Why does this image work *so well* (not mine)?

[madiator]

I have been looking at this image (not mine) for many hours now and cannot figure out what makes this image work:


Also check out the large version, and if you are a contact, bigger version.

So why does this image work? When I say work, I am mostly talking about the stunning clarity of the image. I know its shot with Nikon D3, that should answer it, but I am intrigued what exactly is different in that camera from mine (and I have a Konica Minolta 5D)

1. Is it because its a full frame?
2. Prime lens?? He has used a 50mm lens (probably the higher quality one).
3. Superior noise handling capability?
4. D3 is 12MP, compared to 6MP of my camera. But still I see that not many other 12MP shots out there are so effective.
5. 16-bit A/D conversion compared to 12-bit in mine (assuming he used 16 bits)
6. Pixel density seems to be the same in his camera and mine! I was expecting a higher value.

There are some secondary reasons I can think of, but I am sure these are just trivial (or not?)

1. Probably some amount of photoshop? (sharpening might help, but still)
2. Is it because he has used some external lights.
3. CMOS sensor
4. Thanks to the golden light.

I know the answer is going to be a combination of all of the above, but I want to listen to other feedback out there.

I started around two years back, but have mostly neglected the technical part and just enjoyed taking pics. So some learning shall happen! By the way this is my first post, so hello all!

EDIT: Of course, I agree that its well composed, which is what drew my attention towards the pic but I am also wondering what else is going on in the background!

[candleman]

Originally Posted by madiator

1. Is it because its a full frame?
2. Prime lens?? He has used a 50mm lens (probably the higher quality one).
3. Superior noise handling capability?
4. D3 is 12MP, compared to 6MP of my camera. But still I see that not many other 12MP shots out there are so effective.
5. 16-bit A/D conversion compared to 12-bit in mine (assuming he used 16 bits)
6. Pixel density seems to be the same in his camera and mine! I was expecting a higher value.

none of those... it's not about the gear.
it's what you do with the gear.

1.excellent composition:
The subjects are arranged centrally, and because the image is composed symetrically it works. (see the ladders and slide making a symetrical pyramid looking shape)

2. good pose and display of emotion
3. well contrasted & Saturated. The fill light is just perfect against the backlit situation
4. good white balance and the warm light on the subjects draws thenm out of the image.
5. backlit, which adds a rim of light around the subjects, and it makes the background greens pop.
i'd say theres a VERY high chance he used off camera flash for the fill light.
6. the bland and darker background gives more atention to the bright and dynamic subject.
7. blue and yellow always work well together, and those are dominant on the subjects.
8. pretty people = pretty pictures

[madiator]

Aw yeah I definitely agree its composed very well. But since I am now planning to upgrade my camera, thats why I was wondering what factors I should be considering. I have largely neglected stuff like these till now, so thats why I asked, specifically about the gear.

[nickbedford]

Trust me, it's not the camera, as awesome as a D3 is. I could probably shoot a similar image on my 50D if I had the same scene and lighting gear.

What works is that it has been processed with high contrast which in turns makes the colours rich. It's sharp (also due to the f/9 aperture) and any artificial lighting used balances perfectly with the background. It possibly didn't even look that warm in the RAW file, but could have been warmed up in post.

The shutter speed is sharp enough to prevent motion blur and the ISO is low meaning little noise (especially from the D3).

The only thing I don't like about it or that is not sitting well with me is the framing or the location of the people in the frame. It feels like it's unbalanced, given that the playground is not centered and is just going out of the frame at the base on the right.

[sk66]

The biggest thing is the studio type lighting... Backlight with great fill.
This was done with strobes, probably 2 maybe 3, possibly big ones.

If you look at the shadows from the trees etc and the rimlight you can see it has very strong backlighting from the sun.

If you look at the girl on the slide and the adult you can see 3/4 frontal lighting.

As far as gear goes....the only thing that might help that you might not have is lenses with great clarity/ sharpness (but this can be "helped" in post)

[Jim Bryant]

The low angle sun light that creates rim lighting effect on the subjects. Plus the light on the grass...it's all about the light and the direction it's coming from.

[OsmosisStudios]

Camera and lens could both be rubbish: as mentioned by others it's ALL in the lighting and postwork.