Jenny #33

JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
edited February 24, 2005 in The Dgrin Challenges
I wasn't going to use this one, but it has been growing on me. I tried to crop out my husbands hands, but it just doesn't look right without them. Let me know what you think. Be brutal!:thwak lol!

Comments

  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 23, 2005
    i don't have a problem with the hands (being so OOF and far in the foreground actually adds depth) so much as only seeing half of that little cutie's face!
    :D
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    This one her face isn't covered, but I don't think it is as powerful as the first one. She was watching my husband walk out the door for work. Such a Daddy's girl. Oh well, there are still 2 weeks to get it right. Should I even bother with these? Or should I just start anew?
  • 4labs4labs Registered Users Posts: 2,089 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    DoctorIt wrote:
    i don't have a problem with the hands (being so OOF and far in the foreground actually adds depth) so much as only seeing half of that little cutie's face!
    :D
    I agree such a great shot if we could only see the babies whole face.
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited February 23, 2005
    Jenny wrote:
    This one her face isn't covered, but I don't think it is as powerful as the first one. She was watching my husband walk out the door for work. Such a Daddy's girl. Oh well, there are still 2 weeks to get it right. Should I even bother with these? Or should I just start anew?
    stick with the first one... second one is all out of focus.

    I know you can't pose babies (my new niece taught me that), so it will be hard to recapture that first shot, but you it never hurts to snap away wildly when you think you have decent composition. maybe one will be free of the hand or foot in the face.
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • johnojohno Registered Users Posts: 617 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    I like this one... It doesn't bother me that the baby has her faced half covered... If the emotion was the baby then yes, not so good. However, the emotion is the father, right? I wish I could see more of the fathers face. But, I like this one as it is.

    just my thoughts.

    peace.
    johno~
    If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.
    ~Mother Teresa


    Canon 1D Mark II / Canon 50D / Canon 30D / Canon G9
    Canon 50mm 1.4
    Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS / Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L



    blog
    johno's gallery
  • amcamc Registered Users Posts: 84 Big grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    Hi Jenny...

    A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

    Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

    The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

    The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

    Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

    Hope this was somewhat helpful...

    Regards,
    amc
    amc.smugmug.com
  • PhotosbychuckPhotosbychuck Registered Users Posts: 1,239 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    Jenny wrote:
    I wasn't going to use this one, but it has been growing on me. I tried to crop out my husbands hands, but it just doesn't look right without them. Let me know what you think. Be brutal!:thwak lol!
    Hi, Jenny
    I love the first photo and I can see the fatherly love. clap.gif
    Great shot and good Luck in the contest! thumb.gif

    Take Care,
    Chuck,
    D300S, 18-200mm VR, 70-300mm VR

    Aperture Focus Photography
    http://aperturefocus.com
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 23, 2005
    amc wrote:
    Hi Jenny...

    A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

    Wow! And after only 30 posts! rolleyes1.gif
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    DoctorIt wrote:
    stick with the first one... second one is all out of focus.
    And taken with too much of a wide-angle lens. Looks like she's got a baseball tucked into that cheek. Heh...funny coming from me, the master of 10mm portraits. rolleyes1.gif
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • gubbsgubbs Registered Users Posts: 3,166 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    amc wrote:
    Hi Jenny...

    A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

    Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

    The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

    The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

    Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

    Hope this was somewhat helpful...

    Regards,
    Sound like, excellent advice thumb.gif
    gubbs
    gubbs.smugmug.com

  • JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    Thank you everyone for all the suggestions!!!! I will try to reshoot again this weekend when my husband isn't working. As for the original shot, (fatherly love) it was taken in color, but with the pink blanket behind my husband, well, it just didn't look quite right. If I had set this shot up I would have removed it. I was just playing around with the camera while they were playing and just happened to get this one. I'm surprised it turned out this clear , I had the rapid shutter on and was holding the camera since I still need to get myself a tripod. All the other shots of the two of them were really blurry, but the babies foot wasn't in her face. Oh well, I'll try again. In the meantime.... I fixed up the upper left corner and I'll also show you what the color picture looked like.
  • JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    HAHA, I forgot to attach the pictures. Oh well, here is the fixed black and white one.
  • JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    Here is the color picture, mostly untouched except for a few levels adjustments and resized.
  • mslammersmslammers Registered Users Posts: 121 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    amc wrote:
    Hi Jenny...

    A beeping alarm went off in my PC as it was automatically scanning the forums for the keywords "be brutal." So here goes.

    Like Erik, I have no problems with the hands. But I differ in that the one eye of the child doesn't really bother me either. It's kind of funky, I think, in a playful way. So Johno and I seem to agree on that point, and also about dad:

    The focus of your image is "Fatherly Love." I got that from your title. The problem I have is that we can't see his eyes. He could be asleep, thinking about another tax deduction...who knows?! (So out of a total of four eyes in the shot, we have only one visible...that violates the rule of eyes. Just kidding.) So I think the image could live up to its title a bit better if dad's eyes were open, perhaps with some sort of loving expression directed at the child.

    The other thing is, as much as I try to avoid it, my eyes are drawn to the area of your husbands left shoulder (as you're looking at the photo). What I see is a lot of wrinkles, and on top of that what appears to be the chair-back, and then above that some other background with a dark area on the right, perhaps a shadow. I only mention this because that's where my eyes were drawn. Might have been a different reaction if the shot were in color.

    Now if you can visualize the tic-tac-toe grid of the rule of thirds, you'll note that your child's eye falls smack in the middle of the lower right intersection, which is great, but the upper left intersection is right over the area where you husbands shoulder meets the chair-back. So maybe this might explain why my eye keeps going back there. It would be interesting to reposition Pop so his open eyes were around that intersection.

    Hope this was somewhat helpful...

    Regards,
    I won't repeat what amc said, he nailed it.

    I think the problem we all have is getting the pose arranged. Our "models" aren't always with us.
    Mel
    =^..^=
    http://mslammers.smugmug.com
  • JennyJenny Registered Users Posts: 96 Big grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.ne_nau.gif
  • digital faeriedigital faerie Registered Users Posts: 667 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    Jenny wrote:
    ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.ne_nau.gif
    that's a very good question and no you're not an idiot. :D

    here's a quickie link but I'm sure SID has a much better article on hand.

    http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/thirds.html
  • SeamusSeamus Registered Users Posts: 1,573 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    Jenny wrote:
    ok, at the risk of sounding like a complete idiot....can someone explain the rule of thirds to me? (and a gasp is heard around the photography world) Yes, I really have no clue.ne_nau.gif

    http://asp.photo.free.fr/Composition/photoProgramCompMainClass.shtml

    But......


    http://www.fredmiranda.com/A12_Straydog/

    Shay.
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 24, 2005
    Here's one thread we have on it. And Charles submitted this highly technical thread. It's fascinating.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sign In or Register to comment.