Question about newborn photography...

Senor Hound

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
0
Location
La la land...
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So, when you take photos of newborns, their faces and bodies are always splotchy and red and whatnot. My question is, is that a good thing? I mean, if you take a photo of a newborn who still has splotchy skin, should you try and photoshop it to make it smooth and one color, or should you leave it as it is, understanding its part of what makes the little one unique?
 
I think that's wehre personal preference comes in. For example.. newborn acne is not cute.. no matter which way you cut it. Here's a babe I just did (SOOC, underexposed but u get the idea)
IMG_2100.jpg


and here she is after some PS
4x8birthannouncementgirl1.jpg


To me, that looks better. I also PP my son. I pp every picture I take. Including newborns.. Sometimes, if it [red, splotchy, fresh out of the womb] really adds character, you go with that. It depends on the baby and the picture.

Funny thing- I was reading an article the other day on how Dove's campaign of love the skin your in ,that showed celebritys "as is" (such as you might remember jamie lee curtis with some chub around her belly and thighs etc) but that there was MAJOR post processing work. To make them look like they weren't PP at all . *laugh* So the key is .. Post process to make it look like you haven't post processed :)
 
So, when you take photos of newborns, their faces and bodies are always splotchy and red and whatnot. My question is, is that a good thing? I mean, if you take a photo of a newborn who still has splotchy skin, should you try and photoshop it to make it smooth and one color, or should you leave it as it is, understanding its part of what makes the little one unique?
That depends...
Do you want a photo that looks like the child or do you want something else?
 
Do you think photo 1 and photo 2 in my above post are really so different? Just curious...

It's difficult because the child's head is so much smaller in the second photo. However, the original looks like a newborn to me. The modified photo looks like, well, a modified photo. The normal redness of a newborn's skin is gone and replaced by tan shading. The skin is too smooth, almost like what I'd expect from a doll rather than a human child.

If that's your goal, so be it. I prefer realistic photos of children.
 
maybe fix it a little.... just as about it works for you... so you don´t feel like you morphed their baby... just a lil touch here and there...

.
 
It's difficult because the child's head is so much smaller in the second photo. However, the original looks like a newborn to me. The modified photo looks like, well, a modified photo. The normal redness of a newborn's skin is gone and replaced by tan shading. The skin is too smooth, almost like what I'd expect from a doll rather than a human child.

If that's your goal, so be it. I prefer realistic photos of children.

I appreciate your outlook.. its opposite mine, but thats OK :thumbup:
 
> I pp every picture I take.

You might want to see a doctor about that... :) Sorry, I'm very new, and I don't know all the shorthand! I'm going to guess that means post process.
 
Have you considered using a Softener filter?
It is mainly used on portraits to soften skin tones and imperfections and give a more subtle finish.. Google it!
 
Either way its a neat shot.. However IMO that second photo looks nothing like the first. If that were my child I would want the photo to be what it was. Its One thing to fix something small here or there but to go over the enitre shot and recrete the skin tone is by no means saying its a photo of that baby. I guess overall it all depends on the situation at hand. IE a severe case may call for some pp or ps. I guess in the end these little cuties can be a tough subject to shoot so give yourself credit for even taking the chance..........
 
My children are my legacy.
... They have children of their own.
... Their children will have children and their children's children will have children.
... And so on and so on and so on.
I have impacted this world for all of eternity!

Question is: is that a good thing for the world...?
 
I agree with Socrates on this one. When I look back on baby pictures 10 years from now, I want to know what the baby really looked like, not what they looked like after an hour in Photoshop.

I also agree with Stickman...to go and touch up some blemishes here and there seems fine but to go over the whole face starts to look like a "glamour shot" as if the baby is a model with make-up on and takes away the individual characteristics that makes he/she unique and real.

It is hard to tell because the shot on the flier is really small but it appears to be overdone to me. Also I just looked again and the shirt on the flier is a completely different color. I guess I don't understand trying to recreate everything in a photo, it seems to take away from the reality of the moment, and kind of defeats the purpose of a photograph.
 
I will do little things here and there. Like I had a baby tat 1hr before the shoot scratched under his eye. So I removed that in all of the pictures but other than that I left his "baby" look alone. There was other things the parents asked me to take out like the prick marks on his feet from blood tests stuff like that. But I always ask the parents if they want it done, if they don't why waste my time. His parents loved the photos and in fact ordered $500 in prints and at the time my print prices were dirt cheap, so they got a lot of prints! They also had me do Christmas cards and birth announcements with the photos!
Here is my favorate from that shoot.
URL]
 

Most reactions

Back
Top