Portraits of my kids

Just got an umbrella and couldn't wait to try it out. Simple portraits but I figured its best to start small.

What do you all think?

1

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mszuminski/5959​678659/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mszuminski/5960​237770/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mszuminski/5959​678631/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mszuminski/5959​678595/

Very nice. What was your lighting setup since you said umbrella and I see one flash in your sig?
Thanks

My personal preference is to give the heads more 'breathing room'.

In the first one, the shiny nose is distracting, as is the amount of white showing in her eyes. So, a little powder and having her turn a bit more toward the camera. Then perhaps a bit of backlight for her hair.

On the boy, again a bit too much shine.

The second one of the girl is my favorite. With a bit more room around her head, I wouldn't change anything.

Thank you both for your comments.

My "lighting setup" was just that speedlight through a 45" umbrella.

First three were shot right before bedtime so they had some sort of oily stuff on their faces and I couldn't figure out how to "powder" it. I had a feeling it was going to be an issue.
As far as white in the eyes that's the reflection of that big umbrella so how do I minimize that? Take it out in post or position the light differently?

Very nice pictures - well done.

David

Totally agree about giving them room to breathe.Are these crops?Your son's hair in the second on the right side looks funky..I think your DOF needs to be wider.

Here is Flo. I was wondering when you were going to chime in.

I did crop them a bit. I was using the sliders to the deck as background and if I didnt crop the white door frame would be visible. so I guess "paying attention to the background" didnt work out so much here.

They were all shot at 6.3 so I guess bumping it up to 8.0 would be better.

:p I thought they were.You want all of them in full focus, makes for a nice crisp( not sharp, but clean) photo.

Thank you, Flo.
this photography thing is pretty complicated. LOL
but so addicting too.

Thanks GtrPlyr.
I am so new at this that I have to just keep trying different things/settings. To me they looked good as is but if Flo didnt point out trying a different DOF I possibly wouldnt even try to experiment with that same shot again. Now I cant wait to get home.
My family will hate me and my camera soon.

its good to hear from people what works for them and what doesnt. I really appreciate you taking the time.

smyke wrote in post #12798204
Thank you, Flo.

this photography thing is pretty complicated. LOL
but so addicting too.

It is, and it should be fun while learning all you can( which never ends!)

I would also like to see a little more 'breathing room', especially the last two pics.

I think if you reduced the vibrance, the skin tones would look more natural too but that's a personal preference.

In the first and fourth photo the camera is positioned above the subject. The rule of thumb for head or head and shoulder shots is that the camera/lens is positioned at roughly the eye level of the subject.

Thank you doc and Pixel. very good pointers.

When I was trying to process them I actually might have bumped the vibrance. trial and error.

as far as the level of camera goes my daughter is obviously shorter than my son and I didnt even think to get down on my knees for her shots. its the "little" things like that I have to learn.

I thought the portrait of your daughter had a 'mona lisa' quality to it. I hope you don't mind but since you had "image editing OK" turned on, I wondered if I could enhance that look. Please excuse me if you think I've ruined your image.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

DUDE!!!
ruined? that is fabulous.

you know now you have to teach me how to pull this off, right? I'm pretty sure its in the POTN rule book.