Child's photo - Page 2

Marvin Mattelson · 12-31-2002, 01:57 AM

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.

Michele Rushworth · 12-31-2002, 11:53 AM

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!

Mike McCarty · 12-31-2002, 12:16 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Michele Rushworth · 12-31-2002, 12:29 PM

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.

Peggy Baumgaertner · 12-31-2002, 01:55 PM

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

Jean Kelly · 12-31-2002, 02:22 PM

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

Michele Rushworth · 12-31-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

I found the holidays this year to be a major intrusion of my art time.

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!

Jean Kelly · 01-01-2003, 12:19 AM

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.

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

Mike McCarty · 01-01-2003, 01:48 AM

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.

Michele Rushworth · 01-01-2003, 02:52 AM

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!