This photo can also be found in:
More properties
This photo is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The 090909090909 models in a slighly different environment.
what a pair
Very nice exposure but I don't like the composition. :-( Sorry.
That's ok, I had approx 3 seconds to get this one shot before Lucy hit the roof at being 'organised'. Note the white chocolate button that was the bribe that bought me even those 3 seconds!
In other words, this isn't the composition I was aiming for, but their expressions, the stilted awkward angles and the chocolate button will combine to make this a more memorable shot for me than a straightforward standard brother/sister family portrait ever could have!
Because you've chosen to go high-key, you could clone out the button as that area looks to be completely black, though there may be too much black as a result.
On the composition, I think there are 2 things (for me anyhow) and that's (1) that they're looking away from each other, in different directions and (2) that there's too much space between their heads.
Not sure what @TownieLees observations are, but would love to know!
Yep, nonsequitir. definitely too much space above their heads (I do tend to be quite fanatical about too much empty-noncontributory space above most subjects heads) and also agree about the different directions and intensity of expression. Lucy being very strong in your face, which I like--quite engaging--and Rory more mellowed out facing the corner.
Now that I know the difficulties, I love the capture of the white choc button and would leave it. I think if you cropped at least have of the extra white on top and possibly reversed their positions where Rory would direct the eye to Lucy would work better compositionally and may work better as a portrait of two different personalities. Although, I thought/think Rory is quite a hyper child.
You could technically make two portraits out of this that might work very well on their own ;-)
It's interesting that @TownieLee mentioned the negative space above the heads. I've seen this more and more in 'contemporary portraiture'. Check out http://www.deasyphotographystudio.ie/portfolio-page41922.html to see what I mean. I guess that's why I didn't call it out myself, because it seems to be an evolving, albeit classical rule-breaking, style that's gaining traction.
You know what, I LOVE when these discussions happen - this is exactly what should be differentiating Flickr and Pixie. More of it!
Negative space usually contributes to a photo. e.g., giving the eye a chance to rest before moving on to the rest of the pic, but non-contributory/empty space is when the space is not working or serving a function. In this pic it's definitely too much empty space to the point where Lucy & Rory look pushed down towards the bottom of the frame.
The deasystudio's pictures have a sense of motion about them. In the panaramic one of the girl with the blowing curls, you can actually visualise her moving into the empty space to her left, and that makes the viewer move through the image, which is a good thing. But in most of them, particularly the high space ones, it's just a gimmick.
I agree!
thnx for tutorials.
as a non-technical/non-photog onlooker i would just like to add: don't forget the personal feel/attachment/emotion to photos like this.
in that i think it's a pair: a pair of completely different kids. here i agree with s., i actually saw two portaits
I have to say I actually like the way they are both looking away and also like the empty bit on top!
As I say just my opinion and also very similiar to photos I have done with my own child over the last 3 years, maybe thats why I like it.
Aafke and McAWilliams are of course right about the emotional component. The technicalities of a photo are just one way of looking at things and secondary in my opinion. However, in this case, we have not got an emotional attachment and I think this makes the objective viewpoint a little interesting I think :-)
Agreed 100% and I appreciate the time and effort it takes to comment.
I think because the high key came out so successfully and the kids are so appealing, the viewer wants to see this picture work, which is the basis for the slightly negative critique. Some people see photography as a document and others see it as visual/artistic expression. If one is in to it for the latter, then one has to be able to cope with rules and concepts to make the photograph successful visually. In most cases, visual techniques are there for a reason. To have so much space on top, the viewer has to work way too hard to get to the adorable kids. A good photograph should be effortless to look at. Dakar was pressed for time and says he wasn't aiming for this composition, but for people who deliberately frame like this, I just don't see any visual justification for framing this way. The more I look at this photo, the more I love the strength of how Lucy came out. She just ropes you in with those huge eyes of hers.
This is my choice for TOTD...
Thank you!
Ok I've been stuck in no-broadband-land enjoying your comments, but since its a pain to reply on my phone, I've had a chance to take the comments on board before responding.
I agree with almost all of it. There are a few motivations behind me picking up a camera in this case.
Primarily I want photos of my kids. That's the driving force. For memories, for something to put on the wall, for something to show them when they're older, to show off my gorgeous kids! The proud Dad, in other words. That's what Aafke and John see.
There are secondary things that come into play then, like taking a 'nice' photo, an interesting one, trying out high key, messing about with lighting setups, rigging up a background. All the things that make photography fun for me!
The third layer has to do with my development as a photographer. This is important to me too, and shapes my decisions about how I take shots and even more so how I present them.
I suppose I've been influenced by shots like the Deasy ones, I really like the empty spaces, and I quite like the effect. I see your point, Karen, about the empty spaces needing to 'do' something, and I accept your point about rules being rules for a reason, but I just like it! I can't articulate why it works for me but I find it appealing. I wouldn't submit it for a competition, but it works for me. I know I said I was 'forced' into the composition, but I could have cropped it and chose not to.
Two other things that strike me about this shot. One is that it suffers on screen, it is much more striking in print, particularly a big print. The other is that you're right, is is two portraits. Two kids with very different personalities. One is quite reflective and sensitive (when he's not bouncing around Jumpology style. The other is strong willed and comical. I think this photo nails that.
And you're right Karen, those eyes get me every time, in print, on screen and in real life!
Dakar: Just curious, do you actually know how to type formally (you not being a secretary or writer). If not, you sure are able to crank the words out finger typing. Final words: I think this is Lucy's Ready-For-My-Closeup moment and her picture (the white choc buttons worked like a charm while the clock ticked away) deserves a better location and a more logical location in the frame--her image is that good!
Agree with the separation 100%, it's a cracking image.
No can't type properly! I genuinely appreciate the input, and I might give her pride of place in a cropped version of this!
Wow! She may hang this on her wall when she grows up!
Just seen this now, excellent. 5/5
The white seems just right too.
After seeing previous pictres of your lad this picture really does do him justice!
Well everyone adores their children , even if they fart or dare I say go at the nose, but these photographs show exactly what I mean - I know they are little you's . Beautiful portraits altogether - well done Daker -
To leave a comment, either login or create a free account.
