Mr Serious

midnitejam · March 14, 2007

I'd appreciate any advice.
This image wasn't meant to be a studio portrait. I realize it's mearly a snapshot, but I tried to make it an appealing and technically correct snapshot.
Thanks,
midnitejam

RogersDA · March 14, 2007

Nice shot. Besides being a bit flat, one thing I noticed was that his left eye blends into the couch.

I tweaked a bit, mostly using i2e. Doesn't look great as some of the information is lost since I edited the image in the post and not the original. Is this version technically correct? Probably not. I am sure others here can help more.

midnitejam · March 14, 2007

Hi Dave, I really like your edit. Thanks

bauerman · March 14, 2007

I probably would have recommended some bounced flash from the ceiling or a nearby wall just for some more even lighting and less harshness on his cheek.

Cute kid - why was he so intense in this shot? Was he watching a favorite TV program or something?

RogersDA · March 14, 2007

midnitejam wrote:

Hi Dave, I really like your edit. Thanks

No problem. I think that its too bright, but it was done rather quickly.

Shay Stephens · March 15, 2007

You know what *really* would have made a difference? Don't take pictures of kids watching TV. There is zero interest in viewing such photos. There is nothing engaging about them, because *they* are not engaged. No spark in the eye if you will. If you want your kid photos to really make a leap in the quality of the content, take a picture of them engaged in something, anything, except TV viewing.

The child is not serious, the child is devoid of any emotion at all, and that is what makes the photo fall flat. Work on the content first, not the technicals. A technically bad photo that is interesting can win many a prize, but a boring shot with perfect technique never will.

Owen · March 15, 2007

What Shay said.

bauerman · March 15, 2007

Shay Stephens wrote:

Don't take pictures of kids watching TV. There is zero interest in viewing such photos. There is nothing engaging about them, because *they* are not engaged.

Well that was direct!

I agree with what Shay says from a "photograph them doing something" standpoint - but I think that he uses too broad of brush strokes to say what he says above. I personally have a shot of my son watching one of his favorite cartoons on a Saturday morning and the expression on his face is priceless. You can tell that he is enjoying what he is looking at. I processed a black and white conversion on the photo and it is one of my wife's favorite shots of our son.

Any shot with my children in it Shay is a good photo to me as a parent. It may not do much for "other viewers" such as yourself, but you are not who I am taking the photo for. I would take any shot of my kids over a technically correct, award winning, contest stomping landscape or architectural shot any day of the week.

midnitejam - if you like the photo and it means something to you - that is all that really matters. Whether or not professional photographers like it or other people on this forum is really inconsequential to say the least.

urbanaries · March 15, 2007

bauerman wrote:

Whether or not professional photographers like it or other people on this forum is really inconsequential to say the least.

If it was so inconsequential, then why would he ask for input from professional photographers? Shay's advice is right on.

I photograph children professionally on a regular basis, and never in a studio setting. Always trying to get them engaged, in order to bring out their true personality.

If watching television brings out a child's true personality, well, then....

bauerman · March 15, 2007

urbanaries wrote:

If it was so inconsequential, then why would he ask for input from professional photographers? Shay's advice is right on.

I photograph children professionally on a regular basis, and never in a studio setting. Always trying to get them engaged, in order to bring out their true personality.

If watching television brings out a child's true personality, well, then....

I agree that getting children "engaged" is the better practice photographically, but I do not agree that this photo posted is of no worth; as was asserted in the post above. That's a bit over the top to me. I think that the OP was looking for some feedback on the photo rather than a slap on the wrist for even taking the shot in the first place.

There is not "zero interest" in photos like this one.....I do not agree with that either. Any photo that has my child in the frame has interest to me as the parent.

Sam · March 15, 2007

midnitejam - if you like the photo and it means something to you - that is all that really matters. Whether or not professional photographers like it or other people on this forum is really inconsequential to say the least.

bauerman,

First, RogersDA asked for ANY advice. On the technical side he was shown how a little post processing could improve the image he had, and he received a suggestion about flash for future images. Shay gave him good advice on how to get a more interesting, and engaging image of his son. A lot of good info for a quick post of a snapshot. I think you took Shay's advice the wrong way. Shay is not being harsh, demeaning, or vindictive, but giving you his professional opinion. This if far, far, far, better than all the to typical great shot, good looking kid, you should be doing this professionally stuff. If RogersDA give this advice a try, I am sure the next set of photos will be better, and that's the goal.

Sam

bauerman · March 15, 2007

Sam - I'm not saying that Shay's advice is bad and I'm glad that he gave it - most of it is valuable. But intermixed in that advice was a broad sweeping generalization that photos of children such as this one had no value and there is "zero interest" in viewing them.

I disagree with those ideas completely, and always will.

I would hate for Dgrin to be a place where only photos of a certain caliber could be posted or that people would think twice about posting a photo for help because they felt there would be "zero interest" in viewing it.

Shay Stephens · March 15, 2007

bauerman wrote:

Sam - I'm not saying that Shay's advice is bad and I'm glad that he gave it - most of it is valuable. But intermixed in that advice was a broad sweeping generalization that photos of children such as this one had no value and there is "zero interest" in viewing them.

I disagree with those ideas completely, and always will.

I would hate for Dgrin to be a place where only photos of a certain caliber could be posted or that people would think twice about posting a photo for help because they felt there would be "zero interest" in viewing it.

Weeee, knee jerk reactions are great because it give an opportunity to clarify a point that was misunderstood. You are focusing in on one point of a two point statement. Please note the following:

There is nothing engaging about them, because *they* are not engaged.

The point being, if your subject is not engaged, the photo is going to look boring. So engage the child in something. If the child is engaged in a tv show and show real emotion, then the above advice is obviously not needed. But the vast majority of the time, TV saps the sparkle in the eye of children as they "zone out" in front of the tube. And it is best not to shoot them in such a state.

The temptation to shoot during this time is great *only* because the children are stationary. But that is usually the only benefit of such shooting. 20 years from now, a zoned out shot of your kid is not going to be cherished as much as a fuzzy, dark, and grainy shot of them laughing so hard they can hardly stand. That is the other misconception you had.

I would take any shot of my kids over a technically correct, award winning, contest stomping landscape or architectural shot any day of the week.

I am definitely not advocating the technically perfect shot here, I am zeroing in on the content, the expressions, and the interactions. Content is king over technical perfection, even in a contest. I forgot where I talked about that the other day, but I said something to the effect of an interesting photo that has poor technicals is going to win over a boring photo with perfect technicals every time. It all comes down to the content, and always will. You may want to reread my post with those points in mind

Mitchell · March 15, 2007

If people post photos here for all to see, they should expect a wide range of opinions regarding the technical and emotional merits of their photos.

Technically, this photo is little more than a snapshot. The color cast is bothersome and it needs quite a bit of PP work (levels, etc...).

Shay's point about the subject's appearance seems valid to me. We've all seen the vacant stare children can get when they stare into the television. This is not "Mr Serious". This is the look that drives me nuts when I see it in my own children on the occasion when they watch television "Mr Blank Stare".

Having said that, I would disagree that you cannot get interesting shots using the television as your assistant. My 2 year old refuses to sit still for any photos. I have at times resorted to using the television as an opportunity to take her portrait. I usually let her sit there and then try and distract her to get her attention and get her to laugh. I took this shot with this technique.

bauerman · March 15, 2007

I re-read your post and it says the same things that it did earlier when I read it:

"There is zero interest in viewing such photos."

Disagree.

"There is nothing engaging about them."

Disagree.

The great thing about a forum like this is that you can disagree with another poster - even if they they are the "Artist in Residence"..

I think that you had some nice nuggets of wisdom in your post Shay intermixed with a helping of sarcasm and a dash of broad generalization. I think that a lot of your feedback is coming from the professional realm of photography, but a lot of us are not shooting in that realm and don't really care about "what sells", so to speak. ANY shot of my child is desirable to view and has value to me.

Just call me "knee-jerk" for short...............

bauerman · March 15, 2007

GREAT example Mitchell - thanks for posting that.

RogersDA · March 15, 2007

midnitejam:

If you have been following this thread regarding your picture then please do not let the personal issues prevent you from posting again and seeking more insight. That's why everybody's here - to help - even when we step on our own toes.

For what its worth - concentrate on getting nice pictures with some emotion and good exposures. Learn some post-processing techniques using tools such as i2e, photoshop, or other similar tools. That will help you greatly. This will also help get you to achieving "technically correct" photos.

Above all: keep asking , posting, and seeking help.

Shay Stephens · March 15, 2007

Mitchell wrote:

IHaving said that, I would disagree that you cannot get interesting shots using the television as your assistant. My 2 year old refuses to sit still for any photos. I have at times resorted to using the television as an opportunity to take her portrait. I usually let her sit there and then try and distract her to get her attention and get her to laugh. I took this shot with this technique.

Beautiful photo, full of life and engaging! You used the TV as a tool, but she is not looking at the tv. That makes all the difference, she is interacting with you the photographer and now us the viewers too.

Sam · March 15, 2007

Sam wrote:

midnitejam - if you like the photo and it means something to you - that is all that really matters. Whether or not professional photographers like it or other people on this forum is really inconsequential to say the least.

bauerman,

First, RogersDA asked for ANY advice. (snip)

Sam

Sorry, I incorrectly stated RogersDA was the the OP. The OP was in fact midnitejam. If I wasn't interuped in the middle of the post by the alien abduction, I wouldn't have made the error.

Sam

Shay Stephens · March 15, 2007

bauerman wrote:

I re-read your post and it says the same things that it did earlier when I read it:

"There is zero interest in viewing such photos."

Disagree.

"There is nothing engaging about them."

Disagree.

The great thing about a forum like this is that you can disagree with another poster - even if they they are the "Artist in Residence"..

Absolutely! That is what makes for interesting discussions anywhere. Hashing out points, discovering different viewpoints and ways of seeing things. It's the spice of life

I think that you had some nice nuggets of wisdom in your post Shay intermixed with a helping of sarcasm and a dash of broad generalization. I think that a lot of your feedback is coming from the professional realm of photography, but a lot of us are not shooting in that realm and don't really care about "what sells", so to speak. ANY shot of my child is desirable to view and has value to me.

Parents are a touchy lot. So any criticism is like poking a grizzly. But we all know the jokes about the boring kids photos that people dread to have to sit through. The reason is the near total disregard for editing (for content) what parents show people. Same with vacation pictures, wedding photos, birthday parties, etc. Showing a photo because one has it, and not because of its unique content, is one of the great sins of photography. Just as it is with movie making.

Being able to edit a movie into something watchable is an art. And I would argue an art well worth anyone trying to master. If every scene ever shot for a movie was shown, people would demand their money back with a rage of dissatisfaction. But when the movie is skillfully edited to move the story along, not be repetitious, and build excitement, people love to watch such movies.

We as photographers can do the same thing by editing (for content) what we show. We have to take a dispassionate view of the work we have and select the photos to show that are uniquely interesting, cut down on needless repetition, and tell a story with pictures that naturally lead the viewer along. If you do that, a slideshow of little Johnny is going to be viewed with pleasure instead of begrudging politeness. And it all comes down to content, because content is king.

So while a photo may at the moment be interesting for a parent, it does not follow that it will be viewed in the same light by anyone else. One has to really analyze what the photo is actually conveying and decide if the photo has done its job or not. Too often a meaning is forced on a photo through a title or description where that meaning doesn't actually exists. Years down the road, when the forced meaning is forgotten, the photo will be viewed as it really is, and sink to the lower depths of the shoebox while the photos that overflow with real meaning hang on the wall.

So don't waste too much time with these types of photos. Instead spend time more productively on photos that radiate with the childs personality, actions, moods, triumphs, anguishes, and loves. Anything but the blank stare of looking at a TV.

Sam · March 15, 2007

The OP asked for advice, he asked for others view point, and opinions on the "PHOTO". He recieved good advice, and examples.

Of the two kid photos currently in this thread which is better? Why is it better? One can choose to use that info to take better photos in the future or not!

No one is saying anything negitive about the OP or his child! We want him to keep posting! We are all trying in our own way to help him take better photos!

Notice I did not ask which child was better, I asked which photo is better! The answer is clear!

midnitejam: Keep posting and photographing! Enjoy, but strive for improvement.

Sam

Sam · March 15, 2007

I am not a kid photographer, but, ain't there always a but, I was delivering a real (lol) fine art photo to a co-worker last week, and took some indoor flash photos for practice.

Note: I gave these to my co-worker, and thanked her for the opportunity to practice.

I am posting it here to show I am willing to put my self up to criticism.

Sam

.

peterst6906 · March 15, 2007

bauerman wrote:

I agree that getting children "engaged" is the better practice photographically, but I do not agree that this photo posted is of no worth; as was asserted in the post above. That's a bit over the top to me. I think that the OP was looking for some feedback on the photo rather than a slap on the wrist for even taking the shot in the first place.

There is not "zero interest" in photos like this one.....I do not agree with that either. Any photo that has my child in the frame has interest to me as the parent.

Hi Bauerman,

I think you're reading more emotion in Shay's response than he originally wrote it with.

From my perspective, it is very constructive and it doesn't say the photo has no worth, so my reading seems very different from the interpretation you've made.

I can understand that you have a different perspective of when kids display emotion and that it is possible for them to display emotion while watching tv, but I'd also agree, that in general, they'll show more emotion in other settings.

Take them out to a park for example and kick a ball around with them. Then you'll see emotions stronger and more revealing than anything you'll get while they are watching tv.

Regards,

Peter

bauerman · March 15, 2007

Shay Stephens wrote:

Absolutely! That is what makes for interesting discussions anywhere. Hashing out points, discovering different viewpoints and ways of seeing things. It's the spice of life

Parents are a touchy lot. So any criticism is like poking a grizzly. But we all know the jokes about the boring kids photos that people dread to have to sit through. The reason is the near total disregard for editing (for content) what parents show people. Same with vacation pictures, wedding photos, birthday parties, etc. Showing a photo because one has it, and not because of its unique content, is one of the great sins of photography. Just as it is with movie making.

Being able to edit a movie into something watchable is an art. And I would argue an art well worth anyone trying to master. If every scene ever shot for a movie was shown, people would demand their money back with a rage of dissatisfaction. But when the movie is skillfully edited to move the story along, not be repetitious, and build excitement, people love to watch such movies.

We as photographers can do the same thing by editing (for content) what we show. We have to take a dispassionate view of the work we have and select the photos to show that are uniquely interesting, cut down on needless repetition, and tell a story with pictures that naturally lead the viewer along. If you do that, a slideshow of little Johnny is going to be viewed with pleasure instead of begrudging politeness. And it all comes down to content, because content is king.

So while a photo may at the moment be interesting for a parent, it does not follow that it will be viewed in the same light by anyone else. One has to really analyze what the photo is actually conveying and decide if the photo has done its job or not. Too often a meaning is forced on a photo through a title or description where that meaning doesn't actually exists. Years down the road, when the forced meaning is forgotten, the photo will be viewed as it really is, and sink to the lower depths of the shoebox while the photos that overflow with real meaning hang on the wall.

So don't waste too much time with these types of photos. Instead spend time more productively on photos that radiate with the child's personality, actions, moods, triumphs, anguishes, and loves. Anything but the blank stare of looking at a TV.

I think that I am with you Shay! I do try to make the photos of my children something worth looking at, I really do. I also try not to bore family or the neighbors with too many "jam on the face" or "muddy pants" shots.

I want my kids to have a collection of quality photographs of their childhood as something that I can leave behind for them, it will probably be one of the BEST things that I can leave them in the end.

Good discussion in this thread - I feel bad for playing a part in hi-jacking it from the OP, but I think that there is some valuable dialog here as well.

midnitejam · March 16, 2007

Hey everyone, Thanks for the fabulous responses. I’m totally grateful.

Essentially, I agree with everyone on this thread (some, more than others). But everyone’s response is important to me in my pursuit of excellence. Knowledge is power and you guys rule.

I am probably more interested in the technical/journalistic/documentary genre of photography (especially if it is razor-sharp, exposed with 5 stops of dynamic range and if it captures an interesting or unique subject). The social, artistic and abstract realm of photography is secondary of importance in how it appeals to me. I aim for technical excellence first but if by chance the result suggests a theme or makes a statement, I consider it an added bonus.

Probably my personal take on this hobby would be more closely related to RogersDA’s take.

I actually do have sentimental connections to this image. The subject is my little brother. Since the day of his birth he and I have been inseparable, I have the distinct honor of being his “bestest buddy in the whole world”. We go on deer hunts together—he shoots deer with a canon 300D and I shoot them with a canon 20D.

Shay, are these any better? Please advise how to shoot them next time.

Seeding the Quary

Hey, Mikie. He can't see me 'cause I'm wearing camiflauge. I'll catch him--you shoot him, OK

Deer droppings (documenting evidence)

[/img]

Shay Stephens · March 16, 2007

midnitejam wrote:

Shay, are these any better? Please advise how to shoot them next time.

Those are wonderful! As far as advice on how to shoot, you've got that covered

bauerman · March 16, 2007

Those are great - its awesome to see such a youngster getting the hang of a more advanced camera like a Digital Rebel........

You should post some of HIS pics in a thread here.

Jeffro · March 16, 2007

midnitejam wrote:

Hey everyone, Thanks for the fabulous responses. I’m totally grateful.

Essentially, I agree with everyone on this thread (some, more than others). But everyone’s response is important to me in my pursuit of excellence. Knowledge is power and you guys rule.

I am probably more interested in the technical/journalistic/documentary genre of photography (especially if it is razor-sharp, exposed with 5 stops of dynamic range and if it captures an interesting or unique subject). The social, artistic and abstract realm of photography is secondary in importance in how it relates to me. I aim for technical excellence first but if by chance the result suggests a theme or makes a statement, I consider it an added bonus.

Probably my personal take on this hobby would be more closely related to RogersDA’s take.

I actually do have sentimental connections to this image. The subject is my little brother. Since the day of his birth he and I have been inseparable, I have the distinct honor of being his “bestest buddy in the whole world”. We go on deer hunts together—he shoots deer with a canon 300D and I shoot them with a canon 20D.

Shay, are these any better? Please advise how to shoot them next time.

The very first photo didn't do much for me either, nor did the quick post work help it, at least not for me. The other pictures you posted are much better, and will be great keepsakes!

Your font color on the other hand just plain sucks.....I can't read it on the gray background, and had to switch to Ivory. I was once scolded for using colored font, so KNOCK IT OFF!

Makes you ask "Why do they make colored font an option?"

!

midnitejam · March 17, 2007

Jeffro wrote:

The very first photo didn't do much for me either, nor did the quick post work help it, at least not for me. The other pictures you posted are much better, and will be great keepsakes!

Your font color on the other hand just plain sucks.....I can't read it on the gray background, and had to switch to Ivory. I was once scolded for using colored font, so KNOCK IT OFF! Makes you ask "Why do they make colored font an option?" !

Jeffro, I haven't a clue as to how that font color got that way

Thanks for the comments

The members on this forum ROCK!
Michael Jan

Mr Serious

Comments