Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

	Moderated by: Fred Miranda
	Username   Password FM Forum Rules What are the criteria? FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell   end    Mom & daughter

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #1 · Mom & daughter Your thoughts? Preference? Thanks, Bob   NIKON D7000    55 mm    f/2.8    1/200 sec    1800 ISO    +0.3 EV   Jan 21, 2013 at 08:28 PM

friscoron Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #2 · Mom & daughter Sorry, but I'd crop Mom out of this shot. You're better off shooting this at 5.6 or 6.3 and getting both subjects in focus. It would have also helped if you would have stepped to your left and changed the plane of focus so it more easily included both their faces. Jan 21, 2013 at 09:02 PM

Oregon Gal Offline • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #3 · Mom & daughter I prefer the color version and agree that stopping down would be better to capture both Mom and daughter. Jan 21, 2013 at 09:19 PM

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #4 · Mom & daughter Oregon Gal wrote: I prefer the color version and agree that stopping down would be better to capture both Mom and daughter. Oregon Gal & friscoron, Thanks for your thoughts - don't forget to check everything before pressing the shutter release : I did. Cropping mom out of the image is not an option. Does the color appear too warm? Available light, burgundy & cream painted walls. Bob Jan 21, 2013 at 09:26 PM

cgardner Offline • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #5 · Mom & daughter In a group photo (2+ people) the closeness of heads send a body language message about intimacy that lets a stranger know whether they are a couple, siblings, co-workers, etc. The frame created by the crop exaggerates any gaps. That's why in the movies you see actor's faces much closer together in close-up exchanges than in normal interpersonal exchanges. I verbally coach couples, parents/kids and younger siblings to get their heads together, both in formal shots and candid "snap" shots. In fluid situations I'll observe the direction of the modeling vector of the light, how someone's faces is moving in it, then pick a spot and then wait for them to turn into flattering light with at a balanced clean (nothing hanging out) oblique angle. It's a skill I first acquired shooting wedding candids and getting critiqued by someone who was a stickler about flattering patterns/ angles. That's another advantage of getting the heads together. Mom can be verbally coached and daughter's head will move with hers and be held at the desired angle to light and camera. Props like chairs or big toys can be used in the same way to control the orientation of kids too young, or age two, who won't follow verbal instructions. So in that regard I think to would be both a tighter composition and create a better message of intimacy if Mom and daughter's heads were touching or Mom was seen behind without the gap. She also appears to be leaning away rather towards. I'm not suggesting this as a edit, but if you cut/paste the daughter and move her closer to Mom you'll be able to see how it changes the implied body language about intimacy. I like the color shot best, but I usually do unless going for a nostalgic B&W photographic look. You might want to tone down the saturation in the red jumper and shift hue to brown to match Mom's shirt with a masked hue/sat adjustment layer. In very flat ambient lighting like that I'll sometimes "paint" the lighting pattern I would have like to used on the faces with dual flash by using masked screen and multiply layers. Since Mom is darker overall you might try creating a "mask" pattern on highlights on forehead, cheeks, mouth and chin with screen and on the daughter use multiply to darken around the same areas. It will give the faces more of a 3D rendering. A very minor nit, just something to remember to look out for next time when shooting, is that bit of the far ear peaking out behind the far side of the girl's face. In a situation like that you just need to move the camera POV a bit further around her face to the right rather than trying to coach her to move. Jan 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #6 · Mom & daughter Chuck, Thanks, sound advice...spur of the moment thing here, next time I need to plan ahead. Bob Jan 22, 2013 at 01:02 AM

RustyBug Online • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #7 · Mom & daughter Took a stab at WB ... pretty subtle changes, likely not very detectable to most eyes in a practical realm. Color Balance Layer Shadows @ -2,-6,+2 Highlights @ +5,0,-9 Preserve Luminosity Checked Layer Opacity @ 65% A few subtle tweaks @ multiply & levels with blend if and opacity targeted at highlights. A little sharpening & lens blur to increase the separation between them also and a bit of crop to try and push toward the child. Edited on Jan 22, 2013 at 10:10 PM · View previous versions Jan 22, 2013 at 03:27 AM

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #8 · Mom & daughter RustyBug wrote: Took a stab at WB ... pretty subtle changes, likely not very detectable to most eyes in a practical realm. Color Balance Layer Shadows @ -2,-6,+2 Highlights @ +5,0,-9 Preserve Luminosity Checked Layer Opacity @ 65% A few subtle tweaks @ multiply & levels with blend if and opacity targeted at highlights. A little sharpening & lens blur to increase the separation between them also and a bit of crop to try and push toward the child. Thanks, Nicely done, and the further separation is a plus. I would have never gotten the WB issues straightened out. Bob Jan 22, 2013 at 02:11 PM

xopowo Offline • Upload & Sell: Off p.1 #9 · Mom & daughter Agree re focus, to me that's a must. For WB was it an option to use a grey card? Jan 22, 2013 at 04:39 PM

RustyBug Online • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #10 · Mom & daughter Thanks Bob, I surmised from your focus differential that you desired for the daughter to be the "leading role", with mom being the "supporting cast". This in contrast to an objective of each of them being equal "co-stars" (which would warrant equally sharp focus for both). friscoron wrote: It would have also helped if you would have stepped to your left and changed the plane of focus so it more easily included both their faces. +1 @ plane of focus if your intent was for "co-stars". I also inferred the "supporting cast" from the mom's face being oriented toward her daughter, while mom's eyes are "watching you" watching her daughter. I got the vibe that mom was mostly interested in helping you "get your shot", rather than a strong interest in being the subject herself. Note also the smile / facial expression of mom corroborating her disinterest in herself. One can never be sure what your intent was, but that was my read on things, so I just tried to push things a little more along that storyline. Hopefully the increased focal variance mitigates the viewer from thinking you "missed focus" on mom, but instead intended for the selective focus to be on the daughter. Jan 22, 2013 at 05:25 PM

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #11 · Mom & daughter RustyBug wrote: Thanks Bob, I surmised from your focus differential that you desired for the daughter to be the "leading role", with mom being the "supporting cast". This in contrast to an objective of each of them being equal "co-stars" (which would warrant equally sharp focus for both). friscoron wrote: It would have also helped if you would have stepped to your left and changed the plane of focus so it more easily included both their faces. +1 @ plane of focus if your intent was for "co-stars". I also inferred the "supporting cast" from the mom's face being oriented toward her daughter, while mom's eyes are "watching you" watching her daughter. I got the vibe that mom was mostly interested in helping you "get your shot", rather than a strong interest in being the subject herself. Note also the smile / facial expression of mom corroborating her disinterest in herself. One can never be sure what your intent was, but that was my read on things, so I just tried to push things a little more along that storyline. Hopefully the increased focal variance mitigates the viewer from thinking you "missed focus" on mom, but instead intended for the selective focus to be on the daughter. Accurate read - they were headed out the door and I interrupted to do the grab shot....not a staged moment for sure. Brings up another issue - the settings were for available light and retaining sufficient shutter-speed, thus AP f2.8, auto ISO maxed for 3200, 200 min, ss min 1/200. Having had this body (D7000) since July, I'm beginning to feel as if I've become a prisoner of uber-ISO, with the concomitant marginal noise and increased contrast, to the detriment of taking time to capture better images. Anyone have thoughts regarding this? Similar experiences? Bob Jan 22, 2013 at 06:40 PM

RustyBug Online • • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #12 · Mom & daughter A couple things come to mind. 1. You've got an EC of + .3 stop dialed in. This is telling your camera that you are asking it to increase exposure above what it would normally recommend. Given that you are WO on the lens and have a 1/200 shutter limit, then it has no choice but to raise ISO (auto ISO is a feature I wish Canon would better embrace as an option, btw. I enjoyed it in my D70s.). If you don't want the bump in noise, don't ask it to raise the exposure. I realize that .3 stop isn't much, but the concept is the point here. If you weren't at max aperture and a limit set for your shutter, then your camera would let more light in via one of those two methods and not raise your ISO, but when it's only remaining option is to raise the ISO, then that's what it's gonna do. Essentially this boils down to strategy and approach at how you want to proceed. If you were to change your max ISO to say 1000 or 1600, then you would keep the noise in check, but might run into underexposure. Given your propensity for PP, I wouldn't be overly concerned by such possible underexposure as I would bank money that you could deal with that just fine in PP better than the camera's higher ISO does. 2. With your shutter speed limit set @ 1/200 you are restricting yourself a bit somewhat. Not sure if this is over concern at camera shake or subject movement, but maybe moving that down to 1/160 or 1/125 could help with keeping the uber-iso at bay. In this particular instance, with a 55mm FL you've got some latitude regarding camera shake. Additionally, if you happen to be using IS glass, it becomes even less of an issue. Subject movement of course is a different matter regarding shutter speed selection. From that, I'd probably recommend changing your EC from +.3 to -.3, max your ISO @ 1000, 1250 or 1600, and drop your shutter limit to 1/160. Nothing too radical in any one area, but the combination of things would put your ISO a stop slower based on the 2/3 change at EC and the 1/3 change at shutter limit. should help keep you from unnecessarily going into uber-iso while shooting in "spontaneity mode" ... even if you do run into some mild underexposure on occasion. You'll "play with it" and find your groove on how you want to structure things for your shooting style, but that's my take on it atm. Jan 22, 2013 at 08:10 PM

Bob Jarman Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: On p.1 #13 · Mom & daughter Thanks, I will digest and give this all a try - I am really, really bad about hammering the shutter-release. The problem starts with the user. On my FE's I had a soft-release attached, no such aid anymore. Bob Jan 22, 2013 at 08:25 PM

	end FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Lost your password?