# Fall family portrait



## Christie Photo (Oct 29, 2010)

I did this at my new favorite location.  Please...  I've really love to hear some comments on this one.

Thanks!
-Pete


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 29, 2010)

Very well done, as I would expect from you.   

The composition, especially the layout of faces, is excellent.  It seems a simple little thing but it really makes the photo.  
Upon closer inspection, it looks like the daughter's legs might be in an uncomfortable position, but it really works for the pose and gives the dad a place to put his arm.  

As for things that I could nit pick...the first thing that jumps out at me, is size/ratio of the photo.  There is too much space above and below, but I know that it will be better in a 4:5 ratio or maybe even square.  
Other little things would be the dad's hand, it doesn't look fully natural & relaxed.  Also, the knees of the dad stick out a bit.  The close one, almost looks like a weird extension of the daughter's lower leg, and the dad's back leg is just visible behind the mom.  

I might also mention the daughter's bright shirt.  It's the brightest thing in the frame, by far, which normally isn't good.  In this photo, it does tend to act as a focal point, but because of the great composition, my eye moves across the faces to the bright areas but then back around.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 29, 2010)

Thank you, Mike, for such a concise critique.  And thanks for the kind words!

-Pete


----------



## tirediron (Oct 29, 2010)

Mike already said all of the stuff I was thinking (except perhaps for the bit of pond image right background.  It seems to sort of contrast with all of the trees/brush in the rest of the image) - great image Pete.  I'd like to here details on your lighting on this one.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 30, 2010)

Thanks, John.

That's a river bank on the right.  I shot some horizontals during the session and will post one soon.

The lighting is a bit of a departure for me.  I think it's the reason I like this spot so much.  For most of my career, I used the subtractive approach for outdoor lighting, seeking out settings just under the treeline to eliminate the light coming straight down and leaving only light coming in from one side and above.

At this location, it's a matter of waiting for the sun to go below the treeline on the other side of the river, leaving me with a large, bright portion of sky on one side that's coming in a bit high.  It's pretty much like studio lighting, except I'm relying on whatever ambient light there is for fill.

So the difference here is I don't have to rely on having a fully leafed tree overhead to have soft, directional light.  The ratio seems to work out fine.

Thanks again!
-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 30, 2010)

Well...  I had hoped to get a few more critiques first, but I want to talk a little bit about the equipment I used here.

This endeavor sprang from a challenge made in another thread.  I'll put a link there to direct others here.

NOW...  some more critiques please.

Thanks!
-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 30, 2010)

Oh...  here's the horizontal I promised.  I made this one with a Canon D5.

-Pete


----------



## Aayria (Oct 30, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Well...  I had hoped to get a few more critiques first, but I want to talk a little bit about the equipment I used here.
> 
> This endeavor sprang from a challenge made in another thread.  I'll put a link there to direct others here.
> 
> ...





I wondered what was going on with this picture, and hesitated to give critique, LOL!

  I thought.. well.. this is a nicely composed...nice lighting...well posed family portrait, done by a top notch photographer, but SOMETHING is reallly really off.  Thanks for the laugh, and great job pushing that camera to its potential :lmao:


----------



## fokker (Oct 31, 2010)

I like the disposable shot better than the canon one.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Oct 31, 2010)

Really like the tones in this one except, of course, the daughter's shirt. What a pity. I would change the color of it. The horizontal one is much better as far as that is concerned.

Framing wise, I like the tree at the top of the vertical one but not so much the foreground and I don't really see a way to crop it that appeals to me.

I thing the horizontal one will work much better for your clients or a square of the 1st one.

Expressions are better, imo, in the second one. Give them both as proofs but I think they'll go with the horizontal one.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 1, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Give them both as proofs but I think they'll go with the horizontal one.



Um....  did you see the gear I used to make the first view?

Thanks for the critique.

-Pete


----------



## tirediron (Nov 2, 2010)

Apparently I shouldn't be offering critique when viewing images on my 10 year old crappy work monitor!  :er:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 2, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Give them both as proofs but I think they'll go with the horizontal one.
> ...



Nope, I hadn't. But it goes to show cheap gear can still deliver good results in the right hands. I thought you had done some weird PP but it was not unpleasant to me.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 8, 2010)

Any more thoughts on this?  I really thought this would be discussed more.

-Pete


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2010)

I like the vertical framing more, since in the horizontal shot, that doggone downed log down on the creek bank draws my eye,over and over, as does the highlight on the water's surface. To me, the environment in the horizontal photo is competing with the family group. That bright highlight on the surface of the water, way over at the far right edge of the frame, caused considerable visual tension, and the dark outline of the log...ummm...together, those two elements really distract my eye.

I prefer the color rendition of the skin tones on the top photo. The horizontal image has kind of ruddy, reddish skin tones that do not look all that natural to me, unles they are all sunburned. The first shot, the vertical, makes them all look tanned. The daughter's white shirt under the sweater in the first shot is pretty distracting. I know the first shot is pretty soft looking. At first I thought it was a photo of a textured canvas print, but now I know the source of it. Still, I do not mind the strong light fall-off on the disposable camera shot. In fact, it looks pretty good on the web. Heck, it might even look pretty good as a canvas print. One thing I actually like abut the tall image is the way you have included the submerged, sunken log that is in the creek...that little detail kind of adds a touch to the shot. I fish a lot. I know of a sunken log like that that has been in a local creek since my grandfather was a boy, back in the 1910's...every time I see that log, I think of him.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 9, 2010)

I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of either. Mostly from a compositional point of view. In both images, the subject are dead center. And the river, to me, seems to just be a distraction. It's not in the image enough to be a part of the image , and is just this corner of something going on on the frame edge. And the bright spot in the water of the horizontal is a distraction to me. I also, find the grass that is blocking the subjects in the foreground, and the tree branch coming in from the upper left to detract from the image. I think framing them more into the lower left corner, and allowing the river to be more a part of the image would have helped sort some of this out. 

I think the expression you got out of them are nice and genuine, and the poses look pretty casual. But I the the boy in back is looming a little bit too much, and dad's hand on mom's shoulder looks a little menacing. Nice light on the subjects, but I agree with Darrel that the skin tones are a bit harsh. Maybe desaturate and brighten the red channel a touch?

You usually put out pretty nice work, so I was pretty concerned when I saw the first image...


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 10, 2010)

> You usually put out pretty nice work, so I was pretty concerned when I saw the first image...


Not bad for a $2 camera though.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 11, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> > You usually put out pretty nice work, so I was pretty concerned when I saw the first image...
> 
> 
> Not bad for a $2 camera though.



For sure!


----------



## ClarkKent (Nov 12, 2010)

Astounding considering the challenge.  Inspiring for me at least!


----------



## masong (Nov 12, 2010)

I like this one than the first,the pic is much wider..i can see the breeze and the family has a great smiles.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 12, 2010)

I thought you droped the bit depth way down on the first image, it looks like an old GIF file from 15 years ago. Something is up with the colors. But it is a great image incredible for a disposable camera.


----------

