Critique Recent portraits

Messages
455
Edit My Images
Yes
Here are some recent photos of my family. I think they work in B&W but can upload the colour version if you wish. Critique and pointers/tips are most welcome.
A few things that bother me a little bit
  • The mouth in #1 is not in focus
  • The hair on the forehead in #2
  • The dappled light in #3. I should have put her entirely in the shade
  • I’m not sure about the chopped off heads in #4 and #5
  • The background in #6
  • Lack of eye contact in #1, #4, #6 and somehow #7
Thank you for looking ☺️

1.
29249648197_6f855f3a0b_c.jpg


2.
44186360571_30db3333d7_c.jpg


3.
42473415800_1a832444e4_c.jpg


4.
44186359931_ef73387c05_c.jpg


5.
44138341582_6eaa15c018_c.jpg


6.
44138341062_6408065e64_c.jpg


7.
43280923675_826f34cfa7_c.jpg

 
Last edited:
I always enjoy seeing your work and I think these are good photos which work well in B&W. The cropped head in #5 is fine IMO, perhaps #4 is a bit tight but again I don't mind it, the thing that struck me is the OOF object in the bottom left of #6 but the light on his face from that angle is great so not a lot you could do about that. Good light in all of them I think, well done!
 
My initial thoughts were that the eye contact was the most glaring limiting factor. But then they're not formal portraits. They're family members. This is more documentary to me.

It's sometimes easy to be overly critical of one's own work. For me though - with family portraits - it's the imperfections that *make* the image. Who's that in the background of #4? In a strangers photo it might be an annoying background blob, but in a family photo it's presumably someone you know.

Sure, the composition in a couple of them isn't "traditional", but documentary photography is about something else. Something that I think you've captured here well and something that reminds me very much of Sally Mann's work. It's excellent.

Having said all that, I think the non-facing images suffer. Eye contact isn't as important as perhaps having a bit more of an angle on the face. Your last image illustrates this perfectly and is (for me) the best of the set by a mile.
 
I always enjoy seeing your work and I think these are good photos which work well in B&W. The cropped head in #5 is fine IMO, perhaps #4 is a bit tight but again I don't mind it, the thing that struck me is the OOF object in the bottom left of #6 but the light on his face from that angle is great so not a lot you could do about that. Good light in all of them I think, well done!
Thank you Chris!, I’m chuffed Unfortunately the angle was incorrect for #6 and if I cropped to get rid of the OOF object, I’d be chopping him off at the chin
My initial thoughts were that the eye contact was the most glaring limiting factor. But then they're not formal portraits. They're family members. This is more documentary to me.

It's sometimes easy to be overly critical of one's own work. For me though - with family portraits - it's the imperfections that *make* the image. Who's that in the background of #4? In a strangers photo it might be an annoying background blob, but in a family photo it's presumably someone you know.

Sure, the composition in a couple of them isn't "traditional", but documentary photography is about something else. Something that I think you've captured here well and something that reminds me very much of Sally Mann's work. It's excellent.

Having said all that, I think the non-facing images suffer. Eye contact isn't as important as perhaps having a bit more of an angle on the face. Your last image illustrates this perfectly and is (for me) the best of the set by a mile.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response Ian. I’m annoyed by the angle in those photos. I understand what you mean about seeing more of the face and not necessarily eye contact. With that in mind, is it acceptable to not have eye contact, even if the angle is more like the last photo? Or should I strive for both?
 
is it acceptable to not have eye contact

In formal portraiture? - Probably not. In this style of family documentary? - Totally. (Caveat - my opinion & I'm not a professional)

Strive for capturing your family memories naturally. Character is what I'd be looking for. You're already used to moving about if you're using the prime - you just need to move a bit more. :)

It'll come. Keep taking pictures. Tag me on the next set if you like.
 
I feel like somehow 6 is still OK, but that totally kills the other for me.

All the rest look good.
Can I ask what makes 6 ok and not, day, 4? Is it because in 4 the subject is looking away?

In formal portraiture? - Probably not. In this style of family documentary? - Totally. (Caveat - my opinion & I'm not a professional)

Strive for capturing your family memories naturally. Character is what I'd be looking for. You're already used to moving about if you're using the prime - you just need to move a bit more. :)

It'll come. Keep taking pictures. Tag me on the next set if you like.
Makes sense Ian. I’ll try and move more. As an aside, I no longer have any zooms and haven’t in about...3 years or more. I don’t know why, I just prefer prime.
I’ll tag you in the next lot
 
Can I ask what makes 6 ok and not, day, 4? Is it because in 4 the subject is looking away?

Possibly. I can't quite explain but it feels that Way. Obviously it is marginal and I would only be happy with 6 for a casual / family portrait
 
Back
Top