My Daugther

Love your shot (and the freckles). Your daughter is a beautiful young lady. I have five children, but none with freckles - must be my wife's fault!

Thanks for the kind comments and suggestions! I really appreciate them and will utilize them in further shots My daughter might look "pink" as she was running around like mad before I took this shot and she could just be "rosie" from the running? None the less, I will play around with settings and compo and see where I can improve.

Thanks again all

To answer the question ... yes, you should always create images of children from a distance that allows them to look like kids. If done too close, the size correlation is not present. Objects and props can help in that regard. In professional print competition, close-ups of kids will generally score lower if too close.

D. Craig Flory PPA Certified, Cr.Photog., ASP
loryphotog@mindspring.​com

D. Craig Flory wrote in post #2167070
To answer the question ... yes, you should always create images of children from a distance that allows them to look like kids. If done too close, the size correlation is not present. Objects and props can help in that regard. In professional print competition, close-ups of kids will generally score lower if too close.

D. Craig Flory PPA Certified, Cr.Photog., ASP
loryphotog@mindspring.​com

I find that an odd rule. In the original image, I have no trouble recognizing that she's a kid. In fact, it's not terribly hard to estimate her age: roughly 6 or 7. I can't imagine that anyone would mistake her for an adult or even a teenager.

Nor would a size reference be terribly helpful. Children's heads grow much less than the rest of their bodies; that's why babies seem to have such large heads. Would sticking (e.g.) a pencil into the shot give us a better idea of how old she is? I don't think so.

For the most part, if you would ever enter a professional photography competition, you would see what scores well and what doesn't. In competition, you enter prints that are 16" X 20" or 20" X 16". It is disconcerting if a childs head is larger than life.

D. Craig Flory wrote in post #2171775
For the most part, if you would ever enter a professional photography competition, you would see what scores well and what doesn't. In competition, you enter prints that are 16" X 20" or 20" X 16". It is disconcerting if a childs head is larger than life.

I have to disagree. I don't enter pro competitions, or even attend them, but I certainly visit art galleries from time to time. I've never found it disconcerting when the subject of a painting is larger than life. You might as well prohibit a 16x20 macro shot of an insect.

Also, not every photo is destined for a competition. I think that shot would be absolutely wonderful in a frame on a desk.

In other words, let's not get hung up on arbitrary rules that only apply in special situations.