Child Shoot

Two continuous flourescent lights with white umbrellas, one 45 degrees to her left, 3 feet away, 2 feet above head level, the other 45 degrees to her right, 5 feet away, just below head level.
Attachments
This post contains 1 attachment, but as a guest you cannot view attachments. Signing up at PhotoArtsForum will allow you to view attachments and post your own messages. If you already are a member at PhotoArtsForum please login.
Logged

Comments and Harsh Critiques gladly accepted. My photos are ok to edit.

My photos and art: http://wildmaven.org

Hi Wildmaven,

While I like the placement of the child in the frame, I'm not keen on the placement of the chair (?)  I feel like it should be more flush with both the bottom and side edges of the frame.
Another thing that bothers me is the highlight on the hair.  My eye is immediately drawn to it.  It seems like that light that you had on the right was just a little too high, creating both the highlight and the shadow on her neck. I wish the little girl's pose wasn't quite so "tight".  I wish I could see more of her fingers.


On the good side, I love the bit of mischief you caught.  She looks as though you just caught her doing something sneaky.  It's a very natural and fun expression.
Logged

Proud Member of: WPJA, WPPI, TPPA, PPA, and NAPP

"I want to warn you, my photos will always be a bit more fantasy than reality."

The expression is fun and you caught it at the right moment. 
My critique would be that your lights are too high and the image seems slightly overexposed.  Her skin and hair are a little hot.  If you have control and shoot this child again you may choose a lighter backdrop and clothing.  Her hair and skin are very fair and lend themselves well to a softer look. 
Logged


Thank you, both! Smiley I have a hard time getting my lighting from blowing out really fair hair. If I had dropped the light down, maybe by a foot, would that have helped the hair as well as the chin shadows?

This was right before she told me "I'm taking a break". Smiley

Does the skin color look natural? Since I'm using flourescents, I've worked hard to try to keep the skin tones from getting a weird cast.
Logged

Comments and Harsh Critiques gladly accepted. My photos are ok to edit.

My photos and art: http://wildmaven.org

The skin tones look pretty natural to me . . . although they are somewhat washed out.  The highlight on her is caused by the light being too close and/or too bright, not by how high it is.  Lowering the light, but keeping the same brightness and distance would only move the light (which by the way, doesn't bother me very much). 

There is nothing to indicate the purpose of this shoot.  If this is a child that you are close to, the "cuteness factor" overcomes the problems with the pose and lighting.  If this is a professional session the problems become more important.

The subject is centered and facing square into the camera.  The main light (on her left) is too high.  This is casting the shadow over her neck and right shoulder.  The light is harsh on her left and front and then the right, lower, side is too dark by comparison.  The harshness of the shadows makes me think that the umbrellas are pretty small. 

I would also suggest, generally, that images posted to this board should be about 500 or 600 pixels in the long side.  Small images are difficult to review in detail.

Ed
Logged

Ed Farmer
Mount Laurel, New Jersey

www.edfarmerphotography.com
www.photoartsforum.com

The skin tones look pretty natural to me . . . although they are somewhat washed out.

Whew! Smiley

Quote
There is nothing to indicate the purpose of this shoot.  If this is a child that you are close to, the "cuteness factor" overcomes the problems with the pose and lighting.  If this is a professional session the problems become more important.

It was a "Free 8x10 for Portfolio building purposes". So, yes, it was a professional session (actually, my very first...but I've done 15 more since then).

Quote
The subject is centered and facing square into the camera.

I've always read that facing square isn't as much a concern when shooting children, but I may be mistaken. Smiley I agree with the centered critique.

Quote
The harshness of the shadows makes me think that the umbrellas are pretty small. 

Bingo! I was talked into a "professional set" that turned out to be not what I should've purchased. I am saving for a new set. Tongue

Quote
I would also suggest, generally, that images posted to this board should be about 500 or 600 pixels in the long side.  Small images are difficult to review in detail.

Gotcha! Smiley I'm used to showing small pictures to save bandwidth, so it'll be a treat to be able to use larger sizes. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee............

Thanks, Ed. Thanks all of you for taking time to help us all out. Smiley
Logged

Comments and Harsh Critiques gladly accepted. My photos are ok to edit.

My photos and art: http://wildmaven.org

It is okay to have children square to the camera in the sense that you don't have to worry as much about flattering them.  However, I believe Ed's recommendation was to make the image more dynamic, less static.  I am assuming, so I will let him correct me if that is not the case.  I still think that short lighting benefits a lot of children's faces.

As for lowering the lights:  Take Ed's advice, he is much more knowledgeable. 
Logged


It is okay to have children square to the camera in the sense that you don't have to worry as much about flattering them.  However, I believe Ed's recommendation was to make the image more dynamic, less static.

Oh, I see! Smiley

Quote
I still think that short lighting benefits a lot of children's faces.

Lighting more like this? (I know the light's too high on this one, too.)


Quote
As for lowering the lights:  Take Ed's advice, he is much more knowledgeable. 

I've been told by many people to listen to Ed. With endorsement like that, how can I not? Grin
Logged

Comments and Harsh Critiques gladly accepted. My photos are ok to edit.

My photos and art: http://wildmaven.org

Top of Page