OK, here's my first posting for critique. This image is of my wife and son that I shot as a publicity photo for an article being written about the baby blanket business my wife owns. I think it works well for that purpose, but I'm not so sure how it works as a portrait.

NOTE: I should give credit to Donald Olson, fellow photo.net user, who's strobe equipment I used for this shot. He, in fact set up the lighting: a strobe with softbox high and to the right, with a gold reflector to the left.

This was shot using a Nikon F100, with a 105mm/f2.8 portrait lense on Kodak Portra 160NC. I scanned the negative, desaturated the image and turned it into a duotone in PhotoShop

Specific questions:

1 - How much does this photo suffer from Zack (the tot) not looking at the camera? Does this significantly detract from the photo's warmth or your ability to connect to it?

2 - I like the blue tone that I've applied - it adds nice definition that a sepia tone does not - but I'm worried that it makes this otherwise warm image too cold. Does anyone else get that impression?

3 - Since this was a publicity shot to show off the blankie, it figures pretty prominently in the image. But does it work as a stand-alone portrait? I'm concerned that this shot should be in tighter. Would this work better as a horizontal image cropped right below my wife's elbow?

Thanks in advance for your critiques.

--Tom

-- Tom Hammer (xanthan@bayarea.net), February 07, 2000

Answers

1) the first thing I noticed was the boys eyes and where they were looking. 2)I like the blue tone, in spite of hating it when my T400 CN comes back from the 1hr lab looking that way :) I think your right about it being better than a sepia tone. 3) I would have maybe tried to have the child holding the blanket up _just a touch_ higher, and be looking down at an angle twards it and the camera with a slightly bigger, barely open mouthed smile (as if in wonder/awe/excitement with it). I know.... easy for me to say. The framing cropped just below the elbow (almost a square format) would work great too IMO. Note that I'm on webtv, so I'm looking at this on a 32" sony television. In General..... and I'm no expert at advertising shots.... You NAILED the exposure. I think its perfect. (on my TV anyways) the mother is perfectly in focus and the childs eyesand nose are ever so slightly off. If anything I would do it the other way around, to draw attention to the childs expression and have the mother slightly soft, or a smaller aperture to balance them.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), February 07, 2000.

Yes I think it is a little bit cold that way, I really think you would be better off leaving it in color. As far as the kid goes I think if the picture was all about the kid you would want him to look forward at the camera but if your selling blankies here it's better this way so your subject is the blankie not the baby.

-- td (Cam@nctimes.net), February 07, 2000.

absolutely wonderful exposure. technical details, please? in my view, the only change should be a crop to just below the child's hand. at that point, everything works. good work.

wayne harrison

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), February 07, 2000.

First of all, nice job Tom. This photo would be perfect with your son gazing at the camera, especially since his face is straight on, but the image still works pretty well. The subjects provide all the warmth the image neeeds. The blue toning is nicely done and separates this from a Sear's portrait. I like the framing just as it is, I think it's perfect. For me, a tighter crop would remove some of the character. The lighting is very nicely done as well.

-- Barry Schmetter (bschmett@my-deja.com), February 07, 2000.

Hi Tom, I think you're main light is too oblique, making the drama a little intense for the use you intend and the mood of the models. I'd bring it a little further around front and slightly higher. See how your catchlight is in the lower half of the eye? and the upper side of the babies' (shadow side) eye is brighter than the underside? You're "under" lighting them from below (think Vincent Price). And yes, you need eye contact to sell... either between subjects or somebody has to look at the audience/viewer/customer. If it's only one, then let it be Mom. Also try a big white card under the camera lens, this is the time for soft light... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 07, 2000.

Thank you all for some valuble critical feedback, particularly Barry and Tom.

Wayne, I'm not sure what technical details you're looking for, but I think the only thing I've left out was exposure, which was f8 @ 1/60.

Tom, your analysis of the lighting is dead-on and *really* helpful. That is exactly the kind of information I was hoping to receive with this posting. Thanks for the key learning. I think moving the softbox 30 degrees toward the camera would make a big difference. I've posted another shot from the same session, that I'm less fond of. Its got my wife looking directly at the camera, which I think makes the picture more engaging, but the lighting is even harsher suffering from maladies you've already diagnosed. Again, thanks for the feedback everyone.

-- Tom

-- Tom Hammer (xanthan@bayarea.net), February 08, 2000.

I'm the guy responsible for the lighting set up Tom used. Thanks to Mr. Meyer for some great feed back. A note on the setup. This was a single Photogenic 1250 with a medium Photoflex softbox (with diffusion panel) set up about 6' away from the models and about 6 feet from the ground and to the right of the camera. As Tom previously noted, there was a single gold reflector panel on the left. Metering was done with an incident meter held at face level of Mom and aimed at the camera. That's it.

Again, thanks for all the great feedback. I'm new at this studio lighting thing and learning all the time from photo.net!!

-- Donald Olson (dolson@adobe.com), February 08, 2000.

I can feel my head expanding (yuck). One figure in your tech data jumps out... 6 ft away is too far for your light source to get the effect you want. Bring it as close as you can without entering the frame.

The larger your source, the softer it's light. Moving the box away is the same as using a smaller box. I think Ellis (on photonet) quotes a formula about the distance of the subject from the box not exceeding the diagonal of the box (or something like that) for the softest light. Use additional scrims on the lower part of the vertical box to keep detail in the white blanket.

I'm glad you found my observations useful. Let's see the next take... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

Here's my take on a mom and her baby made at a wedding reception (she was a guest) like this: 3x4ft softbox above and to right at a 45ish degree angle with the long edge over my right shoulder but in front of me. 42x72 silver reflector about 2ft to the left for maximum kick back onto mom (soft and cuddly). Grid spot on background which was about 8 ft behind subjects. Polaroid 600SE camera with 127mm f4.5 Mamiya lens (like the Press camera) at f 16 at close to minimum focus, Dynalight 2000 pack with 1000 watts on these two and probably 500 on the background. Scanned on an antique HP flatbed from the 5x7 Ilf MGRC pearl print. That's all I can think of... t (I hope the link works, it's only my second post)

twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

Any suggestions? (besides "get a life?")... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

My suggestion is that you try src instead of smc:

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), February 09, 2000.

I forgot to point out that the image in my posting is Tom's; it's the one he was trying to post in the message before.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeffs@hyperreal.org), February 09, 2000.

you mean if one letter's wrong?!!???.... thanks Jeff... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.

Well, maybe the reflector wasn't that close... I made more than 70 portraits that night (about 3.5 hours) and the light changed frequently, especially the fill... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), February 09, 2000.