[Jonathan Mac]

Hi everyone,

If this is in the wrong section I apologise.

I haven't been able to find how to add the photo directly in the post from ipernity, so all I can do is add links.

We recently celebrated our daughter's first birthday and took her to a professional photographer for some shots, having seen the results from a similar shoot of a friend's son. Now that we have the results, there are a few things I'm not entirely happy about and wanted to ask here for opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, or being too picky. My wife doesn't notice the flaws (as I see them) but they bother me.

Firstly, a number (about a third) of the 38 supplied photos are cropped in a way which i would not do, as illustrated by the examples below (I've blurred the face as I don't want these online). In the first one the lower half of the body is cut off, which seems odd. I think a better composition would be to either include the full body or to make it a portrait, perhaps just head & shoulders, but not this in-between composition. In the second one the duck is partially cut off, and being a bright element in the scene this does not sit right with me - it should be either entirely included or excluded (difficult as it's reflection is visible in the tub and without the object itself this would seem odd).

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/2532820/49553696

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/2532820/49553694

These are just two examples, there are other similar ones. We have asked if alternative crops are possible and have been told they aren't. I know that at least some of the shots were wider because I saw them on the camera's screen and they were much wider, though of course I don't know which ones. I suspect the photographer has cropped to her taste and is not willing to look re-do it.

Secondly, we have paid extra to have the digital copies, which have been supplied as jpegs averaging around 8MB and nine to twelve megapixels of resolution. All photos were taken on a 22MP Canon 5D III with 24-70mm f/2.8. As I say, some cropping has been done, but 50% of the area seems a lot.

Thirdly, the images were taken at up to ISO 2500 (seen on the back of the camera) as the photographer likes to use natural light (from very large glass doors with a thin white curtain over them to diffuse the light, though it was an overcast day). I'm all for natural light, especially window light, but looking at some of the higher ISO ones I think 2500 has had too big an impact on the image quality and a professional should know how to add some artificial light blended with the natural in such circumstances. Am I wrong?

This 1:1 crop (from a 15MP jpeg) at the plane of focus shows the noise pattern.

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/2532820/49553716

Yes, I know that the resolution and noise will only impact if the images are viewed beyond a certain size with a given viewing distance, but I'd like to be able to print these quite big in the future.

Maybe I'm being too demanding, what do you think?

[DeadJohn]

I think you are being too picky.

The crops/composition could have been done many different ways. You are looking at the photos as a technical photographer. Everyone else who is likely to see those photos will be viewing them as a grandparent, friend, etc.

"I'd like to be able to print these quite big in the future." Did you communicate that before the photo session? Was there a signed contract or an advertisement stating the resolution or maximum print size?

[luftfluss]

I would not be happy with these photos. I agree with all of the OP's complaints.

[ChristianRock]

Well it all depends on how much you paid (I'm not asking by the way... it's up to you to decide if it's fair). If it wasn't much, then I'd take the pictures for what they are - lower end photography. And I say that for the lack of concern for details such as the duck being cut off in half. But if you paid quite a bit (like a few hundred dollars and up) then I'd be a bit upset.

As for printing, we usually think we can't print unless it's 20+MP files but I have been looking into this subject and found several photographers that have stated that they can't distinguish between smaller and larger files, even in large-ish prints. One said that he printed several files on A2 paper and he couldn't tell which ones were 12MP and which ones were 24MP files unless he took a magnifying glass to certain areas of the picture. But he couldn't see a difference with the naked eye. Another said he had several prints around his house made at about poster size (didn't specify exactly the size) from 6MP, 10MP, 16MP and 24MP files and could not tell a difference in quality between the prints. So I doubt you'd be unsatisfied with prints about A4 from these 10-12MP files. Except for the duck, of course.

[othar]

In the first one the lower half of the body is cut off, which seems odd. I think a better composition would be to either include the full body or to make it a portrait, perhaps just head & shoulders, but not this in-between composition.

The crop was not made across a knee or a foot so nothing serious in my opinion. A little more foreground might would have been nice but it is still fine. With a portrait alone, without the information the surroundings provide, the orange color would have been weird in my opinion.

In the second one the duck is partially cut off, and being a bright element in the scene this does not sit right with me

While I understand your point I don't mind this crop like you do. There is an argument to be made if the duck should be in the shot at all, but if you go with the duck in it I also understand why it was executed the way it was:
-if you place the duck further away from the tub the reflection would travel too far upwards, but if you crop the duck away in this picture it would leave too few space for the tub in the frame. (It could be done in post with a second shot without the duck but afterwards it is too late for that or a unreasonable amount of work for this kind of shot)

-if you leave the whole duck in the frame you also need a little space infront of it and this way you get too much weight on the foreground and withdraw attention from your daughter.

All photos were taken on a 22MP Canon 5D III with 24-70mm f/2.8. As I say, some cropping has been done, but 50% of the area seems a lot.

Thirdly, the images were taken at up to ISO 2500 (seen on the back of the camera) as the photographer likes to use natural light (from very large glass doors with a thin white curtain over them to diffuse the light, though it was an overcast day). I'm all for natural light, especially window light, but looking at some of the higher ISO ones I think 2500 has had too big an impact on the image quality and a professional should know how to add some artificial light blended with the natural in such circumstances.

I think the limited pixel resolution has two reasons:

-if you crop some pictures and others don't you usually don't want your customers to know which are which and so you need a resolution smaller than your camera resolution to leave room for croping and still produce results with constant resolution.

averaging around 8MB and nine to twelve megapixels of resolution

I just reread your post, forget this argument

-You also reduce noise introduced by high ISO values when reducing resolution.

I prefer natural light myself (but I don't photograph for a living) so I understand why the photographer opted for that, but I also see your point in using artificial lighting.
Not every child is happy with flash light so the cheapest way to add artificial light is out of the question if you plan a whole photosession with one. This leaves the photographer with permanent lighting. As I don't use this kind of artificial lighting I don't know what kind of troubles that might cause but a good light is probably not that cheap so the photographer has to do a cost-benefit calculation for himself and in this case it appears that it wasn't worth it yet.

[RGlasel]

what do you think?

I don't see anything that suggests the photographer you hired is incompetent, so it comes down to whether you feel you got good value for what you paid. Like you, I would have preferred different cropping in the first two photos you posted and I can't see any good reason why the photographer wouldn't accommodate your request (changing the cropping is one of the least time-consuming parts of post-processing), but I can understand why the photographer won't give you the original files so you can do your own editing. Whatever level of quality the photographer's work has, her reputation can't be protected if she doesn't keep ownership of the original work. You have the right to never hire her again.

looking at some of the higher ISO ones I think 2500 has had too big an impact on the image quality and a professional should know how to add some artificial light blended with the natural in such circumstances. Am I wrong?

Even though 8MB jpegs of 15MP images have very little compression, the owner of the original files can still get better results in post-processing than you can with the jpeg files you have purchased. That is the justification professional photographers use to charge a lot more for enlargements than what it would cost you to get them printed. I'm not a lighting expert, but it seems to me that even very good photographers try to avoid mixing natural and artificial light if possible. Outdoors with harsh sunlight, fill-in flash might be better than nothing, but in this case the argument could be made that the end result with diffuse natural light at ISO 2500 is better than artificial light at ISO 100 and as you say "the photographer likes to use natural light." You might be even unhappier if she used artificial lighting.

My suggestion is to look for a different photographer next time, but from what I can see your daughter has a happy expression on her face and you should have some photos that will be treasured keepsakes in the future, even with their flaws.

[BigMackCam]

The two shots you link to look perfectly delightful to me. Composition is a very personal and individual thing, and whilst the results here may not be to your taste, they demonstrate thought and competence on the part of the photographer.

Regarding the amount of cropping, this does seem a little heavy-handed. If the photographer's approach is heavily dependent on cropping, then - in my opinion - they should probably consider using higher resolution kit. Having said that, nine to twelve megapixel images are going to be pretty serviceable and versatile, unless you're planning on printing very large and viewing right up close with a "technical eye" (which isn't, I'd argue, a practical requirement).

As for higher ISO and noise... I really don't see a problem here. There's no colour noise visible, only luminance - similar to what you'd see with film. At normal reproduction sizes and viewing distances, I can't see this being an issue.

[Apet-Sure]

I wouldn't be happy with these crops either. On the first one I would have panned the camera down (or cropped differently) so that you are not cutting off the child's feet. On the second one I would have moved the duck back and to the right so that you are not cutting off its 'feet'. I may be sensitive about this because I recently took some shots at my niece's wedding and cut off the feet of the happy couple on one shot that otherwise turned out quite nice.

As far as ISO, you have to let the photographer have some latitude to create images in a way she is comfortable with. If you knew you wanted big enlargements this should have been mentioned in your initial consultation so she could plan accordingly. As for the digital copies you got, unless you specifically agreed that they would be the original, unedited, out-of-camera versions, and got that agreement in writing, you have no basis for complaint IMO.

[Leumas]

Depends on what you paid...(get what you pay for?)

I agree the composition is not good.

The ISO argument is off base IMO. If you're using natural light, better to have a sharp picture with a little higher ISO. I think Pixel peepers put too much emphasis on noise.

But, finally...Why are you getting someone else to do the photos in the first place? (I'm assuming you're a photographer)

[Joe Dusel]

Well, it sounds to me like you might have been better off having someone with a Pentax K-3 DSLR do the shoot. I bet he would have shot and processed the image exactly like you wanted it.

[microlight]

I feel your pain. My daughter’s wedding photos were taken by a pro again with a Canon 5DIII, and while they were pleased with them, I thought that they looked too brown in general, a little noisy (especially indoors) and the photographer had a chronic fondness for over-intrusive vignetting. But that’s just me, and I wasn’t paying for the photographer! We all see things slightly differently I guess.

[BigDave]

The two images you linked, I would not consider the best compositions. You have the digital files, so go ahead and fix them. Clone out the duck and reflection entirely, it is still a nice image. The first one, crop tighter. I don't know why the horizontal format. Seems to me like a great deal of wasted pixel space!

[c.a.m]

Maybe I'm being too demanding, what do you think?

From an observer's point of view, I would think that improvements could have been made in the first two sample images.

1. The infant is involved with something messy, but the picture omits to tell what she is playing with. There seems to be an interesting story, but the context is not complete. Also, I find that the background takes up a relatively large portion of the image, and its bright colours and strong objects compete for my attention. Fortunately, the background is fairly blurred, but the watering can on the right hand side is eye-catching to me.

2. The Rubber Duck. It's a highly visible, bright object that attracts my eye and competes with the main subject and the overall softness of the setting. Also, it is not obvious why part of the the duck has been cut at the bottom edge. IMO, the image would have been stronger if the duck had been omitted entirely. The infant alone in the tub would have strongly carried the image. The watering can from the first image might have made a more interesting prop in the second image -- place it off-centre in the background, slightly out of focus.

On the other hand, the images seem to well focused and the exposures are really good. The baby's expressions seem wonderful, and there is a sense of the joy of new life in both pictures. I think we photographers always tend to be concerned about things that casual viewers never see. Maybe in this case, your wife's point of view is notable -- these are darling pictures of your daughter.

- Craig

[dms]

The first one the break in the body seems fine to me, but you could possibly discuss/negotiate about it. The crop of the duck mirrors the child in the tub line and seems great to me. The 3rd one the noise looks film like/quite nice, and anyway at the likely printed size it would hardly be noticed, and the use of flash would likely intrude on the gentle soft skin feeling. I think you need to do the photos yourself if you want to put your strong opinions on the photographer.

[Dericali]

One question - do these photos resemble the other photos on the photographer's website? Is this their style? What was it that made you choose them in the first place? If the photos you received resemble the style they 'advertise; with then I don't think you have much grounds for complaint, though ISO 2500 is pretty weak. Though there is some latitude for a photographer to introduce a more film style noise pattern for printing.