Child's photo
 

This is my next commission, a charcoal drawing of this young man. I've converted all to black and white to help see values. Please let me know what you think. When they came for the initial meeting I was not prepared to do a photo session, ( it was the first time we met) but got ahead of myself cause they were so enthusiastic. So please disregard the backgrounds, and any weird hair. We were just goofing around.

;) Jean

Child's photo
 

#2

Looking angelic.

Child's photo
 

#3

Child's photo
 

#4

Cradled on Dad's arms. I would simplifly Dad's clothing, a soft solid med toned sweater. I like this but don't know if I can pull off disappearing lines yet and make it effective as art. Dad's arms would have to fade to the top right, but it could be really interesting and have a lot of heart.

Blurry photos
 

Forgot this, I know a couple are blurry but I'm not too concerned about it. I took 62 pictures of him, and all I'm looking for is that special light and emotion. There are many in focus with something wrong otherwise that I can use for features.

Jean

Damien
 

I'm bringing these to the top again in the hopes that someone will comment. My feelings won't be hurt if all are nixed. Initially the client brought their own photo, a bad, bad, bad, full face flash. The only reason I picked up the camera and took some pictures was to show them the difference between natural light and flash. Then I started to have fun and got carried away. I was hoping these might have generated some comments, but also realize the timing (the holidays) was bad. I will be meeting with this little guy again, so if all are bad just say yuk!

Jean

Jean,

Since you haven't got any help so far I will offer my opinion. Of the photo's that you've shown I would be partial to this one in this simplified version.

Hi Mike
 

Thank you Mike. I like this one too, especially your cropped version. This helps, as the client likes all these pictures. They did want a smile, so now I'll have to wait and see if they change their minds or decide to go with the more "angelic" version of their son. I'm trying to guide them more in this direction. I appreciate your time.

Jean

I agree with Mike that #2 is definitely the best. If they want a "smile" shot I suggest that you shoot some more rolls but it could be tough to top this shot.

If you do get a smiley picture...be sure that the mouth is closed. Do NOT attempt any portrait that has an open mouth! Don't even bother to show an open mouth photo to a client.

I also like #2, though I would keep the hand and would have more background space above and to the right of the head for him to look into.

Number 4, with the Dad's arm, is too confusing, I believe. I had to stop and think which parts belonged to which person.

I like the expression in #3 better than the expression on the child's face in #2, though the blurriness and the limited information on the eye farthest from the viewer might be problematic.

I'd probably go for an additional photo session and see what you get from that. Nice light in these shots, though!

Nice photo but...
 

Jean,

I think a common mistake that artists on this site seem to make is that they confuse a good photo with a good reference photo.

When we paint we are trying to recreate what the eye perceives, a 3-D reality. Our eyes are able to see tonal variation in the lights as well as in the shadows. When looking at photos we can excuse the lack of highlight and/or shadow detail because we are looking at something that we know is flat (a photo).

I think that the lack of highlight detail and shadow detail will be a big handicap if you want to create a good painting from any of your photos.

I think the reason so many artists need to work from life is because they are incapable of taking good photo reference. Obviously working from life is always preferred since no photo can recreate human vision exactly, but in order to be a portrait artist today this isn't always practical.

It's not enough to just be able to draw and paint well these days but also to master photo and computer skills as well.

I know Karin is doing a photo demo in Connecticut in February with the CSOPA and I will be leading a one day photo workshop on January 29th in conjunction with the Portrait Society of Atlanta.

There are some ways of increasing the likelihood that you will get tonal variation and detail in highlight areas as well as shadow areas of photographs you take.

One way is to bracket your shots. This is much more easily said than done with small children since the idea is to take three or more photos at different exposures, with the same pose. Young kids often will have moved across the room before you get to your third shot. With older kids and adults, however, it's an indispensable technique.

One of your resulting bracketed photos will show good variation in the light areas and another of the shots will show good variation in the shadow areas.

A second technique to use that will help make sure your light areas are not blasted all the way to white and your dark areas are not dropped all the way down to black is to set up your lighting with a low light-to-shadow ratio. This means that the light areas should not be whole lot brighter than the shadow areas.

Film (and digital cameras, too, for that matter) simply cannot capture information in a high ratio shot. A ratio of eight-to-one, for example is beyond what cameras can capture. (An eight-to-one ratio would be a lighting set-up where the lights are very, very light and the darks are very dark.

Setting up a lighting situation where the ratio is more like two-to-one or possibly four-to-one involves making sure there is fill light in the shadows, either by using a reflector or by moving the subject farther away from the light source.

Which of the above two methods you use (bracketing or reducing the light ratio) would depend on the type of subject you want to depict and what you want to say about him or her. A low light-to-shadow ratio (soft light, soft shadow, not a great difference between them) is perfect for young children and women, if you want to enhance their softness. That's when you'd use the second method I outlined above.

A high light-to-shadow ratio is more dramatic and would be great for a photo of a subject whose strength you wanted to emphasize (perhaps a corporate executive or Tina Turner!) Then you would use the bracketing method. You could still set up your lighting with a high ratio, but bracketing would give you the information you need to get the tonal variation in the very light and very dark areas.

Hope that helps!

Michele,

This is a subject that I need to work on. I think my eye responds to drama. As Marvin says, you can create good photos or you can create good photo reference. It's all about training yourself (your eye) to the specific task. A flute without holes is not a flute. I need to slow down and think.

Good posts Marvin and Michele.

Mike, if your "eye responds to drama" and you tend to like lighting with a higher ratio, then go for it. If you find your lights being blasted too much and your darks dropping out too much in your photos, then just shoot a lot of bracketed exposures to be sure you get the information you need.

Jean,

I can't bring up #3 or #4. I kind of like #1. #2 is missing a lot of information. The entire right side of his face is bleached out in light.

I would start by having Walmart or some other 1 hour photo place do a darker, and much darker exposure of #2 so you can see what is happening on the bleached out portion of the photograph. You would use a combination of the lighter photo and the darker photo. I get the biggest kick out of the wisps of hair against the background.


I am also attaching a charcoal I did several years ago of my son John. The lighting is very similar, and might help you with some of your value determinations. (...note the hightlights in the face are still darker that the light on the back of the head....)

Best of luck!

Peggy

Thank you, all of you!
 

This info has been so helpful. I've already discovered the "white to black" ratio on my camera, and will be playing with it today. Karin, I'm already working on them about the "little smile". Mike, thanks for getting this going (I like drama too).

Marvin, I would give just about anything (with the exception of my husband and dog) to study with a master, painting, photography, or both. My spine situation is keeping me homebound and close to Doc right now, so you guys are my masters. I found the holidays this year to be a major intrusion of my art time. So I will continue to use all of you for everything I can get, and am working on studying with Peggy Baumgartner when I am more mobile. Scottsdale is still out their too. But in the meantime, so much to learn. Old dogs can learn new tricks.

Michelle, your info has got me back to studying what my camera can actually do. I have more to say but hubby is kicking me off the computer, so will be back later.

Jean

I thought I was the only one who felt that way! Thanks for voicing that, Jean. I didn't dare express my opinion on that matter around my husband or extended family for fear of being labeled a Grinch. I'm really looking forward to January 2nd when I can get back in front of the easel!

Holidays
 

Hi Michelle, I was almost afraid to post my irritation with holidays here too. It seems almost unpatriotic to prefer painting to shopping and baking! But often I looked longingly at my easel or pastels or at least a pencil.:exclamati

Peggy, your post wasn't here earlier. I appreciate your reply, and the charcoal of your son is beautiful. I like the first picture a lot also (especially the hair sticking up). My concern with that one is that it seems too much like a posed photographers shot with the perfect lighting. Kind of like the very stylized year book pictures of the prom queen. If this is just my own prejudice coming through just say so. I used to be one of them (haha). You're on my list of people to study with, so your comments are appreciated. I may be able to manipulate these photos on the computer to bring up more detail. There seems to be a lot of features on my camera and computer that I am unaware of. Just call me clueless.

Jean

Jean,

It would appear that most of the blurring in these photos is the result of this little guy moving around on you. Photographing these little tikes in natural light indoors is double tough. They just won't sit still long enough to allow for the slow shutter speeds which are inherent under these conditions.

One thing that may help control all that movement is to reign in their field of play. For example, you can put them at a table with blocks or pieces of fruit or a book. This will give them something to focus on and help restrict their movement. Then you just have to shoot rapid fire before their attention span gives out.

I would use at least 400 speed film when photographing young kids under these conditions. I have even had some luck with 800 speed film. I have no trouble getting a usable 8 x 10 using 400 speed film, but an 8 x 10 using 800 will begin to thin out and show grain. However, I think I would rather have a slightly grainy, in focus shot, than a tighter grain out of focus shot.

I'd be interested to hear other approachs to these circumstances.

In the past year I have photographed two two-year-olds for portraits. One was very shy and reserved and she didn't move around much. Not much trouble there getting good shots.

The other two-year-old was a very active little boy. I shot well over a hundred photographs of him in the course of twenty or thirty minutes and got several that were useable from which to choose.

With a digital camera I can do a lot of "catch and release" photography and just print the ones I think will be useful, so it's easier to shoot a ton of reference photos and not worry about the cost.

I have a shoot coming up soon with two preschoolers. Mike, I think I will use your idea of having them focus on some activity or object in a small area, to keep them within range of my camera. Thanks!

Toys
 

I photographed Damien on the dining room table, and brought out different toys to keep him busy. As a grandmother I have many toys anyway. Dinosaurs and cars are the best for little boys. Be prepared to sacrifice at least one when they leave. They have a way of attaching themselves to little hands. One problem with this young man was his fascination with the toys and refusal to look up. I had to pick up the teradactyl and make him fly in order to get Damien to look up so I could see his eyes! Be prepared to play.

Jean

It was suggested by someone on this Forum that you hold a kazoo in your mouth and give it a sudden toot when you want a young child to look up.

I tried it and it worked. Thank heavens.

Kazoos
 

Thanks for the good laugh, Karin. Brought tears to my eyes! I'll get a kazoo.

I've been playing with my photo program and by changing brightness and contrast can bring up much more detail and value change. Particularly in photo #1. Later I'll play with the b/w ratio on my camera and see how that works. There seems to be about 16 different settings, plus a special setting for black and white photography. It's a Canon digital, recommended for use with Mac computers. I'm a total novice in it's use.

Again, thanks for the laugh :D

Jean

Jean, I know there is a way that you can use Photoshop to select in your image a lightest light and a darkest dark, and then re-calibrate the rest of the image to fit inside those benchmarks. I think this would be a useful manipulation to be able to make.

I came across this while browsing through "50 Fast Photoshop 7 Techniques," by Gregory Georges, at the local bookstore. I'll be ordering it through the Stroke of Genius link.

Photoshop
 

Hi Mari, I don't have Photoshop yet and it's not on my list of priorities. I'm still building my art supplies (like a halfway decent palette and studio easel). I use the simple I-Photo program for the Mac. It gives me enough headaches to scare me away from the dreaded Photoshop. It does sound useful though; my husband will probably pick up Photoshop Elements. He says its a simplified version that my overloaded brain may handle easier. I checked out the book though and it sounds more my level.

Happy New Year,
Jean

Your current photo program might offer something similar. Look for something along the lines of image, adjustments, and curves. Under curves, you can recalibrate the image by setting either or all of the following values in that image: white, black, and/or gray. This is the only way I can get accurate colors when printing images for my portfolio.

Karin, I tried bringing along a kazoo for the photoshoot on the beach this past August. Unfortunately I forgot to refine my kazoo-playing skills before I got there, so when I needed it all I got was a faint "wheeep" which didn't interest the child at all. The fact that it was 100 degrees in the shade might have had something to do with it. When I came back on a cooler day I brought along a wooden rocking horse that I'd made for my own grandkids. That way I was able to immobilize her and got some great photos of her looking at me. It also works to have the parent or grandparent hold the child on her lap, or to use a high chair. Kids are used to sitting still there. Then all you have to do (!) is worry about the expression.

Doing adjustments with curves or contrast will only help your photo reference if the information is there in the shot to begin with. When a large section of the face is completely bleached out to white there is almost certainly no data there on the film or in the digital image.

No amount of adjustment after the fact will tell you exactly where the forehead turns and by how much, or what color would be in the side of the cheek compared to the side of the chin, for example. You have to get the exposure at least close to being correct when you take the photo.

Yes, Michele, thank you for clarifying. Do you know of a way to braket the exposure when using a digital camera?

My Minolta has a setting I can use to tell it to automatically take three shots with a certain amount of exposure difference between them, which I can change if I like.

If your camera doesn't have a feature like that you'd need to learn how to do it manually. (What shutter speed goes with what F stop for the given lighting situation, then change the F stop a little for each subsequent exposure.)

Digital
 

Well, you all made me start digging through the instruction book again for my camera. It appears that I have many of those features, so time for intensive learning again.

I've been playing with the images of Damien in the I-Photo program. Its very simple, but like Michele says if the information is there more detail can be brought up through manipulation of brightness and contrast. Image #1 gives me the largest range. So unless I photograph him again, I will probably use that image.

This has been a great thread, thanks everyone.

Jean