C+C My Baby Shots?

Hey guys,

Not often do I shoot babies (on their own), so I was wondering if anyone could care to give their thoughts on some baby photos I did recently?

I'm not really sure how I feel about them myself (obviously as the one taking the photographs it's hard to have an objective view of them). They're fairly simple photos.



1.




2.



3.



4.



5.



6.




Would be glad to hear any opinions.

(in my own opinion, of the above; 6 is my favourite and 4 is my least favourite)


Cheers

DaireQuinlan

I'm not really up on baby shots, but one thing that immediately leaps out is the processing on the skin. It's wayyyyy too extreme. It's made them into blotchy plasticky looking alien babies. I'd tone down the saturation a bit as well. #2 is probably the best of the bunch, primarily I think because it's a smidgeon less ... vibrant ... than the others.

AnCatDubh

2 & 3 for me followed by 5.

a little too much vignetting for my liking on some (which is bad, because I like vignetting!) #5 and #3 (albeit I still like #3)

i know you are liking it but eyes not sharp in #6 and a weird reflection being caught in the eyes.

perhaps its what Daire is suggesting but i'm seeing a bit too much saturation perhaps?

I think the mum/dad should be quite pleased with them, but i'd expect there is space for some technical improvement.

Nicely done.

DaireQuinlan

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I'm not really up on baby shots, but one thing that immediately leaps out is the processing on the skin. It's wayyyyy too extreme. It's made them into blotchy plasticky looking alien babies. I'd tone down the saturation a bit as well. #2 is probably the best of the bunch, primarily I think because it's a smidgeon less ... vibrant ... than the others.

I'm not sure if I'm completely in agreement about the skin smoothing... I don't know, maybe it's just me but I think babies should be really smooth looking, no?

Babies generally have fairly broken or 'flakey' kind of skin, don't they? (or at least that's what I've experienced. My knowledge in baby related matters isn't the best in the world) so I wanted to get rid of that.

The eyebrow area was a bit of a trouble-spot in the above photos, and required a fair bit of touching up to look smooth. Most other baby photos I've seen are (o)very(ly) smooth, too, so I kind of had that in my head, too... hmm... :o


Yeah, a general 'technical complaint' from other photographers online (usually on here) is that my photos are too saturated or overexposed, but I tend to like that. I think bright, colourful photographs are generally 'happier' looking photos... Perhaps I'm wrong...

AnCatDubh wrote: »

2 & 3 for me followed by 5.

a little too much vignetting for my liking on some (which is bad, because I like vignetting!) #5 and #3 (albeit I still like #3)

i know you are liking it but eyes not sharp in #6 and a weird reflection being caught in the eyes.

perhaps its what Daire is suggesting but i'm seeing a bit too much saturation perhaps?

I think the mum/dad should be quite pleased with them, but i'd expect there is space for some technical improvement.

Nicely done.

Coincidentally, I think these are the first photos I've taken in about two years that I've added any vignetting to. I thought the vignetting looked really good on the first photo, and then I just kinda got carried away with it :pac: (I also like the saturation of the first one a lot).


I've one eye pretty sharp in 6 (the left/top one) but the other is a bit out of focus, alright. Could be sharper, no doubt (though I was trying for as shallow a DOF as possible).



Clearly I'll have to pull back a bit on the saturation. Can I ask, is it the overall saturation ye don't like, or just the purple-ish colour in some of the images? (I notice the purple-ish is fairly strong). Do you also think #6 is over-saturated, too, for example?


(by the way, I realise I'm kinda defending some of the post-processing, such as the skin smoothing, but I do appreciate the C+C. I'm only arguing it to see if I can get further opinions on it from some of ye.


Calling them alien babies because of skin smoothing is kind making me think I went waaaay too far over the top (and almost feel bad about) but at the time, and at the moment, I don't really know if I really did, so just a bit unsure.


Cheers for the input, thought, gentlemen. Still quite new to babies, so any and all feedback is thoroughly appreciated.

This is a lesser-edited version than the one above (less smoothing, saturation and contrast).

Do you prefer this version?

artyeva

the skin looks way too... doll like. babies should look like... well... babies. they should have little wrinkles and... texture.

and i can't exactly put my finger on it but the angle that you're shooting at doesn't look... natural. 4 and 5 especially.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you prefer this version?

yes. the baby looks more human.

magicbastarder

i know the parents might have asked for it, but those headbands will probably look very dated in a few years. they look overly twee anyway.

DaireQuinlan

Still too much. It's actually bright red on my monitor. That can't be good ? (checks monitor). What does the skin look like if you don't touch it at all ?

magicbastarder wrote: »

other people have said they think no.2 is the best. i'm afraid i can't agree because the baby looks, well, <snip>. the pose and general tint to the photo don't work...

I really wish you hadn't said that. That's all I can see now :eek:

magicbastarder

most of the baby shots i've taken (mainly of two nephews and a niece) which their parents like were taken with delta 3200. the fuzziness of the film is suited to baby shots.

Daire, skin looks fairly natural for the most part, to be honest, it's just the eyebrow area that was a trouble spot;





I do think I just got a bit carried away with smoothing when trying to clear that up (you know how it is when you spend ages looking at the same photos; after a while you forget what they originally looked like).

magicbastarder

done; though DQ quoted me too.

pete4130

Lupo....?

Cheers MB, I appreciate it

AnCatDubh

a tad too pink but i prefer the version in post #5 than the original posted in #11

I see what you mean about the skin. It's an aesthetic thing. The baby has that wonderful baby skin that most baby's have with cradle cap and all (if memory serves me correctly that's what it was colloquially known as) which may be adorable to parents, but secretly they are well pleased when it 'clears'. So, imho, you were correct to go the smoothing route. I suppose just be careful as to the extent/strength which you apply the smoothing slider.

On saturation, I think its pinks and purples to be worried about - that said, my screen isn't calibrated so if yours is it may be more accurate than what I see. Pull a bit of red out of them and get them closer to the original.

AnCatDubh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

a tad too pink but i prefer the version in post #5 than the original posted in #11

I see what you mean about the skin. It's an aesthetic thing. The baby has that wonderful baby skin that most baby's have with cradle cap and all (if memory serves me correctly that's what it was colloquially known as) which may be adorable to parents, but secretly they are well pleased when it 'clears'. So, imho, you were correct to go the smoothing route. I suppose just be careful as to the extent/strength which you apply the smoothing slider.

On saturation, I think its pinks and purples to be worried about - that said, my screen isn't calibrated so if yours is it may be more accurate than what I see. Pull a bit of red out of them and get them closer to the original.

On the skin smoothing, I do agree with you, that smoothing was the right way to go, but it does get difficult to judge (in my personal opinion) just how far you've actually went with the smoothing.

Now I'll admit I do like the smoothing effect, but i agree aswell that post #5 has the best version of that photo (so I'm considering re-editing them all again).


With regards to the colour, for some reason, in Adobe Camera RAW (with CS5) the reds, purples and related similar colours, all tend to go mad overboard. The only way to kind of 'mute' them a bit, is to change the colour profile, but that then tends to completely kill off the contrast or 'pop' that the default adobe profile gives.

Cheers for those quick edits, ACD

pete4130

Just keep it simple. Get good images to start with, good lighting to start with instead of relying on digital gimmickery to get a result.

Less is more.