They strike me as remarkable, especially the two photos of infants.
Am I wrong, though? Is that too strong an evaluation?
They are not mine. Total honesty is fine here.
If it matters, the photos were taken by an amateur using automatic settings on an entry level DSLR.
Can’t you post them somewhere so we don’t have to download them?
I mean, I practice safe internet.
Roddy
Where should I post them?
This work? http://postimg.org/image/lmymnrdep/
I think they are pretty good.
I personally don’t care much for the chopped-head framing, but a lot of people like it.
The exposure and lighting is fine.
Low-key photography, especially in B&W, is an easy way to make your photos look artsy. Personally, I’m really sick of that because it’s wildly overused by untalented people (a group that includes myself) to make uninteresting shots very dramatic, so I have a bad reaction against it before I even get around to thinking about the details. Those shots are either highly photoshopped, not shot with fully automatic settings, or set up by a skilled photographer. None of those things, especially the fact that the style is not to my taste, are slams against the photos, by the way; they’re all legitimate ways to create art and do not reflect on the quality of the art.
On the art itself, I think the two left shots are much more interesting than the two right shots. Something about the UR baby’s face and the way he shows his teeth is weird to me, and DR is also strange, though I can’t put my finger on why. I like the DL baby, though; he’s got a very quirky smile and the photo captures that very well.
I am pretty sure they are automatic, with photoshop having been used possibly to change the contrast, but I can’t be absolutely certain. I’ll ask tomorrow.
They are fine, why do you ask?
Automatic is a little vague. There’s automatic focus, automatic flash, automatic ISO, automatic shutter speed detection, automatic white balance, and probably a host of others-- I’m no expert. As an amateur, I frequently mix a bunch of automatic and manual settings. It’s very rare to shoot full-manual these days. I was assuming that you meant all settings automatic. Using Photoshop to change the contrast would be a very easy way to create that sort of image.
I hope my earlier post didn’t come off as too harsh; they’re nice photos, but I don’t know if I’d go so far as “remarkable”. That’s what I was trying to get across.
I agree the ones on the left are much better. Now, I’m not even an amateur photographer, but I like to read up about ‘rules’ for taking a good picture just for my personal use. The baby one is just not a good angle or crop. If you’re going to crop off the top of the head, the angle of the head needs to be straight. To cut off just a tiny bit like the baby picture does makes it look sloppy. And I think the baby looks creepy because you can’t see either of his ears. That on top of no hair makes for a disembodied head look. The girl picture, her shoulder and hand are distracting. And it looks like it was taken above her, looking down. Rule of thumb with kids is to stay on their level when taking a photo. Plus. She looks a bit drugged. That’s slightly off putting.
B&W treatment aside: the right two look like snapshots. The left two are decent portraits. I don’t think I’d call them remarkable. Too much detail is lost in the black in the top left one - could be a deliberate lighting choice but I suspect not. I think the focus is off on the bottom left, though it’s too small to tell.
I’m guessing an amateur who’s off to a good start, or a pro who was in a hurry or doesn’t usually do kids portraits. (edit: oh I see you explained that in the OP)
Was she trying to make the kids look like serial killers?
I have no artistic sense or taste. To me they’re good photos, hardly special and not remarkable. They’re good photos.
I’m somewhat between Zebra and appleciders; the top left is decent, but the rest are just off. Nothing that makes me go “Ewwwww!” but if I were the parent, the top right baby photo is one that I would definitely reject. The bottom right probably looks better in color.
(shrug) I would stop well short of remarkable, but they’re not the worst I’ve seen.
I find the invisible, inconsistent black borders distracting. Why is the bottom right picture so far away from the others?
I only like the bottom left one but I think that’s mainly because the kid is a cutie making a cute face. I don’t really know anything about photography but none of them look like anything special to me. The bottom right is much too shadowy.
The arrangement of the photos and the color of the background is entirely my own doing, I was just trying to find a quick way to put them all on a single small page.
Meh.
I like the bottom left one. The rest are meh.
I find them unappealing, but I don’t know that I am qualified to call them “good” or “bad.” If I was looking to hire a photographer to produce a portrait of my child and this is what I was presented with to make my decision, I’d hire someone else. They aren’t flattering depictions of the children and if I’m going to pay someone to take a picture of a child, I want the child to look cute, pretty, engaging, etc., not awkward and weird. If the children themselves ARE awkward and weird, I suppose these might be decent portraits, but I’m not sure there’s much of a market for that.
I don’t mind the lighting of the shots, but the posing and facial expressions are not to my liking.