.

    http://imagesbyjirobau.blogspot.com/
    http://500px.com/williebau
  • Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    jiro wrote: »
    Congrats on your first paid shots! wings.gif I like the poses.

    Thank you :ivar
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    Nice!
    Good idea on going HK. As I said it many times before, HK is really the easiest setup that provides quite a "professional" look. With kids is almost a no brainer...
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    The shots don't work for me. The subjects need to be looking at the camera in these kinds of shots. I am not digging the orange puffy prop either. Finally the light is is too harsh...look at the shiny forehead and hair.

    Do you have any shots without the prop and where they are looking at the camera?
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    The shots don't work for me. The subjects need to be looking at the camera in these kinds of shots. ...
    While I'm not saying these shots should work for you, there is no rule about looking into camera.
    Looking "next" to camera typically looks bad, true (and I always tell my subject that they should either look into the camera, or at least 30 degress away), but looking somewhere else... why not?
    FWIW, only about 30% of my shots have "in-camera look", and I didn't hear anybody complaining about them. It's not passport pictures, you know...mwink.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited November 7, 2010
    I like these.....

    The only time the subject really needs to look into the camera is if
    you want to really focus attention on their eyes.....then yes you need to have
    them look into the camera and need lighting so that the color of the yes just
    pops right out of the picture.......

    but that is jmho.......very humble opinon
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited November 7, 2010
    I like HK. The prop in the first one is a bit overwhelming maybe. But otherwise, these look great.
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    These are much improved, and the white balance looks good as well.

    Sam
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Thank you to all who replied here...

    Nikolai and Sam, can you see where I took advice and used it (maybe not perfectly, but tried)?

    I have a HEAP of photos from that shoot, and the vast majority do have eye contact...the baby was a nightmare, though, but he did look at me occasionally.

    5156781075_d2fd42a2f0_z.jpg
    Johnathan, William, and Roy by Bend The Light, on Flickr

    These shots were from a "warm up" if you like, the ball was being thrown by a parent and back again to put the kid at ease. That's why it's there.

    The parents actually wanted the hi key look, and have had photos done before (every christmas) by an established photo studio, but this year decided to give me a break...they are actually exceedingly pleased by the "teaser" shots I have already sent them (these ones, as it goes).

    They are bright, as hi key, but I calibrated my monitor, and they are (not quite) blown out on the heads, but the baby was the worst for that. I don't think it went too far, though. And, I have other shots from the shoot where I didn't go hi key...the parents have options of what style they want.

    Again, thanks for the critique, and some people, extra thanks for the help.

    Cheers
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited November 8, 2010
    Nikolai wrote: »
    While I'm not saying these shots should work for you, there is no rule about looking into camera.
    Looking "next" to camera typically looks bad, true (and I always tell my subject that they should either look into the camera, or at least 30 degress away), but looking somewhere else... why not?
    FWIW, only about 30% of my shots have "in-camera look", and I didn't hear anybody complaining about them. It's not passport pictures, you know...mwink.gif

    For these kinds of shots I still think they need to be looking at the camera. For your kind of shots they look fine looking off camera I agree. IMO candid portraits, artistic portaits, glamour portraits, can all work looking off camera..where you are trying to acheive some effect or show context to the enviroment..but family shots, I like to see them looking at the camera.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Qarik wrote: »
    For these kinds of shots I still think they need to be looking at the camera. For your kind of shots they look fine looking off camera I agree. IMO candid portraits, artistic portaits, glamour portraits, can all work looking off camera..where you are trying to acheive some effect or show context to the enviroment..but family shots, I like to see them looking at the camera.

    As it happens, the family are very happy with the photos, including the "looking off-camera" ones. It's about what the customer likes, isn't it?
    In this case it was a parent throwing the ball back and forth, and it was a parent attracting the baby's attention. I think the parent will remember this photo shoot, and that adds to the "worth" of the photos, whether they are looking at camera, or not.

    I will certainly take opinions on board, however, and endeavour to have shots with good eye contact to go alongside the candids.

    Cheers
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Keep in mind that with the little kids catching the direct look into camera is extremely challenging task. Their brain is attracted to bright, moving and, to a degree, familiar. Your camera is none of these things, esp. if the parents are hanging around . ne_nau.gif
    One thing to consider is to put a bright material around the lens, e.g. scarf. Or wrap one of running Xmas lights around it. Or you could put bright plush/paper petals and hope they would look to the center of this "flower". Or something else to that extend...
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Adding to Nikolai's post above......have you ever watch the kiddy photogs at walmart or sears....small plush animal toys is a simple key here..also if parents aren't in the shot have them talk to the baby while standing next to you......even a small baby rattle is good as it has an attractant noise that could bring out the deer in the headlights look...........and I would use a wireless shutter release.......when will someone bring us a digital twinlens for studio work........
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Bend The LightBend The Light Registered Users Posts: 1,887 Major grins
    edited November 9, 2010
    Art Scott wrote: »
    Adding to Nikolai's post above......have you ever watch the kiddy photogs at walmart or sears....small plush animal toys is a simple key here..also if parents aren't in the shot have them talk to the baby while standing next to you......even a small baby rattle is good as it has an attractant noise that could bring out the deer in the headlights look...........and I would use a wireless shutter release.......when will someone bring us a digital twinlens for studio work........

    Thanks, Art, and Nikolai,

    Yes, we got onto "parent behind me making funny noises" stuff. And I was playing hide and seek with the baby behind the camera. I like the "petal" idea...my lens is a pretty flower...look at me! ha ha

    I have a wireless shutter release, but the battery is dud. I used a cabled release on some of the shots, but that only gave me 1m plus arm length away...I need to get some batteries for the remote.

    Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.