PHOTOS: portraits of my boy

Hello folks.. Do you think the images will be accepted as creative? Photos was taken back lit and not intentionally to be isolated on white background...but I can if needed. I have a series of him with interesting facial expressions (grunts to smirks, etc).

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97539346/DSC_8943.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97539346/DSC_8946.jpg

Thanks!

He is adorable!  Focus looks soft on the eyes in the first one (haven't looked at the second) and there is CA around the head and other edges.

They are both very cute, but both are very noisy and an insector may prefer more neutral colour and maybe less light spilling forward around the sides of the boy's head.

FWIW, wear dark clothing next time, so we can't see your reflection in the eyes as much!

Thanks Kathy and esp. I agree regarding the focus on DSC_8946.

esp_imaging...can you explain 'very noisy'? The photos do not appear to be very noisy to me (shot at ISO320). Thanks.

Too much artifacts. Over sharpened. Second one is not sharp enough where it matters (eyes), camera shake. We can see you and the room in his eyes=not good. Lighting is not good, overexposed in certain parts. Yes, get him involved in some action or making interesting facial expressions (something like the second photo) but you must improve lighting. It looks like you didn't have enough light so you had to push post processing.

There's loads of noise! For example, in the dark, out of focus area of hair on the boy's forehead.

@slobo - the photo was not sharpened and I 'think' the post processing was well within the normal/tolerable levels (based on what I have seen here). Yes, lighting could be better...no question. I uploaded the RAW/NEF for your consideration. Thanks again for the time and feedback...much appreciation.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/97539346/DSC_8943.NEF

This will help as I was just notified of a rejection of a different photo due to artifacts (with similar level of post processing).

post processing is not within istock tolerance. Also, photo is sharpened, likely as part of RAW conversion. I believe when you said that you didn't do any ADDITIONAL sharpening. You have to revise default setting for RAW conversion and reduce sharpening there.


Look at the hair at the forehead. It is discolored (blue tint) and has visible "grain". Such grain may be tolerable for some other type of shots but not for "studio" shots, meaning in a controlled environment where you can manipulate light (strobes, reflectors, etc). It needs to be shot at ISO100 as well. There is visible and not tolerable Chromatic Aberration (see green outline on hair against bright background).


I cannot open RAW for your camera, so I cannot comment further on the original image.

Thanks again. I didn't do ANY or ADDITIONAL sharpening (or noise reduction). Post processing was limited to exposure and minimal use of the sliders. Well, I'll move on but I'm still scratching my head on the artifacts. I concur about the CA and the lighting.

And thanks for the comment re the "studio" shot...it wasn't a "studio" shot but I can understand why one may consider it in the realm of a studio shot.

Also, my camera is a Nikon D800 so not sure why you were unable to open my file unless you haven't updated ACR. Anyways, I've removed the RAW file.

(Edited on 2013-02-24 21:37:22 by ChenRobert)

(Edited on 2013-02-24 21:37:55 by ChenRobert)

You should check in the in camera settings on the D800 for sharpening, color,Active D lighting,Picture Control, Adobe RGB etc. By default all these are turned on and sRGB is set.They all need to be turned off or set close to zero. Also in PS/ACR it will be able to read the exif data from the NEF file and select the correct lens/camera combo and eliminate nearly all CA.The Nikon raw converter will do this as well. Mine does this with the D800 no problems. What lens are you using?


 I can see it's a Zeiss 35mm F2. Nice lens but at 1/80th sec manual focus maybe let you down at bit. your jpg was in sRGB although I guess that could be  Dropbox setting.

(Edited on 2013-02-25 05:18:00 by ClarkandCompany)

(Edited on 2013-02-25 05:27:15 by ClarkandCompany)