DSLRUsers.com

There's something about this shot that I'm just not too sure about. The client hasn't seen this one yet, do you think it emphasizes the size/growth/togetherness factor enough? By this stage of the shoot the bub was getting tired and somewhat irritable so I just did what I could under the circumstances...

Critique welcomed as per usual:




Crop as suggested by Kipper and Xerebus:

i like the shot....

perhaps try cropping the shot to just above the top hand and crop away a little of the right hand side so that the little one's hand is not in the center.

add a little bit more contrast...

?

cheers

I second Marks call for a crop. Just scrolled the page up to a rough crop point and it looks great.

Geoff
again, nice work. I agree with the crop, but for some reason I see it as a portrait view. The fingers lead my eyes downwards, so I wonder what it would look like cropped as a portrait, instead of landscape ??

Just another option....

Geoff, I had in mind about 50px more with just a bit of baby fat showing and the shadow in the fat showing. It adds a nice contrast to the image I think.
It's also a too tighter crop to the ladies finger.

Heres the crop that I had in mind, and I've also implemented a brightness/contrast adjustment of -15/+15. Not sure if this is what Mark had in mind.

Geoff?

Sorry Kipper,
Was off at the framers. The increased contrast has eliminated (on my monitor) the bub's hand, more specifically the first finger. I think if we halved it it'd look awesome! Thanks mate

Shrug I've viewed this on 4 different monitors, 1 at home, 1 lcd at work, 2 crts at work and I can see the bubs hands on all. Anybody else see it all?

kipper wrote:Shrug I've viewed this on 4 different monitors, 1 at home, 1 lcd at work, 2 crts at work and I can see the bubs hands on all. Anybody else see it all?

Nope.
I can see the bub's hand, but where the fingers drop into shadow they drop into BLACK. This is on two independent monitors, both profiled (and using Photoshop so the profile's actually getting used unlike in a web browser).

If I boost the shadows via Levels/Curves I can see the fingers so there is some detail there, but I think you've pushed it just over the edge.

Well I guess my monitors then are too bright then. Might have to back them off a bit.

To me all it says is "restraint". The baby's hand looks like it is being gripped tightly and held there against the baby's will (which it may well have been) and for me, this makes a less than pleasing image.

Images where tiny little hands are tightly grasping bigger fingers look great, but to me the grasping is the otherway around.

Just my take on it all.

Deb

HappyFotographer wrote:To me all it says is "restraint". The baby's hand looks like it is being gripped tightly and held there against the baby's will (which it may well have been) and for me, this makes a less than pleasing image.

Images where tiny little hands are tightly grasping bigger fingers look great, but to me the grasping is the otherway around.

Just my take on it all.

Deb

100% agree on this but was lurking to see if anyone agreed with my thoughts. I like the concept but something that should of been a warm loving shot is detracted by the tight or restraining grip used by the father.

I see where u are coming from guys and as I said, the Bub had been brilliant up to this stage and I made the best of the situation. Wait to see what they say now

Geoff wrote:I see where u are coming from guys and as I said, the Bub had been brilliant up to this stage and I made the best of the situation. Wait to see what they say now

I guess no matter what we say, the customer is always right, if they love it... then your job is done, and importantly you get the $$$

I dunno, I never really looked at it as restraining. I looked it as a union of mother and father, and the product of this love. I dunno, just my take on it.

kipper wrote:I dunno, I never really looked at it as restraining. I looked it as a union of mother and father, and the product of this love. I dunno, just my take on it.

And that is the beauty of photography, we can all look at the same image and walk away with a different impression.

Geoff asked, I expressed my opinion. Nothing was meant by it, only that myself as a parent, this was how I saw the image.

I also know how difficult it can be to photograph little people and as Geoff said, he did what he could given the situation. And the parents may love it.

Sorry guys I deleted my modified file from pixspot.



Regards

Tony

Deb, I wasn't having a go. I actually found it very interesting how you percieved the image, and I guess actually having children would help in that respect. And if everyone had the same opinion it'd be pretty boring eh

kipper wrote: I guess actually having children would help in that respect.

Having a child/children who never sit still gives me great respect and envy for images of young babies actually being still enough that their hands and feet aren't blurred....and the amazing patience of the photographer.

In fact the only time Owen was this still was recently and that was because he was ill.

Perhaps it is that bias of mine that makes me see the image the way I do.

Having children myself (4 month old Twins), I appreciate where you are coming from Deb. I briefly thought similar to you when I originally viewed Geoff's photo, however as he'd explained that the bubb was getting tired and not wanting to co-operate (which is an oxymoron by the way ) I put the two together and saw the photo for what it was.

I guess ideally, the bubbs hand would be on top (as they're the boss !!!), but what can one do in that situation.

Nevertheless, it was still a valid comment. That's what critiques are all about. If everyone holds back, what's the point ?

I would think a tighter crop would make the image feel more"right". Cropped from the babies underarm right to the bottom, and side to side an inch from each of the knuckles towards the outside of the pic.