# Czarnecki Family | Photoshoot |FIRST Family Shoot



## D-B-J (Oct 24, 2014)

Thoughts? Below is the link to my latest blog post.  And two for those of you that don't like links 




_RSP2986-Edit by f_one_eight, on Flickr




_RSP2908 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

And the blog link:

Czarnecki | Harkness | Family | 10-18-14 — Red Skies Photography


Cheers! Comments and critiques welcome!

Jake


----------



## Rick50 (Oct 24, 2014)

Nice Jake. Really like the group shot. For the kid I prefer getting low.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Oct 24, 2014)

Very nice, sir! I clicked through and read your blog post...I think you nailed the combination of complimentary to the family, informative, fun, and a positive description of your ability to get the shots you want (the tidbit about meowing, for instance). Well done!


----------



## tirediron (Oct 24, 2014)

The first thing that grabs me is that part of the group has a tree and part open sky.  All of one or the other if possible (I would have gone for the tree).  There are also some 'leaners' (Lady in the black sweater, man in centre back and lady w/ child).  The lady in the black sweater was also in desparate need of a comb and/or hair-brush!
When posing a group like thisI would suggest a little more symmetry:  You have the two adults image right angled to the camera (preferable), but the two image left square to the camera.  I would also have considered changing the positions of the two young girls in the front since the taller of the two is partly obscuring the lady with the child, and it would have also provided a nice linear element.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 24, 2014)

tirediron said:


> The first thing that grabs me is that part of the group has a tree and part open sky.  All of one or the other if possible (I would have gone for the tree).  There are also some 'leaners' (Lady in the black sweater, man in centre back and lady w/ child).  The lady in the black sweater was also in desparate need of a comb and/or hair-brush!
> When posing a group like thisI would suggest a little more symmetry:  You have the two adults image right angled to the camera (preferable), but the two image left square to the camera.  I would also have considered changing the positions of the two young girls in the front since the taller of the two is partly obscuring the lady with the child, and it would have also provided a nice linear element.



Really informative! I'm still learning how to pose families, so that input is a huge help.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 24, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing that grabs me is that part of the group has a tree and part open sky.  All of one or the other if possible (I would have gone for the tree).  There are also some 'leaners' (Lady in the black sweater, man in centre back and lady w/ child).  The lady in the black sweater was also in desparate need of a comb and/or hair-brush!
> ...


 Lew?


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 24, 2014)

tirediron said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Haha I wasn't paying enough attention clearly! My bad man.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 24, 2014)

MichaelHenson said:


> Very nice, sir! I clicked through and read your blog post...I think you nailed the combination of complimentary to the family, informative, fun, and a positive description of your ability to get the shots you want (the tidbit about meowing, for instance). Well done!




Thanks! I still feel like writing the blog is the toughest part.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 24, 2014)

Rick50 said:


> Nice Jake. Really like the group shot. For the kid I prefer getting low.




Yeah the shot of cash (the kid) here was just a candid [emoji106][emoji106]


----------



## gsgary (Oct 25, 2014)

They look like anyone could get with a point and shoot sorry


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 25, 2014)

gsgary said:


> They look like anyone could get with a point and shoot sorry




Ill respectfully disagree, but thanks for your input.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 25, 2014)

2nd shot is taken from too high get down to the childs level shots from above hardly ever work


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 25, 2014)

gsgary said:


> 2nd shot is taken from too high get down to the childs level shots from above hardly ever work



Once again, I'll state that it was a candid and I had a split second to capture it. It's not a proper posed photo.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 25, 2014)

You still could have got low down ready for a shot


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 25, 2014)

I think it would be better if they weren't chopped below the knees. I've noticed you tend to frame rather high sometimes, not sure if that's due to your height or not but you seem to get more than enough space above heads sometimes and the bottom edge might be better framed differently.

John seems to have caught the details that need to be thought about. I'd think about the girls' hair, as they move around it might be necessary to recheck and have it arranged so it' s in front of the shoulders or behind, so there isn't a hank or strands straggling.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 25, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> I think it would be better if they weren't chopped below the knees. I've noticed you tend to frame rather high sometimes, not sure if that's due to your height or not but you seem to get more than enough space above heads sometimes and the bottom edge might be better framed differently.
> 
> John seems to have caught the details that need to be thought about. I'd think about the girls' hair, as they move around it might be necessary to recheck and have it arranged so it' s in front of the shoulders or behind, so there isn't a hank or strands straggling.




Yeah. I don't know why but I always seem to frame/crop high. Always. And I have no good reason for it. And yeah, John brought up some really good points, for sure.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 6, 2014)

John always does, keep picking his brain!

I've noticed quite a bit that people who are somewhat younger or newer to photography (well, compared to some of us that is! lol) may sometimes post photos that have people's feet cut off or close to the edge or have all this space above the heads - I think maybe there's a natural tendency to look at people's faces not downward to the bottom of the frame (I think we usually look at people's faces, not their shoes!).

I remember years ago figuring out to make my eye move around the entire viewfinder and check the corners and after this many years it seems just second nature to see everything in the frame. Years of practice I think...


----------



## vipgraphx (Nov 6, 2014)

looks like one happy family!


----------



## Heather Koch (Nov 6, 2014)

They look pretty well produced, in my opinion. I am learning too, about portraits and I am partial to b&w, so those are my favorite.  I like the child/tree stump one and the couple one in the woods.

Like I, you started off with landscapes, where it is completely different when it comes to portraits.  At least for me, since learning to focus on landscapes, its quite hard to transition to portraits and focus on all the little details.

But yours are nice!


----------

