# Something other than a wedding for once (7 photos)



## Alison (Jul 11, 2005)

These photos are from a family shoot I did a few weeks ago. Specs are:
10D + either the 50mm or the 100mm macro. Shot at 1pm on a very hot day! Only other equipment used was Hobbes28 standing to the side holding a reflector.  Additional photos from the shoot can be viewed HERE 

1. 






2.





3. 





4. A very rare color photo from me!





5. 





6. 





7.


----------



## jenz (Jul 11, 2005)

Amazing!My favirot is #2. Cant wait to try that with my little boy.


----------



## sillyphaunt (Jul 12, 2005)

Oh gosh, Alison, those are precious! I bet the family was SO thrilled! The first one is amazing, I"m sure they'll treasure it for years to come.

I also loved the sepia toned one of them holding the baby and walking. They're all great!


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 12, 2005)

I love #2 especially.  #1 is a great, traditional pose, but I would have closed up mom and dad a little bit more to get rid of the dark gap between them.


----------



## Alison (Jul 12, 2005)

Thanks for the comments everyone! The parents loved these shots (they actually won a gift certificate that we donated to a charity auction). John, I agree about the space in #1. Unfortunately the little girl wasn't in a very smiley mood and she smiled as they were getting into the seated position and her expression was the best of the bunch from that series.


----------



## terri (Jul 12, 2005)

Great work, Alison - I've no doubt they're thrilled. :thumbup: I agree with what John is saying about the dark space on #1, but that's a minor nitpick, something I doubt the clients even perceived. #2 is especially sweet!


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 12, 2005)

Awwww.  Those are precious!


----------



## ClarkKent (Jul 12, 2005)

Great work. I love them all, although my favorite is number 7.  Its very hard to shoot is harsh light sometimes...you did a good job here.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 12, 2005)

#5 and 6 :thumbsup:
I like the first one in sepia.


----------



## Alison (Jul 13, 2005)

Thanks everyone! It was certainly a technical challenge to get pleasing lighting with the sun directly overhead! My personal favorites were the last ones, the one with her and her father.


----------



## mentos_007 (Jul 14, 2005)

> Only other equipment used was Hobbes28 standing to the side holding a reflector



that sounds as a really useful equipment... where can I get this one??  

and number 5 is just really neat


----------



## photo gal (Jul 14, 2005)

Awwww OMG these are wonderful!!  I adore 2,5 and 6!!  Those expressions in 6 are just priceless!!  Pure joy!!  Love em!!  : )


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 15, 2005)

Allison,

Very nice pose on the family.  It appears to me that had you had moved them camera left six feet but kept them the same distance from the tree, the tree's shadow would have prevented the big blobs of sunlight streaking across Mom's arm, Dad's head and leg.  Also his leg sticking straight out looks bad IMHO.

Tally Ho


----------



## photogoddess (Jul 15, 2005)

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have been shooting into the sun if you'd moved left six feet? Personally, I'd rather have the little bits of sun than to have a back lit situation. Also, I'm also assuming that that would have been the approximate position of Hobbes28 and the reflector as well. I think it's great as is! Nice work Alison on all of these. I especially like #2. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 20, 2005)

photogoddess said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't you have been shooting into the sun if you'd moved left six feet? Personally, I'd rather have the little bits of sun than to have a back lit situation. Also, I'm also assuming that that would have been the approximate position of Hobbes28 and the reflector as well. I think it's great as is! Nice work Alison on all of these. I especially like #2. :thumbsup:


 
No, perhaps you need to reread my posting.  I suggested moving the *family *to camera left about six feet (and the camera was well).  Then they would have been in the shadow of that big tree and there would have not been those huge streaks of sunlight across their bodies.  Sun streaks across peoples faces or skin is a sure sign the photographer was not paying attention to the lighting.  As was mentioned before the word 'photograph' means 'light drawn' or 'light written.'

Tally Ho


----------



## Alison (Jul 20, 2005)

Well, thank you for the definition of photography. I use a broader definition myself and look to emotion as well. You can have a perfectly lit photography that falls flat because the subject doesn't convey any emotion to the viewer.   

Was the lighting perfect in this shot? Absolutely not and if I had a chance to reshoot I would try your suggestion. However, what was important to this couple was a nice expression on their daughter's face. If you took the time to view the link that I posted in my first posting here you will see that I actually tried several different positions to work with the lighting and the ones with them standing eliminated the lighting issue, but this is the one the family chose because of the feeling that comes across. Anybody that has worked with small children knows that their emotions change quickly and they don't sit for long. I give suggestions to parents on how to stand, and actually in this case, and in the ones under the link they were closer, but their daughter was squirming and so they moved apart slightly. What matters to me is that when this couple looks at these photos they see their daughter as she was. Not posed, but natural.

Again, thank you for your suggestion. Rest assured that I was concerned with the lighting, and used reflectors and if I had another set of arms I would have used a diffuser as well.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 20, 2005)

Tally Ho said:
			
		

> No, perhaps you need to reread my posting.  I suggested moving the *family *to camera left about six feet (and the camera was well).  Then they would have been in the shadow of that big tree and there would have not been those huge streaks of sunlight across their bodies.  Sun streaks across peoples faces or skin is a sure sign the photographer was not paying attention to the lighting.  As was mentioned before the word 'photograph' means 'light drawn' or 'light written.'
> 
> Tally Ho


I think you need to re-read that and then correct it. Not making sense is a sure sign that the writer wasn't paying attention to his grammar.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 20, 2005)

Tally Ho said:
			
		

> Sun streaks across peoples faces or skin is a sure sign the photographer was not paying attention to the lighting.


Tally,

A mere mortal like myself would intentionally allow the streaks and/or some photographers simply do not care about this issue. I would give _more _weight to the emotion in the picture. These are personal preferences.
But please do not set it in stone that the photographer is not attentive to the light when you see sun streaks in a picture. Absolutely bollocks!

Go to blackbook.com and check out some of the portraiture there. It has come a long way. 
Trust me, you will make MORE sales if you come out of the shell that you are in right now. But then again, its your personal choice. I'm no one to impose it.

On another note, [ame=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671723650/qid=1121897621/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8093928-2191908?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]this[/ame] would be a nice read.


----------



## photogoddess (Jul 20, 2005)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> On another note, this would be a nice read.



:shock:


----------



## MDowdey (Jul 20, 2005)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> On another note, this would be a nice read.




dan i love you.


----------



## Karalee (Jul 20, 2005)

Well you just scored a whole bunch of rep points there Dan :lmao:


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 20, 2005)

Dan, what a perfect recommendation, but somehow I don't think Tally is going to go there.

Tally Ho,
I think I have been nice thus far but I personally have pretty much had it with you.  How dare you insult Alison as you have by implying she is not paying attention?  You haven't shown me one damn photo yet that I would consider without fault.  You wanna talk about bad lighting pal?  Refer yourself to your own photo of the girl in half exorcist spin sitting on the trucker's seat.  Her face is cut in half by the engulfing shadows.  
Now don't get me wrong, people of all talent levels are encouraged to give advice to others, but the way you spoke to Alison is so arrogant.  You don't have a tenth of the talent she has.  Your photographs are nice (in a very typical Olin Mills way), but thay are also boring as $hit.  Your backgrounds are consistantly busy and for the mostpart suck and your clients always seem to look uncomfortable.
What makes you think that paying some huge fee to attend a SEMINAR makes you an expert?  Jesus, if that was the case, every half-wit with a camera and a few bucks in his pocket could make the same claims that you are so fond of.  
You need to learn from Alison, because frankly you are not even in her league.
Regards,
Cindy (a VERY Pi$$ed off Cindy)


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 20, 2005)

Well, Cindy....  do ya feel better?


----------



## terri (Jul 20, 2005)

I love Cindy. :heart:

And I love Dan. :heart:

You guys rawk!


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 20, 2005)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Well, Cindy.... do ya feel better?


 
Actually yes.  I was about to bite my tounge off.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 20, 2005)

Well, ya know...  this guy's gonna be gone soon enough.  I'm gonna give him another day or two to come out into the open.  After that, I'm hitting the "ignore" button.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 21, 2005)

Christie Photo said:
			
		

> Well, ya know...  this guy's gonna be gone soon enough.  I'm gonna give him another day or two to come out into the open.  After that, I'm hitting the "ignore" button.


If we all do it at the same time, maybe he will get the message.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jul 21, 2005)

How's about this...I'm the moderator of this section of the board, and here's what I see and perceive thus far:


I would like to see _civil_ discussion of images.   
That means no arrogance in critiques.   
That also means no abusive language or insults in replies. 
 I've shied away from heavily moderating much that's gone on here so far, but I'm getting closer to stepping in.  I don't want to start locking threads, but that seems to be where it's heading.

So to put it bluntly and cleanly in the open:  Tally Ho, please watch the arrogance (yes, it's there).  Everyone else, please keep it civil in your responses to _all_ members of the board.


----------



## Tally Ho (Jul 21, 2005)

I can see I am a Neanderthal and stupid as well, and all of you are much much better people, in fact saints, no to mention much better photographers and a lot more in tune with human nature and human emotions as well.  Also more knowledgable in photographic lighting, exposure, metering, posing, composition and are extremely artistic.  I need to soak up some of this vast photographic knowledge that everyone wants to pass on here, so I will shut up, not make any more ignorant suggestions and let you have your forum back like it was B.T. (Before Tally!)

Cheerio.

Tally Ho

P.S. I will post some more images later, much later, much much later.  Maybe even tomorrow!


----------



## terri (Jul 21, 2005)

> let you have your forum back like it was B.T. (Before Tally!)


 
Actually, we're not referring to you as "Tally". We've been referring to you as "the Ho." 

Mistah Ho.


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 21, 2005)

terri said:
			
		

> Actually, we're not referring to you as "Tally". We've been referring to you as "the Ho."
> 
> Mistah Ho.


----------



## photo gal (Jul 21, 2005)

terri said:
			
		

> Actually, we're not referring to you as "Tally". We've been referring to you as "the Ho."
> 
> Mistah Ho.



 :hail: Terri you da queen!!!


----------

