Children's faces
 

I have been asked to do an exhibit at my son's preschool during their fall fundraising event. I certainly am not going to turn it down since my favorite thing to paint is children, and where else can I assure 300 parents see my paintings for FREE!

So I am going to try to get several pastel portraits done of children in that age group..2-5yrs. "Laiken" in the pastel critique section was the first. Im searching for good resource material and would like to see if you think these two would be good candidates?

And here is
 

the second one. "Sawyer"

Mary,

The first shot is just terrific (although I would lose Batman). You'll want to be judicious on how you sneak into those reddish tones - great opportunity for lost edges in the silhouette of the hair.

Nix the second, flash photo, no light and shadow patterns, no value information.

Though I rarely disagree with Chris, I have to weigh in on the opposite side of this issue concerning the first photo.

I feel that the two strong light sources from opposing sides create a row of distracting and confusing dark shadows down the center of the face. I also feel that the odd coloration is distracting too.

(Did you by any chance take these photos? If not, I'm sure you are aware of the issues of copyright and privacy involved, right?)

OK you two..
 

You need to AGREE... ;)I just can't work on confusion!

Michele, no I did not take these photos. I have a friend that is a novice photographer, I was wanting to use children I didn't necessarily know so that I would be able to keep these to show. I have tried doing it the other way around and the parent always ends up wanting the pictures and this is why I do not have a body of work to show in instances such as these.

Ok, I will keep digging. I really ,really, really like the idea of that little boy up top with the blonde curls, but I did wonder about that odd shadow on his face.

I'm itching to start on one today, she has many pictures of Sawyer, I'll dig through those again.

In the meantime, do any of you have some good resource photos of children in that age group I could use?? Pretty please???

With great reluctance I will break the tie. I would do the one on top and lose the Batman. I would then use your good judgement regarding the shadow and coloring. I think this photo has too many good things to offer and the few negatives can be overcome.

I wouldn't limit my search to the age group you indicated, people with four year olds also have ten and twelve year olds.

I read that you did not take these pictures but would you tell me something about the photo equipment that you have at your disposal? Digital, film, make, and do you have a tripod?

Mike
 

I have a Canon Rebel EOS, and a Sony Mavica FD83.

I really prefer to use the digital because I like the instant ability to load and use. Do you know anything about this camera? Im considering buying a new one and not sure what would be the best for me to use. I have read all of the threads and probably need to revisit. The fact of the matter is I am very technically challenged, so what EVER camera I end up using needs to be EXTREMELY user friendly.

Also,
 

I bought a "rainbow" pack of the art spectrum paper so that I could try out different toned backgrounds. So I have one sheet of every color they offer. I will probably only do his face, not the chair (and yes, NOT the batman.) What color paper would you suggest for Nick.

Personally, I would do the entire image, I like the arching horizontal component. Also, consider the little tykes posture, without the chair would his posture leave you wondering?

As for the paper, I guess there's a mistake you could make, but I would just stare at the image you have and imagine. Any number of soft neutral backgrounds would work.

Which Rebel EOS do you have? How many mega pixels does the Sony have?

I have the
 

Rebel 2000, and Im trying to figure out how many mega pixels this camera has (I told you I am challenged in this area.) The camera itself says "interpolated mega pixel images 1216x912" does that mean anything to you?:bewildere

As for how Im going to do Nick..you will probably all disagree with what I have decided to "try" but since this isn't a commission, when I was sifting through the papers one color jumped out at me and I got an image in my head of what I wanted to "TRY" to do..so it might work, might not. We shall see.

I'm really drawn to the way Sally Gates portraits look with NO background and just the faces.

Just one more comment about the image. From your comments, this is going to be considered a portfolio piece. What you are contemplating may be completely wonderful, but I would offer this piece of advice for what it's worth.

A portfolio piece should be something which aims at the largest audience, neither too far left nor too far right. We sometimes do things for our own gratification, and maybe even towards developing a niche, but these portfolio pieces should be judged through the eyes of your prospective audience.

The pages of SOG are the best teacher as to what the public is looking for in a portrait.

Mike..
 

Don't worry, this isn't too far off the beaten path (at least I don't think) and too, though I HOPE it will turn out to be nice enough for a portfolio peice, if not that is fine. I have rarely ever indulged myself by doing one just to do one without thinking about what it probably SHOULD be.

Of course, Now that I am in the middle of it..I have a feeling that wicker chair is going to end up in it.

Did my previous post help you at all in terms of the kind of camera I got, or are you sighing to yourself about what a lost cause I am..:D

Mary,

It sounds like you have a couple of pretty nice cameras. The Canon EOS 2000 is a very capable film camera with all you would need to produce quality images.

I am not as familiar with digital cameras, I still shoot film exclusively. The Sony FD83 seems not to be heavy on the mega pixels, my research indicated that when you melt down all that spin talk you were getting about one mega pixel.

One thing to watch out for with the Sony digital, it indicates a 3x optical zoom lens. This would translate to about a 28-70 zoom lens on a standard SLR film camera. For portrait work I would make sure you stay out at the far end of your zoom, the equivalant of the 70mm. Any where the equivalent of a 28-40mm will begin to produce a fish eye effect. This is of course assuming that I understand the way these things translate.

Think about adding a tripod to your list of must haves. You can actually pick one up at your Wal-Mart camera department fairly cheaply.

Go burn some film (pixels),

Mike

Mary,

Feel free to use this one. ;)

In case anyone did not get this, as apparently they did not - this is a joke.