My Wife Maternity Shoot: Please C&C

[Cooler_King]

Camera: Oly e500
Lens: Zuiko 14-45
Lighting: £3 Ikea Desk Lamp and window light (but I have 'used' light before so this was an experiment)
Model: My wife
PP: Minimal except cropping and some fill light (or B&W)
Fomat: JPEG but I have the RAW's as well.

Comments: Please ignore the sharpness as these photos have been run through Facebook and then uploaded to ImageShack. They are much sharper on my hard drive.

OK...let the blood bath commence. I make no apologies for cheesiness

45mm, F 5.6, 1/30, ISO 400

24mm, F 4.2, 1/60, ISO 400

45mm, F 5.6, 1/13, ISO 200

22mm, F 5.6, 1/40, ISO 400

20mm, F 5.6, 1/40, ISO 400

27mm, F 4.4, 1/20, ISO 200

Thanks for looking. :thumbup:

 

[sburatorul]

i see no pictures

 

[zeto88]

I see no pictures. D:

 

[Cooler_King]

I see no pictures. D:

Fixed. Damn image shack direct link!

 

[sburatorul]

well i so no cheesines and these pictures are great for memories. good job!

 

[Olympus E300]

My favorite is the last one (6).

 

[Jon0807]

I like #3 and 6 cause of composition and softer lighting. The others seem a bit "snapshotish" and the lighting/shadows are a bit too harsh

Congrats on the incoming family. My wife just gave birth 11 weeks ago. It's a wonderful time

 

[matt62485]

i like them. nice shots. my sister is pregnant and wants me to take some shots of her this month (due in Feb) congrats to you both! post baby pictures when arrived!

i think number 2 and 5 are slightly overexposed though. otherwise i like them.

 

[slash]

I hate to cc these due to your sentiment, BUT they look more like snapshots taken with a p&s. The composition in a few are just ok and the lighting and dof is off in all of them. Here is a hint, work on one shot and post that instead of six. Stick with it!!!:thumbup:

 

[Cooler_King]

I hate to cc these due to your sentiment, BUT they look more like snapshots taken with a p&s. The composition in a few are just ok and the lighting and dof is off in all of them. Here is a hint, work on one shot and post that instead of six. Stick with it!!!:thumbup:

I appreciate any C&C but how could the focus be off in all of them?

2 of the images have the focused placed exactly where I wanted it and where is the error in 6?

I am not defending but asking exactly what you are seeing.

 

[Shockey]

Does your wife know you posted these on the internet...man you are brave.
I like the last one, that has a cool concept and is well executed.

 

[slash]

I hate to cc these due to your sentiment, BUT they look more like snapshots taken with a p&s. The composition in a few are just ok and the lighting and dof is off in all of them. Here is a hint, work on one shot and post that instead of six. Stick with it!!!:thumbup:

I appreciate any C&C but how could the focus be off in all of them?

2 of the images have the focused placed exactly where I wanted it and where is the error in 6?

I am not defending but asking exactly what you are seeing.

[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Depth of Field[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]The zone of acceptable sharpness in front of and behind the subject on which the lens is focused; extends approx. one-third in front of and two thirds behind the in-focus subject; dependent on three factors: aperture, focal length, and focused distance; the wider the aperture, the longer the focal length, and the closer the focused distance, the less the depth of field, and vice versa; in comparison to a normal lens, wideangle lenses have inherently more depth of field at each f-number and telephoto lenses have less.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Since this element is very important, another simpler way to explain is the amount of distance between the nearest and farthest objects that appear in acceptably sharp focus in a photograph. Depth of field depends on the lens opening, the focal length of the lens, and the distance from the lens to the subject or can explain as in simpler term as [/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]the zone of sharpest focus in front of, behind, and around the subject on which the lens is focused; can be previewed in the camera - very handy for critical work. Relating article in this site: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Depth of field[/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans].[/FONT]

 

[Cooler_King]

I hate to cc these due to your sentiment, BUT they look more like snapshots taken with a p&s. The composition in a few are just ok and the lighting and dof is off in all of them. Here is a hint, work on one shot and post that instead of six. Stick with it!!!:thumbup:

I appreciate any C&C but how could the focus be off in all of them?

2 of the images have the focused placed exactly where I wanted it and where is the error in 6?

I am not defending but asking exactly what you are seeing.

[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Depth of Field[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]The zone of acceptable sharpness in front of and behind the subject on which the lens is focused; extends approx. one-third in front of and two thirds behind the in-focus subject; dependent on three factors: aperture, focal length, and focused distance; the wider the aperture, the longer the focal length, and the closer the focused distance, the less the depth of field, and vice versa; in comparison to a normal lens, wideangle lenses have inherently more depth of field at each f-number and telephoto lenses have less.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Since this element is very important, another simpler way to explain is the amount of distance between the nearest and farthest objects that appear in acceptably sharp focus in a photograph. Depth of field depends on the lens opening, the focal length of the lens, and the distance from the lens to the subject or can explain as in simpler term as [/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]the zone of sharpest focus in front of, behind, and around the subject on which the lens is focused; can be previewed in the camera - very handy for critical work. Relating article in this site: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans]Depth of field[/FONT][FONT=Arial, verdana, helvetica, geneva, comic sans].[/FONT]

No offence but you haven't actually given me any C&C. Posting a definition of DoF is not helping - what are you seeing different?

 

[Felix0890]

Her facial expression in the first one looks like she's being held hostage. Was that your intention?

I think what Slash is trying to say is that you need to play with DoF (have less of it) to give your shots a nicer effect and get rid of that point-and-shoot quality effect you have going on there.

Oh and the last one looks very dark (emotionally dark, not exposure-wise) for a maternity shot. Her body language coupled with B&W makes it very moody. I would not recommend using B&W for a maternity shot unless you know how to work it well.

 

[jackieclayton]

i really like the 4th one... maybe crop it a bit different though... her head is chopped