DSLRUsers.com

Did a family shoot yesterday. For weeks now we've had beautiful sunny skies and magnificent late afternoon sunshine, but alas as of yesterday the dark clouds rolled in right on shutter time!

Anyway, took some shots of some nephews and niece, was going to use 24-105 F4 IS but instead used 70-200 2.8 in darkish light.

Any comments on these will be appreciated, with thanks.

Ozi.

nice series.

#3 looks like he is going to beat the crap out of you

What I'm seeing in these (colour) images is similar to what I'm seeing from my 30D at this early stage of my ownership.

Please bear in mind that I'm using an uncalibrated monitor, but I'm seeing the wb on these - and my own - images as being too cool for my tastes.

In the case of your images, it may simply be the monitor I'm using, but at the moment I'm struggling to get the wb warmed up to the point where I'm happy with it.

I may even need to break out the manual at some point.


The B&Ws are great; I'd like to see a little more depth of colour in the colour images, and perhaps greater DoF in the first one. I can see what you're trying to do here, but my personal feeling is that, if this is supposed to be an image of the four people, shouldn't they all be in clear focus?

Cheers.

gstark wrote:The B&Ws are great; I'd like to see a little more depth of colour in the colour images, and perhaps greater DoF in the first one. I can see what you're trying to do here, but my personal feeling is that, if this is supposed to be an image of the four people, shouldn't they all be in clear focus?Cheers.

Good point Gary, I did take some other shots with greater depth of field (F10 from memory) and they seemed to be not too bad. The narrow depth of field stuff is a bit arty I admit, some people like it, some don't.

As for WB with the 30D, I'm only shooting in jpg because of my limitations in processing the images with my Mac mini eg it takes way too to process RAW but I think I may take a few in RAW and then alter the WB as needed to see what difference it makes.

Thanks for the comments.

I really like the black and whites, and I'd agree a little more DOF in the group shots may make everyone feel as important.. if I was the guy at the back I'd have mixed feelings about being blurred compared to my siblings. (if that makes sense).

One thing that I struggled with was that the oldest lad isn't smiling while the rest are...

I like the B&W of him though. The colours need some WB tweaking imo, look a bit cold on this monitor (a work one - admittedly uncalibrated)

Alpha_7 wrote:I really like the black and whites, and I'd agree a little more DOF in the group shots may make everyone feel as important.. if I was the guy at the back I'd have mixed feelings about being blurred compared to my siblings. (if that makes sense).

Thanks Craig, I think Hayden is not worried at all about being blurry, he most probably likes it, but your point is taken, with different subjects they may object to be out of focus. It is different if it is only part of one person in focus as opposed to several subjects.

Ozi

jamesw wrote:One thing that I struggled with was that the oldest lad isn't smiling while the rest are...

I like the B&W of him though. The colours need some WB tweaking imo, look a bit cold on this monitor (a work one - admittedly uncalibrated)

Funny you mention this James, but as a photographer I usually encourage my subjects to to smile only if that is their normal expression - smiling doesn't always suit some people and a different facial expression sometimes is more appropriate, at least in my own humble (silly) opinion!

ozimax wrote:

jamesw wrote:One thing that I struggled with was that the oldest lad isn't smiling while the rest are...

I like the B&W of him though. The colours need some WB tweaking imo, look a bit cold on this monitor (a work one - admittedly uncalibrated)

Funny you mention this James, but as a photographer I usually encourage my subjects to to smile only if that is their normal expression - smiling doesn't always suit some people and a different facial expression sometimes is more appropriate, at least in my own humble (silly) opinion!

No that is definitely a fair call, it just initially struck me as odd.

Clouds can be good... well I know I would prefer to shoot portraits in overcast weather rather than on a bright glary day...

I dont mind the limited dof as I am presuming that you did get a shot of all of them in clear focus so sometimes an arty type shot is a nice change...

Everyone else has said basically what I would have said.. if I had of gotten in first that is.... yeah I know sometimes I should just keep my mouth shut but the bonus is that if I say I like a shot its cause I do like it and I'm not just being polite....lol... anyways the only thing I can add to it is that it seems that you have maybe taken some of these images from a slightly lower viewpoint to them....as in looking up at them...not by much mind but a bit perhaps... this generally isnt the most flattering way to take a portrait as it tends to make people appear a little larger then what they are...and trust me the camera adds enough kilo's all on its own without us helping it....lol...

oh and Mum brushed their hair didn't she.... sorry but its just too neat and not natural enough... does that make sense?...

Still I do like them.... you did a great job!

Appreciate the comments Sue. It seems that photographic images are definitely either flattering or unflattering but never quite accurate, your point is taken. Actually my niece is quite thin but these photos make her look "roundish" in the face. As for getting the level right, I'm never quite sure where to aim, but in any case we had a fun day.

The mother (my sister-in-law) likes the images, and now we have to decide on what sort of prints eg normal, canvas or a momento type presentation book.

Thanks again.

#3 and #4 are powerful images. You filled the frame, used the light, and kept em simple. Nothing else to say except well done.

Appreciated Matt.

#2 is my fav.

if there is any way of making the first kids eyes less dark i think the shot would be the much better for it.

ozimax wrote:The narrow depth of field stuff is a bit arty I admit, some people like it, some don't.

That's not (quite) the issue, although I understand where you're coming from.

It depends a lot on the construction of the image, and in this case, I don't think the narrow DoF is really suitable.

Consider an alternate set-up, still the same four children, but divided into two discreet groups: one child and three children, with some space between the groups. In that setup, the narrow DoF will work treats, because you're throwing focus onto one or the other groups. In this case, you have four kids, all on almost the same plane, but we're simply running out of focus.

Oh yes ... focusing on the second (from the right, first photo) of the children might have helped too, as you have DoF both in front of, and behind, the selected focus point. By focussing on the second child, you are taking greater advantage of your lens's capabilities.

Finally, Sue makes a great point regarding the cloudy weather: it's great for portraits: no harsh shadows to deal with ....

gstark wrote:

ozimax wrote:The narrow depth of field stuff is a bit arty I admit, some people like it, some don't.

That's not (quite) the issue, although I understand where you're coming from.

It depends a lot on the construction of the image, and in this case, I don't think the narrow DoF is really suitable.

Consider an alternate set-up, still the same four children, but divided into two discreet groups: one child and three children, with some space between the groups. In that setup, the narrow DoF will work treats, because you're throwing focus onto one or the other groups. In this case, you have four kids, all on almost the same plane, but we're simply running out of focus.

Oh yes ... focusing on the second (from the right, first photo) of the children might have helped too, as you have DoF both in front of, and behind, the selected focus point. By focussing on the second child, you are taking greater advantage of your lens's capabilities.

Finally, Sue makes a great point regarding the cloudy weather: it's great for portraits: no harsh shadows to deal with ....

Thanks Gary, yes, points all taken. As for Sue's comment on cloudy light etc, the light was pretty even last Monday, but there is something to be said for late evening winter sunlight in Coffs, especially when it's filtered through bush fire laden skies at present, giving outstanding golden hues.

On the posing front Gary, does anyone know of an online source for a (preferably free) posing guide to groups and couples? I know you can purchase books etc but there must be some free resources there somewhere.

If you're doing portraits all day every day then posing the subjects becomes second nature, but for us part timers it requires a fair bit of thought.

Ozi.