Daughter Abigail - Seeking C&C

I've been playing around with lighting options & backgrounds around the house as I
don't have a dedicated area (yet). New house, so lots of boxes still to be unpacked and
space is at a premium. As we have NO photos/images on our new walls, I'm hoping to
produce some print worthy images as Christmas presents to hang for the wife.

My kids have been champions, helping out whenever I can find some time and happily
posing for me.

Looking for any feedback/critique on this image of my daughter (6).

My observations:
- using a 135 that close to a face at F2.2 creates very little DoF - maybe intentional on your part, but the result is a very soft look to the picture - at that distance, F5.6, in my opinion, would be better
- the overall lighting is flat, but unlike flat beauty lighting, it is also weak lighting - and when combined with the very shallow DoF, the entire picture has an overall soft flat look to it
- the square catch light right in the middle of her pupil is less than optimal
- there is some additional side lighting camera right which is nice and works well
- because of the thin DoF, and the lighting, her jaw line, on camera right, is almost lost completely into her neck (this is never good - watch Peter Hurley's - it's all about the jaw)
- from a framing perspective, given you're looking at prints (maybe canvas wraps), frame it looser so you have space for cropping etc
- because there is slightly stronger side lighting from camera right, and your daughter is faced camera left, you are broad lighting her face (this may be intentional - but it is generally more attractive not to broad light a face)
- i'm not a fan of zippers in photos - for the christmas surprise picture that would be my one avoid

you have a beautiful daughter

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #18154841
My observations:
- using a 135 that close to a face at F2.2 creates very little DoF - maybe intentional on your part, but the result is a very soft look to the picture - at that distance, F5.6, in my opinion, would be better
- the overall lighting is flat, but unlike flat beauty lighting, it is also weak lighting - and when combined with the very shallow DoF, the entire picture has an overall soft flat look to it
- the square catch light right in the middle of her pupil is less than optimal
- there is some additional side lighting camera right which is nice and works well
- because of the thin DoF, and the lighting, her jaw line, on camera right, is almost lost completely into her neck (this is never good - watch Peter Hurley's - it's all about the jaw)
- from a framing perspective, given your are looking at prints (maybe canvas wraps), frame it looser so you have space for cropping etc
- because there is slightly stronger side lighting from camera right, and your daughter is faced camera left, you are broad lighting her face (this may be intentional - but it is generally more attractive not to broad light a face)
- i'm not a fan of zippers in photos - for the christmas surprise picture that would be my one avoid

you have a beautiful daughter

Wallstreetoneil, well that is a great critique and a lot to take in. Thank you for the honesty as well as reasoning and suggestions.

1. Yes intentional, and I see your point about overall softness to the image. Smaller aperture will be used at the next attempt.
2. Yep, not very good lighting at all. I picked it up for under $100, its basically a product lighting outfit (jewellery and the like). Might go back to using my 580 and 430.
3. Yes agreed, it isn't very nice is it.
4. There is actually lighting from both sides, the light on the right must be stronger as I had them same distance apart. Another "bonus" of the "great lighting" option! ha ha
5. Noted, should be addressed with 1.
6. This was a crop of the original for posting here. Always try to maintain a reasonable margin.
7. Broad lighting, off to read up about it. Thank you.
8. Clothes unfortunately are optional when working with my kids, the thought is if I get a setup and results that work well then I would plan another shoot with appropriate clothes.
I'm also trying to do this when the wife is not around, which does make things hard.

Appreciate the kind word about my daughter, yes she is beautiful, precious and my princess.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to respond, that's the only I'm going to end up with something worthy to put on the wall.
Cheers

cute little girl
great image
that DOF works for me

Looks great!!! Would you mind sharing what flash setup you used?

I'm seeing constant light/window light here, not flash???

The DOF is fine if this is the style you like, with eyes razor sharp is what most go for.

The composition has me wishing for more space on the left side, or to re-crop the image differently.

I think this image is slightly under exposed, and maybe a hint off (bluish?) of white balance - and fixing both would make the image pop more without adding saturation.

Having one of the lights placed in front is fine, but I'd make it much higher.. butterfly lighting would have a soft shadow under her nose, here there seems to be a very soft gradation where her forehead is darker than her chin.. and I'd go the reverse so her eyes become more the focus and pop more.

Over all a very nice start, and this one would easily be better with a bit of processing, and one I would consider for the wall with a different crop.

ksbal wrote in post #18155034
I'm seeing constant light/window light here, not flash???

looks like a softbox in the catch light, and imo, the catch light on the bottom half of the eye is very unnatural.

nice expression and framing, dof is what it is (and i hate that saying,lol) some people like razor thing DOF, some don't.

I'd get the light up in the air so the catch light is higher in the eye and hopefully a little off center. I prefer having one side of the face be a little darker to create depth, but if you want flatter light like what you've posted you can put a reflector opposite the light.

edit: notice how her chin blends with her neck? that is another symptom of having the light too low.

Wow, thanks for the responses peoples, appreciated.

windpig wrote in post #18154885
cute little girl
great image
that DOF works for me

Thanks Windpig, I'm slightly biased, Dad's always are, yes she is cute!
As Wallstreet alluded too, it does provide an overall soft look to the image. I'm going to take his advice and
shoot some more stopped down and compare the results. It is a subjective thing unfortunately.

winters19 wrote in post #18155009
Looks great!!! Would you mind sharing what flash setup you used?

Flash?? No flash here, and as has already been pointed out me thinks I need to use mine!
The setup is 3 constant lights, LED bulbs, cheap setup more for product photography.

ksbal wrote in post #18155034
I'm seeing constant light/window light here, not flash???

The DOF is fine if this is the style you like, with eyes razor sharp is what most go for.

The composition has me wishing for more space on the left side, or to re-crop the image differently.

I think this image is slightly under exposed, and maybe a hint off (bluish?) of white balance - and fixing both would make the image pop more without adding saturation.

Having one of the lights placed in front is fine, but I'd make it much higher.. butterfly lighting would have a soft shadow under her nose, here there seems to be a very soft gradation where her forehead is darker than her chin.. and I'd go the reverse so her eyes become more the focus and pop more.

Over all a very nice start, and this one would easily be better with a bit of processing, and one I would consider for the wall with a different crop.

Ksbal, correct about the lighting. Thanks for the points and butterfly is what I should have been trying for (just didn't come into my head when I was rushing to setup).
There is more space around the image, this was a crop for presentation here. I'll keep this in mind for subsequent postings.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18155049
looks like a softbox in the catch light, and imo, the catch light on the bottom half of the eye is very unnatural.

nice expression and framing, dof is what it is (and i hate that saying,lol) some people like razor thing DOF, some don't.

I'd get the light up in the air so the catch light is higher in the eye and hopefully a little off center. I prefer having one side of the face be a little darker to create depth, but if you want flatter light like what you've posted you can put a reflector opposite the light.

edit: notice how her chin blends with her neck? that is another symptom of having the light too low.

Left Hand, appreciate the response. Yes the lighting is not ideal, will use my flashes for the next attempt.
Getting the light up high is a good piece of advice, I was keeping it low so I could shoot OVER it, but results speak for themselves.
One side being darker, I can work with that, thanks for the advice.

Once again appreciate the pointers and advice, I'll see if I can put it all together for the next shoot.
Cheers