Kids picture...
Oct 1, 2017 12:21:51 #
I was reading a totally unrelated article in a news web site when one of the illustration was a 1960 portrait of two kids, in B&W.
I am not posting the link (copyright).
What drew me to the image was the kids themselves. The camera was correctly placed at the children's eyes level but they were looking up, grinning.
So far so good, you will tell me, but I found the major error: The photographer while engaging the kids made the error of standing in front of them so their eyes attention was completely off the camera but on him, three to four feet above. This made for an ultimately awkward capture.
What do you think?
I am not posting the link (copyright).
What drew me to the image was the kids themselves. The camera was correctly placed at the children's eyes level but they were looking up, grinning.
So far so good, you will tell me, but I found the major error: The photographer while engaging the kids made the error of standing in front of them so their eyes attention was completely off the camera but on him, three to four feet above. This made for an ultimately awkward capture.
What do you think?
Oct 1, 2017 12:32:51 #
From what you describe I can envision the image and it does sound like a problem. An I imange is always more engaging if the subjects are looking into the lens.
Oct 1, 2017 13:02:09 #
JD750 wrote:
From what you describe I can envision the image and it does sound like a problem. An I imange is always more engaging if the subjects are looking into the lens.
It is a problem.
What I am really trying to say is despite a perfect setup (lighting was good, WB print was great, kids were cute but... One detail destroyed everything once you notice it.
More often than not this is what I found in my own early work. When I realized that these 'details' and paid attention to it I was able to improve my keep/sale ration.
Oct 1, 2017 13:47:24 #
Rongnongno wrote:
It is a problem.
What I am really trying to say is despite a perfect setup (lighting was good, WB print was great, kids were cute but... One detail destroyed everything once you notice it.
More often than not this is what I found in my own early work. When I realized that these 'details' and paid attention to it I was able to improve my keep/sale ration.
What I am really trying to say is despite a perfect setup (lighting was good, WB print was great, kids were cute but... One detail destroyed everything once you notice it.
More often than not this is what I found in my own early work. When I realized that these 'details' and paid attention to it I was able to improve my keep/sale ration.
That is good advice and it points to a method for improvement.
Oct 2, 2017 16:24:05 #
Might the photographers challenge was to get the kids to gaze up (at the UFO up there). What did the photographer say about his objective?
Oct 2, 2017 19:54:25 #
EYES! A great topic!
It's difficult to analyze an image by description alone, that is, without seeing it. There is no doubt, however, that the devil or for that matter the angels are in the details and minor glitches or distractions can detract from an otherwise technically decent photograph- especially in portraiture. Of course the little nuances and touches- the good stuff, can elevate a technically correct image to an excellent one.
I'm sure we have all heard it said that the eyes are the windows to the soul- or something like that- I'm bad with adages and sayings. In fine portraiture, one of the most important attributes of a successful image is the rendition of the eyes. The expression is in the eyes. The difference between a genuine and sincere smile and a faked smile is the SMILE in the subject's eyes- even if a person is not displaying a toothy ear to ear grin, they can smile with their eyes! Of course, every portrait need not be that of a smiling subject and there are boundless expressions moods and emotions in the human psyche and the all show in the eyes. We often characterize people as having piercing eyes, inquisitive eyes, sensuous or sexy eyes- we say he or she has a twinkle in their eyes. When we are angry we give folks the evil eye and when we get board or frustrated with someone we roll our eyes upward. When we are suspicious we look at suspects sideways.
As portrait photographers there is so much that we have to do about eyes-the expression, the aesthetics, their size or symmetry- are they equal or different? We address the color of the eyes and eye make up for the ladies. We worry about closed eyes, lazy lids, incessant blinkers, blood vessels showing in the whites of the eyes- bloodshot eyes ,red eye, overly dilated eyes, crossed eyes, methods for addressing eyeglasses and contact lenses, and eye direction or gaze. When I teach portraiture, I talk so much about EYES that my studies ask me if I am really a plastic surgeon or an ophthalmologist disguised as a PHOTOGRAPHER???
The topic here started off with the direction of the eyes. In a strictly candid on the fly situation, when we are photographing people in action, all we can do is wait for the right expression, try to anticipate the action and catch as catch can. When we are making a formal or casual portrait in a more controlled setting, it is up to the photographer to converse with the subject and elicit the kind of expression he or she wishes to capture. There is also a certain degree of direction as to pose, gentle and incremental movements and the all important direction or gaze of the eyes. Simply stated, you must encourage the subject to focus on a particular target that you need to establish in order to secure the expression and direction in the eyes that you want to capture. If you want the subject to make eye contact with the eventual viewers of their image, you need them to look directly into the lens. My method is to stand directly behind the camera and while conversing with the subject, I ask the to look at me if the are not already doing so. When they are engaged in conversation with you, most folks will automatically find you. As a general rule, the eyes should be centered, both vertically and horizontally so there is not an excess of whites showing. You have to make sure you are at a level and position where the subject's eyes will remain centered as the will tend to follow you. If you move off camera too high high or too low, there eyes will tend to shift there. If you are making a 2/3 face portrait, and you need the subject to gaze off camera, you the have to position yourself accordingly to continue relating to the subject and maintain the proper eye direction.
When I am photographing a you child or a baby, I use exactly the same method. If I am using a toy or a noisemaker to attract their attention a,d amuse them, I place myself and whatever device, including my funny face, exactly where I need them to look. If I need to be at the camera to manage my composition or follow an active child, I will employ my assistant or the child's parents to position themselves off camera- exactly where I need the to be in order to âÂÂget the eyesâ as well as the expression.
With little kids, I am completely uninhibited. I get great expressions by doing things that I was admonished for in grammar school- making rude noises, funny faces and animal impersonations. It all to get smiles and expression in their eyes!
We light for the eyes, we make certain that the main light source is positioned low enough to illuminate deep set eyes and high enough so there are perfect catch-lights in the 11 or 1 o'clock position in the eyes so the eyes also serve as facial landmarks by which we judge and adjust out lighting.
Get ready to hear lots more about EYES in the soon coming tutorials.
It's difficult to analyze an image by description alone, that is, without seeing it. There is no doubt, however, that the devil or for that matter the angels are in the details and minor glitches or distractions can detract from an otherwise technically decent photograph- especially in portraiture. Of course the little nuances and touches- the good stuff, can elevate a technically correct image to an excellent one.
I'm sure we have all heard it said that the eyes are the windows to the soul- or something like that- I'm bad with adages and sayings. In fine portraiture, one of the most important attributes of a successful image is the rendition of the eyes. The expression is in the eyes. The difference between a genuine and sincere smile and a faked smile is the SMILE in the subject's eyes- even if a person is not displaying a toothy ear to ear grin, they can smile with their eyes! Of course, every portrait need not be that of a smiling subject and there are boundless expressions moods and emotions in the human psyche and the all show in the eyes. We often characterize people as having piercing eyes, inquisitive eyes, sensuous or sexy eyes- we say he or she has a twinkle in their eyes. When we are angry we give folks the evil eye and when we get board or frustrated with someone we roll our eyes upward. When we are suspicious we look at suspects sideways.
As portrait photographers there is so much that we have to do about eyes-the expression, the aesthetics, their size or symmetry- are they equal or different? We address the color of the eyes and eye make up for the ladies. We worry about closed eyes, lazy lids, incessant blinkers, blood vessels showing in the whites of the eyes- bloodshot eyes ,red eye, overly dilated eyes, crossed eyes, methods for addressing eyeglasses and contact lenses, and eye direction or gaze. When I teach portraiture, I talk so much about EYES that my studies ask me if I am really a plastic surgeon or an ophthalmologist disguised as a PHOTOGRAPHER???
The topic here started off with the direction of the eyes. In a strictly candid on the fly situation, when we are photographing people in action, all we can do is wait for the right expression, try to anticipate the action and catch as catch can. When we are making a formal or casual portrait in a more controlled setting, it is up to the photographer to converse with the subject and elicit the kind of expression he or she wishes to capture. There is also a certain degree of direction as to pose, gentle and incremental movements and the all important direction or gaze of the eyes. Simply stated, you must encourage the subject to focus on a particular target that you need to establish in order to secure the expression and direction in the eyes that you want to capture. If you want the subject to make eye contact with the eventual viewers of their image, you need them to look directly into the lens. My method is to stand directly behind the camera and while conversing with the subject, I ask the to look at me if the are not already doing so. When they are engaged in conversation with you, most folks will automatically find you. As a general rule, the eyes should be centered, both vertically and horizontally so there is not an excess of whites showing. You have to make sure you are at a level and position where the subject's eyes will remain centered as the will tend to follow you. If you move off camera too high high or too low, there eyes will tend to shift there. If you are making a 2/3 face portrait, and you need the subject to gaze off camera, you the have to position yourself accordingly to continue relating to the subject and maintain the proper eye direction.
When I am photographing a you child or a baby, I use exactly the same method. If I am using a toy or a noisemaker to attract their attention a,d amuse them, I place myself and whatever device, including my funny face, exactly where I need them to look. If I need to be at the camera to manage my composition or follow an active child, I will employ my assistant or the child's parents to position themselves off camera- exactly where I need the to be in order to âÂÂget the eyesâ as well as the expression.
With little kids, I am completely uninhibited. I get great expressions by doing things that I was admonished for in grammar school- making rude noises, funny faces and animal impersonations. It all to get smiles and expression in their eyes!
We light for the eyes, we make certain that the main light source is positioned low enough to illuminate deep set eyes and high enough so there are perfect catch-lights in the 11 or 1 o'clock position in the eyes so the eyes also serve as facial landmarks by which we judge and adjust out lighting.
Get ready to hear lots more about EYES in the soon coming tutorials.
Oct 6, 2017 11:53:45 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I was reading a totally unrelated article in a new... (show quote)
At a tangent to the main subject. Linking is not copyright infringement, if the site is publicly available then the url (uniform resource locator) is a perfectly valid resource - a reference or citation in pre-internet terms.
If you presented any academic paper you are expected to show your sources.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials
Deep Linking: The most straightforward case is so-called "deep linking," which refers to placing a link on your site that leads to a particular page within another site (i.e., other than its homepage). No court has ever found that deep linking to another website constitutes copyright or trademark infringement. Therefore, you can link to other websites without serious concerns about legal liability for the link itself, with the exception of activities that might be contributory copyright infringement or trafficking in circumvention technology (discussed below).
Hopefully this is a useful example. I have used italic to differentiate the quoted text from my own.
Beyond what is perfectly legal are fair use defences where one defence is the use of copyright material within learning. You can use a portion of a copyrighted work for educational purposes. Note that is a defence of infringement of copyright not an exception to do as you please.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
Anyway that goes beyond the point I wished to make that linking to an article does not generally cause legal liability. With the exceptions given in the first linked article above.
Oct 6, 2017 12:44:25 #
blackest wrote:
At a tangent to the main subject. Linking is not c... (show quote)
It is not about 'liability' but about the article itself (paying site).
Oct 6, 2017 13:35:10 #
Rongnongno wrote:
It is not about 'liability' but about the article itself (paying site).
There may be a free article or 2 (irish times limit is 3 a week)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.