Beginner Do You Feel Pressured to Make Photos Bright?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sony Corleone

Sony Corleone

Messages
215
Edit My Images
Yes
Based on my interactions with other photographers and photo gurus, I feel there is a lot of unspoken pressure to make photos bright, as though any photo that isn't bright is somehow flawed. Has anyone else noticed this?

I was editing a shot of my son yesterday, and while I could have used Lightroom to light up his face a little, I decided against it. The photo appeared more realistic without that particular bit of gimmickry.

I did increase the background blur, and it seemed to work.

A6702589_DxO Lightroom by Baby with natural light but Lightroom bokeh
 
Last edited:
They're my photos. For me. So the only person to satisfy is me. (My other half tells me when I'm satisfied with the result obvs ;))

If someone else likes them, great.

If they have constructive criticism - and it's phrased along the lines of "have you thought about perhaps trying x" - I might give it a go, and then if I like the result may try it again.

If it's phrased as "you should..." in my mind I'll be thinking "you should... do one"
 
LeeRatters said:
I don't feel pressured into making photos 'anything' :)
Click to expand...

Yep. ^^^

That said, some people (especially if English isn't their first language) might really mean something else - they might mean that you need to have some contrast in your image for it be successful. Generally speaking, I'd agree that is mostly true - it doesn't have to be literal crank up the contrast dial, but some kind tension has to be there, be that colour, luminance, or focus otherwise, it can be a bit flat.

This was one of the problems that HDR and smartphone over processing did in recent times, it just created images that try to keep everything "perfect" but all end up looking a bit samey - it's what you might call the "death of shadows"
 
That's a beautiful photo, he is learning to smile when you point the camera at him which bodes well for the future. :)
 
Sony Corleone said:
Based on my interactions with other photographers and photo gurus, I feel there is a lot of unspoken pressure to make photos bright, as though any photo that isn't bright is somehow flawed. Has anyone else noticed this?

I was editing a shot of my son yesterday, and while I could have used Lightroom to light up his face a little, I decided against it. The photo appeared more realistic without that particular bit of gimmickry.

I did increase the background blur, and it seemed to work.

A6702589_DxO Lightroom by Baby with natural light but Lightroom bokeh
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing advice around getting a technically correct exposure to a "bright" photo.

The photo you posted here is a good example, it is very underexposed. It also isn't a case of editing it to make it look "bright". You could have have just done a better job when taking the photo in the first place and got a more accurate exposure.

Some people prefer a more underexposed moody style of edit. This isn't that, it's just poorly exposed, poorly composed and poorly edited. The fake Lightroom dof is also a bit distracting and jarring. We have all taken bad photos and you only learn by doing.

This is an old book but might help you.

 
Last edited:
My own pictures I take to suit me, if others like them too thats great, if they don't, too bad, they are my pictures I'll have them as I want.
Thats a lovely picture of your son, one you'll look back on for a lifetime and remember that day.

Theres lot of so called "rules" in photography. People will scream and shout if you place a tree in the wrong part of the frame, if you dont have leading lines or whatever. These concepts are mostly based on the old artists of yesteryear. The worlds moved on since then, styles change.
 
Pressured? No!

Some photos are purely an exercise in aesthetics, like a style statement, & can give a certain amount of mild pleasure as such. But essentially there are two ways of regarding a photo - one is to do with its aesthetics & the other is to do with its (emotional) meaning. And generally it's this last that has the guts.
 
I have never felt pressured to do anything and wont feel pressured.

Photos should be functional in the sense that you, the photographer has made a photograph and shared it. The viewer should at least be able to make out the element(s) that you thought were interesting enough to be in the photo. - I mean, there's more to it than that, but seeing as this is posted in beginners, I think it's a good point.

Theres lots of ideas, tools, rules - learn and practice a few of them. Figure to Ground and the way our eyes are drawn to the point of highest contrasts (not sure if theres a fancy name for that one) could help shape or refine your idea on brightness
 
Last edited:
I'll ask a question @Sony Corleone : do you use a calibrated screen?

I'm not asking to point out a personal lack or inadequacy, but rather to explain something I learned early on. The pictures I took and processed looked different to me on my screen than they did for other people, and I couldn't understand why they didn't like them. The screen I was using was once good, but no longer, and it was way too bright (as most tend to be if not corrected) with a bit of a colour shift. Viewing my pictures on other screens made me realise that they weren't quite right after all.

So I wonder if perhaps the pictures look different to you on your screen than they do to the rest of us, because this has become a recurring theme.
 
f/1.2 said:
I think you are confusing advice around getting a technically correct exposure to a "bright" photo.
Click to expand...
No, I really think there is a bias against photos that reflect actual lighting conditions. The world isn't a studio, so it is unrealistic to expect every candid shot to look like it was taken with perfect lighting. It can be acceptable for a photo to show things as they are, not as they would be under studio conditions. I see people on the web "correcting" photos that aren't particularly bright and lighting people's faces up like Japanese lanterns.

f/1.2 said:
The photo you posted here is a good example, it is very underexposed. It also isn't a case of editing it to make it look "bright". You could have have just done a better job when taking the photo in the first place and got a more accurate exposure.
Click to expand...

I have been studying exposure and, of course, getting conflicting advice. By that I mean totally, 100% conflicting, end everyone who provides advice is completely sure his way is right. Lately, I have been trying something Wolf Amri suggested: using a low ISO and then relying on software to fix the noise and lighting. He takes photos that appear so dark at first, you would think they were useless. This is how I got here.

I can't use manual. That will never work unless I'm taking photos of potted plants that never move and always sit under the same lights. I don't have time to cope with moving subjects and lighting the changes constantly. I'm trying various things that allow me to minimize the settings I have to fool with, without going straight to automatic and losing all control. At this stage, it is impossible to tell who is right.

f/1.2 said:
Some people prefer a more underexposed moody style of edit. This isn't that, it's just poorly exposed, poorly composed and poorly edited. The fake Lightroom dof is also a bit distracting and jarring. We have all taken bad photos and you only learn by doing.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely about the composition. I got exactly what I wanted. There is a huge bias out there toward portraits composed like passport photos or photo-booth shots, with all the context removed. I see people on the web doing their "corrections" in this direction, to the detriment of photos. Subjects in the exact center of the shot, cropped to where they barely fit in the frame. Background blurred to the point where it might as well not be there. I don't do that. It's pointless to mimic people who take lookalike shots that don't tell a story and aren't even a little bit creative. If we're all going to take the same photos, we might as well buy AI cameras that follow a list of rules.

I don't believe in cropping all around a subject unless there is a good reason, like the need to show someone's face in a mugshot.

In this shot, he is obviously the subject, but his mother's arms are important to show their relationship. Her face would be too distracting. I wanted the background to be sufficiently discernible to allow people to understand where we were, because our weekend Costco trips have become a ritual we will look back on many years from now.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I got myself a new TV just so I could have a calibrated display, and I went through the procedure, so I am hoping for the best.
Click to expand...

Does it have a 'photo' setting with reduced brightness, contrast and colours. A TV is generally about the least helpful screen possible to use because everything gets boosted hugely, but hopefully yours is different. What calibration device did you use to set up the screen, and does it allow for ambient light settings or calibrate to an 'absolute' level?

*edit* I'm looking at the picture now on my computer screen rather than the phone like earlier (which also boosts everything). If the intention was for the (white?) room walls to be a dull grey and the people in the background to be dark smudges then I'm seeing the photo as intended. It's hard to know what's intentional and what's caused by screen variation.
 
Last edited:
@Sony Corleone no never felt pressure to make pictures bright.

That said, you might be onto something about the tendency toward brighter, more “open” images, especially with how phones and social media process things now. A lot of shadow and subtlety does get lost.

I wonder if part of what you’re running into isn’t pressure to make images bright, but an attempt by others to help you make the subject more clearly readable to the viewer. That’s not necessarily about style, it’s more about communication.

What’s interesting in your example is that your intent is quite thoughtful (the relationship, the setting, the moment), but some of the feedback you’re getting is about whether that intent is coming through as clearly as it could.

It might be worth separating those two things:
  • what you want the image to say (which is yours alone), and
  • how effectively the image is conveying that to someone who wasn’t there.
The feedback you’ve received seems to be trying to help with the second part.

You don’t have to agree with all of it. But there’s usually something useful hidden in there if you look past the wording. I hope this helps.
 
This thing has been through several programs, so I'm starting to be unclear on my goal, myself. It seems like the more I work on a photo, the more I come up with different versions that are hard to choose from.

I believe the version above was finished with Lightroom, and I used "Subject Pop" to bring out the face. I kept moving the slider back and forth, and it seemed to me that he was popping way too much as his face lit up. I thought he was starting to get too much of that A.I. look.

Listening to the comments here, I decided to go back to Photolab 9 and work on the image as a whole, not just the subject, and now that I have done that, I think the result is better, so thanks for all the input on the exposure. I may play with the image some more.

I still have the feeling that there are a lot of people out there recommending brightening photos too much, though, even if this particular photo works better with more light. I guess the fundamental concern is that I will end up with photos that look "worked over," like aging actresses on their 45th plastic surgery.

A6702589_DxO-Edit dxo brighter from tif by Cosmo Bogus
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Does it have a 'photo' setting with reduced brightness, contrast and colours. A TV is generally about the least helpful screen possible to use because everything gets boosted hugely, but hopefully yours is different. What calibration device did you use to set up the screen, and does it allow for ambient light settings or calibrate to an 'absolute' level?
Click to expand...

This is an LG which has settings which are supposed to be pretty accurate for color management, although I don't recall exactly what they are. I set it up weeks ago, so I don't remember much.
 
Most of us use something like an Xrite or similar, because a screen cannot usually measure its own output unless it has some kind of external sensor. The screen I use for editing has a photo mode with sRGB colour space etc, but I still had to use the calibration device to actually get neutral colours that weren't over- right.

To me, your second photo looks much more realistic although the lad is a little bright. As Tim said, it can be hard to hold on to the original intent sometimes, and to make that come through.
 
Sony Corleone said:
No, I really think there is a bias against photos that reflect actual lighting conditions. The world isn't a studio, so it is unrealistic to expect every candid shot to look like it was taken with perfect lighting. It can be acceptable for a photo to show things as they are, not as they would be under studio conditions. I see people on the web "correcting" photos that aren't particularly bright and lighting people's faces up like Japanese lanterns.



I have been studying exposure and, of course, getting conflicting advice. By that I mean totally, 100% conflicting, end everyone who provides advice is completely sure his way is right. Lately, I have been trying something Wolf Amri suggested: using a low ISO and then relying on software to fix the noise and lighting. He takes photos that appear so dark at first, you would think they were useless. This is how I got here.

I can't use manual. That will never work unless I'm taking photos of potted plants that never move and always sit under the same lights. I don't have time to cope with moving subjects and lighting the changes constantly. I'm trying various things that allow me to minimize the settings I have to fool with, without going straight to automatic and losing all control. At this stage, it is impossible to tell who is right.



I disagree completely about the composition. I got exactly what I wanted. There is a huge bias out there toward portraits composed like passport photos or photo-booth shots, with all the context removed. I see people on the web doing their "corrections" in this direction, to the detriment of photos. Subjects in the exact center of the shot, cropped to where they barely fit in the frame. Background blurred to the point where it might as well not be there. I don't do that. It's pointless to mimic people who take lookalike shots that don't tell a story and aren't even a little bit creative. If we're all going to take the same photos, we might as well buy AI cameras that follow a list of rules.

I don't believe in cropping all around a subject unless there is a good reason, like the need to show someone's face in a mugshot.

In this shot, he is obviously the subject, but his mother's arms are important to show their relationship. Her face would be too distracting. I wanted the background to be sufficiently discernible to allow people to understand where we were, because our weekend Costco trips have become a ritual we will look back on many years from now.
Click to expand...
This photo did not reflect the actual lighting conditions though. You are getting defensive because I told you the truth rather than saying cute kid and moving on.

Check out that book I linked it will help a lot with understanding exposure.

This photo is poor both in terms of composition and in terms of the basic technical aspects of photography. I have seen some of the other photos you have posted here and they have the same issues.

Everyone has to start somewhere but if you want to improve you the best option is to start by being able to understand how to at least get a correct exposure. Once you have mastered that then it will be time to work on your composition.

Based solely on your reply here it would seem you are trying to run before you can walk and that is why the results are so poor.
 
The tender touch of the mothers fingers on the child's hand is wonderful.
 
f/1.2 said:
This photo did not reflect the actual lighting conditions though. You are getting defensive because I told you the truth rather than saying cute kid and moving on.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. If you look at my first post, I didn't ask for advice on composition. You disagreed with my choice, which is understandable in matters of opinion, so I said I disagreed with your disagreement. The composition was intentional, and I am very happy with my composition, generally. Whether it's bad is a subjective matter. Don't take disagreement personally. I did not mean it that way.

As for exposure, I am considering input and acting on it, as seen above.

I have the 2006 version of the book you suggested, but in the age of the Internet, it seems better to me to use the multiplicity of sources we have now.

f/1.2 said:
Based solely on your reply here it would seem you are trying to run before you can walk and that is why the results are so poor.
Click to expand...

I don't know what "running" and "walking" mean to you. I am taking photos as well as I can and editing them as well as I can, while consulting multiple sources and making changes to see who is right. I think that's what everyone does.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
The tender touch of the mothers fingers on the child's hand is wonderful.
Click to expand...

That's what I wanted to show. Cropping would have turned this into a passport photo. I do lots of cropping, because I am often disappointed in what comes out of the camera, but I was happy with this framing.
 
Sony - trust your instincts, & keep reviewing everything - it's a lifelong process of discovery. The trouble with advice is that you never know where it's coming from, & a lot of it's going to be b******t.

Sit back, consider different versions - & make your own mind up (which can vary over time) - it's up to you. There's no single right. It's endless ...
 
I'll tell you what; candids are hard, and it's even harder when you are photographing family memories! You have no time to prepare, and because you can't set people in place like objects, you end up including elements you would not want if you could choose. You also have to include a lot of things a professional would exclude, and that is hard on composition and can draw attention away from the subject.

I hate it when people pose. Everyone wants to pose. I always lower the camera and tell them to knock it off. Nobody wants to see "my Cub Scout troop in a line, smiling on command in front of the Washington Monument." I want to capture people and show them as they really are.

If I took perfect photos and left out things like our furniture, the clothes he wears, and the places we visited, they would be neater, but they would be worthless in 15 years. When I take these shots, I think about the things people love in seeing OLD family photos. I don't consider how they will look the same day, because that would be stupid. I can remember how my son looked today, without a picture.

I have tight professional photos of myself from my childhood, and they are awful, but I like the ones where my surroundings are full of things and people I recall.

If this were some stranger's kid, the frame would be much tighter, and I might have gone for the typical featureless bokeh blur. As it is, I have his mother's arms, Costco, a familiar dress, her wedding ring, that crazy hat, and the fact that we were surrounded by the usual strangers. Those things had to be in there, even if they were defects by standard rules. When his mother is old, those are the things that will make her cry.

I am impressed by anyone who can take superior shots in situations like this. I can't even imagine how sports photographers get anywhere with subjects that run and jump.

I also think criticism from people who stand around taking landscape photos, or shooting products, with all the time in the world and perfect lighting, is useless with regard to candids. It's like comparing shooting flying birds with a shotgun in freezing sleet and wind to shooting stationary targets with a rifle on an indoor range.

I should also add that "getting it right in camera" sounds great and works for JPG's, but that isn't how things are supposed to work when you're shooting raw files that are intended to have the most possible flexibility in editing. This is what I have been trying to do, based on advice from people who claim they know what they're doing. I don't pay any attention to the appearance of my files as shot, because they are not finished. I try to get the composition right and make sure I have what I need to perfect the exposure and so on, and everything else is for software.
 
Last edited:
Every single one of your threads that I have seen, you pose a question, frequently include a fairly mediocre photo (sorry, but they are) and then argue with most of the people that answer the post.

If you want to improve then you need to listen to the advice being given. Because your photos haven't changed in the slightest so far.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I also think criticism from people who stand around taking landscape photos, or shooting products, with all the time in the world and perfect lighting, is useless with regard to candids. It's like comparing shooting flying birds with a shotgun in freezing sleet and wind to shooting stationary targets with a rifle on an indoor range.
Click to expand...

Possibly worth mentioning if you weren't aware, f1,2 Tommy is a full time professional wedding photographer - his business is taking pictures of people to create memories. Phil V who has commented elsewhere was also a professional people photographer. You are likely to find the strongest criticism from those who know what they are doing, while guys like me who enjoy landscapes will be much gentler.

But also, some of us don't like or agree with those who are recognised by others as being 'great' photographers, and that's ok. Keep practicing, try to learn from the advice given.
 
I'm late to this thread but in the original photo the brightest thing is the lights behind the child's head so that is where the eye goes. So what is the purpose of the photo? The purpose of brightening is not about making the whole photo brighter its about drawing attention to the elements that are most important
 
Sony Corleone said:
I'll tell you what; candids are hard, and it's even harder when you are photographing family memories! You have no time to prepare, and because you can't set people in place like objects, you end up including elements you would not want if you could choose. You also have to include a lot of things a professional would exclude, and that is hard on composition and can draw attention away from the subject.

I hate it when people pose. Everyone wants to pose. I always lower the camera and tell them to knock it off. Nobody wants to see "my Cub Scout troop in a line, smiling on command in front of the Washington Monument." I want to capture people and show them as they really are.

If I took perfect photos and left out things like our furniture, the clothes he wears, and the places we visited, they would be neater, but they would be worthless in 15 years. When I take these shots, I think about the things people love in seeing OLD family photos. I don't consider how they will look the same day, because that would be stupid. I can remember how my son looked today, without a picture.

I have tight professional photos of myself from my childhood, and they are awful, but I like the ones where my surroundings are full of things and people I recall.

If this were some stranger's kid, the frame would be much tighter, and I might have gone for the typical featureless bokeh blur. As it is, I have his mother's arms, Costco, a familiar dress, her wedding ring, that crazy hat, and the fact that we were surrounded by the usual strangers. Those things had to be in there, even if they were defects by standard rules. When his mother is old, those are the things that will make her cry.

I am impressed by anyone who can take superior shots in situations like this. I can't even imagine how sports photographers get anywhere with subjects that run and jump.

I also think criticism from people who stand around taking landscape photos, or shooting products, with all the time in the world and perfect lighting, is useless with regard to candids. It's like comparing shooting flying birds with a shotgun in freezing sleet and wind to shooting stationary targets with a rifle on an indoor range.

I should also add that "getting it right in camera" sounds great and works for JPG's, but that isn't how things are supposed to work when you're shooting raw files that are intended to have the most possible flexibility in editing. This is what I have been trying to do, based on advice from people who claim they know what they're doing. I don't pay any attention to the appearance of my files as shot, because they are not finished. I try to get the composition right and make sure I have what I need to perfect the exposure and so on, and everything else is for software.
Click to expand...
None of this makes any sense.

Candids are the easiest moments to capture by far! Photographing family memories are the easiest of all. To be able to do that, you only need to have a basic understanding of how a camera works and a basic sense of composition, you lack both.

Someone messaged me a link to your blog. It also makes for some rather bizarre reading. It would seem that this is not your first photography forum, nor is this the first time you have posted similar photos online and had the same sort of responses from people who tried to help before you got defensive and then vented those frustrations online, it would seem you have been doing that for the best part of 20 years according to your blog. You seem to have a real issue with people who know what they are doing while pontificating about your superior knowledge. :D Your blog is one of the strangest most completely bizarre things I have ever read on the internet.

[personal opinions about content not on TP removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've edited out some of Tommy's content above as it was not relevant to the discussion without including content from a site elsewhere for people to make their own minds up about. I did this not to spare Tommy's blushes but to avoid dragging other people into a disagreement. FWIW Tommy may be correct in his views, I don't know, but as was said above, as a very successful wedding photographer, his opinions about people photography need to be taken seriously.
 
lindsay said:
I've edited out some of Tommy's content above as it was not relevant to the discussion without including content from a site elsewhere for people to make their own minds up about. I did this not to spare Tommy's blushes but to avoid dragging other people into a disagreement. FWIW Tommy may be correct in his views, I don't know, but as was said above, as a very successful wedding photographer, his opinions about people photography need to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
No worries that’s fair enough.

I purposely didn’t post the link as didn’t want to give it an audience.
 
I don't think there's anything much wrong with Sony's picture (although I prefer the second version).

At the end of the day, I think that there's only three sensible options for responding to any picture, which might fall under the general headings of: "doesn't do much for me", "I like that" or "how much is an A4 print of it?".

Many other opinions are available.
 
I think the issue with the picture is it’s just a snapshot of a baby in a shopping trolly - the composition feels uncomfortable with that bit of mothers breast just awkwardly in the frame - I feel it would be better if that wasn’t there or if more of the mum was there, like glancing at her son lovingly, or over the shoulder of mum with baby looking at her, the background competes too much with the foreground and it doesn’t really work for me.

But, all said and done… it’s a picture in a horribly lit Costco and other then an incidental memory, i don’t think it’s even worth doing more than correcting the exposure and saving it away.

It would be good for you to try some different techniques and locations - maybe some off camera flash to kind of get to the next level.
 
It's possible to make candids while also working with the light, making good compositions and capturing the right moment. If someone wants to improve, then there are ways to improve, but if someone doesn't want to improve then you can always fall back on the same excuses.

Making candid pictures does not equal a total loss of control from the photographer
 
I don't know about bright, but they have to look right. There's little point in a photo that is too murky just because it wasn't exposed correctly.
 
Thread cleaned. Please, let's work to help 'sony' improve his photography. If for some reason you can't contribute to that then the rest of TP and teh intarwebs is available.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
A number of staff and admins DID read the OP before it was edited. As per Lindsays comment - and to expand a little - it's NOT the admin team here's job to police members external social media postings and so forth. We're only responsible for content added here. Tommy basically reported himself as he was aware that his comments may be against the spirit of the forum, and mentioned a blog as part of his self-reporting. After due consideration, Admins took the view that Tommys comments were not really in the spirit of the forum, and hence they were removed. You will note that we also left other comments by Tommy in situ - AND took the time to inform the OP that actually in our opinion Tommy's comments of a photographic nature ARE something that anyone who was actually interested in improving their overall technique (not just post processing, but actually taking a better picture overall) should take note of.

Now - one other thing i'll point out is that for a lot of pro's - (and semi pro's like i used to be some years ago) - the "people photo's" that they take aren't ever intended for public dissemination - I'd NEVER think of putting someone's wedding photo's online here, even now - 10 years or more since the event happened - its not only courtesy to your clients, but in my case, was written into the contract. Consider this before "demanding" proof of abilities. Honestly - just because people don't post many (or any) images on here, doesn't mean that they aren't highly competent and really know their stuff. If we were to dismiss members who don't post images on a regular basis, well - this would be a very, very small forum, and would rapidly collapse due to lack of revenue.

I should also point out, that strictly speaking, if you have a question about moderation, you should not be posting it in the thread, but should contact us directly - we don't have to justify or explain our actions in a public thread - as - very often, we're privy to information that the general membership isn't. To put it bluntly - Its in the rules - under CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOUR - "Don't moan about moderation", "report it to the mods and leave them to deal with it" and "If a moderator posts with an instruction, don't ignore it."

/Moderator Hat off...


Right - my 2-pennorth from a photography point of view.

First of all - it's a nice enough "record shot" and i'm sure it means a lot to you and your wife - and - in 60 years or so, I'm sure if it survives, it'll mean a lot to your child.

But - this is a photography forum, not facebook or some other form of social media - we're looking at these photographs without that emotional link - and - in the case of a few of the people in this thread, from the point of view of someone who's made a living from actually taking and selling photographs that people engage with.

You mention that "in the age of the Internet, it seems better to me to use the multiplicity of sources we have now." - there's a fundamental problem with that however - as with anything on the internet, probably 90% of the information out there is b*****ks. Winnowing out the good stuff from the dross takes more time than acting on a more "curated" set of information sources.

Now - most people on here know I'm far more about "what the photo says" than "what setting were you using" - and, I do actually quite like that you appear to be thinking what you want to say with the photo. A lot of people will say "ah but... rules...." and its a valid point - my way of thinking is "know the rules, get to the point you can apply them without even having to think about it - because - only then can you decide which ones are worth breaking to make the statement you want to make".

This location is a tough row to hoe. The first thing it needed, IMO was to stop having a halo of bright lights behind the kids head. This appears to have been something that could have been fixed, without "massive amounts" of "posing" the image - but by turning yourself and the trolley/hyour wife maybe 45 degrees to the right it'd have had a plain wall as the background - there's always going to be loads of people to be in the background so it wouldn't have lost the "location details", just removed the highly distracting back lights, which not only draw the eye away from your childs face, but make the brain interpret this shot as being "well, he's backlit, shouldn't his face be in shadow" - so any attempt at brightening the face then looks less realistic.

One thing that pro people shooters seem to do effortlessly - primarily due to massive amounts of repetition, is being able to scan the background of the image for distractions, and change the angle of the shot to avoid the distraction - OR, occasionally include the "distraction" as a feature, if it fits in with what the image is supposed to say...

There's a whole essay of things I could say about this shot about how it could be done differently - but - honestly, I think you should take away what I said in my first line about the photo - take it away and enjoy it - but be aware that its got shortcomings.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
One thing that pro people shooters seem to do effortlessly - primarily due to massive amounts of repetition, is being able to scan the background of the image for distractions, and change the angle of the shot to avoid the distraction - OR, occasionally include the "distraction" as a feature, if it fits in with what the image is supposed to say...
Click to expand...

First time I went out with a friend who shot weddings he lined up a family group and then asked me "What's wrong with the group". They looked perfect, but he proceeded working down the line, straightening rumpled clothing and un-tucking pockets before readjusting how they stood. I had a lot to learn.
 
ancient_mariner said:
First time I went out with a friend who shot weddings he lined up a family group and then asked me "What's wrong with the group". They looked perfect, but he proceeded working down the line, straightening rumpled clothing and un-tucking pockets before readjusting how they stood. I had a lot to learn.
Click to expand...
Much the same as an experienced landscape guy will set up a camera on a tripod, take a good look at the viewfinder and walk in front of the camera and move 3 bits of litter you'd never seen and move a pebble 6inches to the left before coming back behind the lens...

But - I think in a way it's harder with people photography - its human nature and evolution that's basically programmed us to see another human and we kind of focus on their face and body language - spotting the "extraneous" stuff is, like anything else, a "learned skill", and something we've all had to do. As someone who began taking photo's pre-digital era, when retouching was a LOT harder (not impossible, but way harder) it quickly became second nature for your eyes to be flickering all around the edge of frame before actual fixing of the composition. This of course was exaggerated with studio photography, and especially if it was for (say) magazine reproduction so being shot on E6 transparencies where the "film" is the final output media.
 
I can relate to the brightness debate in that I have printed some of my fine art wild life photos for gallery display.
When prints go in a glass frame you on average loose apx 1/3 of light .
So before i print I view all my images on the print Co's 5k monitors and tweak the images with increase of 1/3 brightness.
 
Sometimes I feel some kind of an "inner" pressure (guess you can call it that) to do something I haven't done for a long time. For example, I really loved that Photoworks effect that makes photos black and white with one color splash and I used it a lot, then I somehow felt guilty I'm viewing the world through the black and white lenses and thought about how I need to switch to something else instead. I guess it's some form of a FOMO situation where you're feeling like you're missing out on other style opportunities while being head over heels into a particular one.
 
I came here to learn about photography, not squabble with eccentrics, so it pains me to write this, but if people are going to criticize me, as has happened here, I am equally entitled to respond, and I also feel obligated, to make sure people understand my good intentions and that I didn't come here to troll.

I don't have any idea what Tommy is talking about when he mentions blogging. I haven't provided any links to a blog or any info regarding any external account except for Flickr. The only social media account I have is a video site, and it's not under "Sony Corleone," which I made up on the day I registered here, nor does it involve the email address I used to sign up here. If he is digging up information about me by cyberstalking, for no clear reason, all I can say is, that's a little weird and obviously not acceptable netiquette. It's the same thing as doxxing, and it is a severe violation of the TOS just about every forum operates under. It's a fine way to treat other members, and in a lot of forums it would be grounds for a ban. I'm ignoring him now, since my experience with him has been completely negative with zero helpful input.

Regarding criticism of his work, I have not done that, so I am not sure why it came up. I have no idea what kind of photography he does or whether he's any good, because I can't find any of his work on this site. I used the search function because I wanted to find out what kind of tastes he had in hopes of understanding where he was coming from. I assume his taste in composition is completely different from mine, so I wanted to find out. I saw comments on gear and dozens upon dozens of pro-Trump posts, which seemed odd, given the subject of this forum. Just about nothing about photography.

I think that if you're going to talk about other people's work here, it's a very good idea to post your own so they will have some idea who they are hearing from.

The observation about landscape photos was a general comment on the difficulty of figuring out who to listen to, based on the types of work they were good at. I could just as easily have said the same thing about astrophotography or any other branch that was different from candids.

It's not a principle limited to photography. For example, I make New York pizza, and when I looked for help on the web, I got a lot of totally counterproductive and severely wrong input from people who turned out to be focused on Neapolitan pizza, which is not the same thing. Knowing who you are hearing from is important.

I have taken a bunch of suggestions from people on this forum, with gratitude, and that includes this thread. That seems to have gone under the radar. I looked back over what I wrote, and the only way anyone could characterize it as defensive is if they didn't read it carefully and made up their own mind after looking at a few words. And I never said anyone here didn't know what he was talking about. If you're going to criticize what people say, it's important to make sure you're criticizing what they actually said and not what you hope they said because you are hoping for an opportunity to correct people publicly.

I haven't done anything wrong here. I just aired some facts and opinions. I didn't realize I was going to be chased around the web by someone who hides behind a single forum nickname but cyberstalks other people in hopes of violating their privacy in an egregious manner. That is very disturbing. He claims to live outside the US, so at least neither of us has to be concerned about him showing up at my gate.

If I didn't have opinions about photography, I would not have any passion for it, so no apologies for that.

Since my posts here have turned out to be an invitation to stalking, I am inclined to quit. I have gotten some useful information here, and I have seen a lot of fantastic work from other members, but if no one ever gave me photography advice again, I would not lose sleep over it. It's a trivial part of my life. It's not worth it if I have to go through life dragging another member with his teeth affixed to my ankle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top