Little love

This particular ultra shallow DoF with popped eyes strikes me as stylized enough that it might -- might -- be a pretty short-lived trend. If you're operating a business around these sorts of things, I would suggest that you keep your hand in with some more generic styles, and maybe try to push out into some other stylized work. Don't spend a lot of time on it, the current style is where the money is for sure. But keep your mind and hands fresh so that you're ready if the popular fashion changes.
 
As a professional photographer, you have to or at least really should have a pretty broad base of skills and techniques to call on as needed, and you you have to or at least really should be continuously working to learn new ones and add to your skill set.

After all, your ability to make a living may well depend on it.

Sure, cash the check the fad provides, but be well equipped to adapt when the fad passes.
 
Oh, I dunno, the fact the shooter cab produce images the masses can appreciate and will pay for so they can actually make a living?

I mean, the shot is cute. As you said, moms and even dads will love it. It's not really intended for presentation at the gallery or hanging on a stranger's wall.

It's competently produced. Sure, maybe it can be improved, and sure it's not to everyone's preference or taste. But it's not broken or defective either. Is it art for everyone? No, but it's not really intended as such either.

If the photographer can produce a similar quality on demand (ie it wasn't a fluke success in a session full of fail), then they could probably make a living.

The OP had a tremendous advantage in that the subject was cute, thus viewers ignored actual deficiencies in the production.
Our goal here is not to be appreciative of the innate cuteness of the subject and ignore deficiencies but to point out what we see as being done not quite well enough so that the OP can maximize any picture, very important when the subject is not cute.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top