Hm, I’m not sure what the light source was. I know the one who took the photos didn’t use any lamps. I think I recall that the main source of light was sunlight through a window, but I am not certain.
BTW to clarify my intention in posting these, the person who took the photos has insisted to me that they are terrible, and has actually named some of the problems you guys have named, and I have in the past insisted the evaluation of “terrible” is far too harsh, and that in fact, for the context of the shot and the equipment involved, they seemed “remarkable.” So I was checking my intuitions here.
Consider that Ansel Adams early work was done with glass plate negatives one painstaking picture at a time. Modern fashion photographers using film would waste a ridiculous amount of it and get credit for a great picture after picking through a pile of them. I wouldn’t be bumming out that a camera out of the box took these pictures or that the person taking them has no eye for it.
If your friend invests in a good portrait lens and the proper remote flash system then his work will improve by default.
There’s no reason that can’t be a first generation dSLR or even an iPhone. It’s a straight-forward capture. And on-camera flash does not produce light like that, no matter what you do, no matter how advanced the camera is. Look at the eyes. See the big, rectangular light source reflected in them, and where it is in relation to the pupil? And look at the shadows. The upper left photo has a somewhat larger light source to the right, about eye level or very slightly below. An on camera flash would have a sharp, circular point of light dead center in the pupil. Bottom left has a large rectangular light source dead center, slightly up. The quality of the light (soft) and the catchlight in the eyes also indicates a large, diffused light source, most likely a window, but it can be some other large, diffuse lightsource (like a softbox or umbrella–I’d be able to guess better if I saw a larger file.) Bottom right also has a soft, larger light source up and to the right of the subject, but relatively oblique as there’s no catchlights in her eyes (the lack of give them a bit of a “dead” look.)
A simple way to fill in those opposite-side shadows would have been to use a reflector of some sort. It doesn’t have to be anything fancy. Just throw a big piece of white foamboard or even a white bedsheet to the shadow side of the face, close, but off-camera, and you’ll get some definition in those shadows and details in the hair.
Top right. Probably the best but as other have said he needs separation from the background. Black hair, black background, having him “emerge from darkness” is just not an effect I associate with a child’s portrait. Now the light on his face is almost right. It’s great to have one half of the face with more light on it than the other but the dark side of the face is just a little too dark. (Unlike the bottom left picture where is just isn’t there)
Top Left. Baby in an “adult shirt”. Is it a baby? or NJ Governor Chris Christie? Really shouldn’t lop of the head like that.
Bottom Right A bit more light on the eyes would lessen the creepy effect. His clothing and hair naturally separate him from the background. This is why everyone likes this.
Bottom Left Really looks threatening to me. Needs to have more, well some, light so the left side of the face is visible. Isn’t that a fist she’s making? Really this image could be on an Anti-bulling poster with her as the bully.
In general I don’t like “black and white” portraits of children. Babies can be great in B&W but kids, to me, are colorful.
I think your left/rights are reversed. I was a bit confused when you said the top right was the best photo, but then realized with the other descriptions you have left /right backwards.
Sounds like the person in question has a very good eye and ability to critically evaluate their work. S/he should keep experimenting, perhaps keeping a log of what settings were used etc, until s/he creates photos that are satisfactory.
It’s possible, but I don’t think necessarily so. Basic center weighted metering without any dance matrix crap would have gotten the exposure pretty much on, depending on where the center of the frame was.
At any rate, my main point wax that no on-camera flash is going to produce light like that (although you can get decent sculpted soft light with a flash head rotated off to one direction bouncing off a wall.)
I wasn’t really commenting on the flash issue (which I don’t understand myself), but was commenting that the OP’s friend seemed to have recognized many of the critiques herself, and I thought that was an overall promising sign for someone developing their skills.
I’m not sure how my comment pertains to the flash issue. Sorry if there was confusion.
You’re both wrong. She’s too critical because that’s just how people whose eye/taste/talent outpaces their skills roll. You’re not critical enough because that’s how daddies looking at pictures of their kids and husbands looking at projects of their wives’ roll.
To my untrained eye, these seem to be respectable efforts from an amateur practicing a new technique for a class or seminar. The lighting differential is too stark in most of them, but figuring out how much is too much or too little is something you have to do over and over and screw up a bunch of times until you get a feel for it. The fact that she knows she’s not at that point is very much a point in her favor. The cropping is also odd, especially the one baby on top–he really does look the face Chris Christie keeps in a jar by the door. Again, something that will improve with time and practice. The poses are bog-standard portrait poses, nothing noteworthy for good or ill there.
Top left is my favorite. It looks like a better pose.
All of them are too heavy handed B&W for my taste. I love B&W, but these are too dark. I would prefer to see some visible out-of-focus background.
The bottom left looks weird. The catchlights in the eyes make it look like the baby is looking upward and the outfit looks weird in this photo, like the child is being suffocated by the outfit.