twins! (babys)

[kellylindseyphotography]

well, just the girl, first up. Things to know: These were just for fun, not a client, were done while just playing w/baby girl on the floor when we went over for supper last night. I'm going to give them to my friend for free, but if any look TERRIBLE, let me know so I don't give her terrible pics!
Things I'd like to know : do you prefer the color or the b&w version? and is the blur on any too much or too noticable? I provided a reference photo at the bottom so you can see how her skin was.. very blotchy, very red, not smooth at all, and she had baby acne to boot. So the surface blur was somewhat needed because cloning was REALLY difficult for her skin. If anyone has advice on what I could do differently, please let me know!



1. (this one has overall surface blur, I just liked the effect even though it softened her eyes)

(color) 2.

(b&w) 2.

(color) 3.

(b&w) 3.

Reference photo (underexposed, but you get the idea!)

 

[jols]

it says your a childrens photographer surely you would know if they are any good?

1 and 3[b/w] for me

 

[DSLR noob]

look, tiny people!

they're kinda cute I guess, I've never liked how babies look until they've got 7 or 8 months behind them (not saying they're bad looking babies, but babies in general) good photography, it's nice to see them looking away from the camera.

EDIT: oh and it's "babies" by the way

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

Sorry for the typo!

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated.

Jols, I think everyone doubts their abilities. I didn't think they were terrible or even bad, but who knows what they look like from someone else's eyes.

 

[Lacey Anne]

I like them. I think the blur is fine, I honestly didn't even notice it. I prefer the B&W. Nice job, Kelly!

 

[Judge Sharpe]

Ok- So you are saying they were snapshots?
Not a dig- the baby is cute, but just between you me and the post your children are much cuter.
I like the BW better except that the onsey comes out so bright that it kind of blows out. To put it in film terms, I would hold back on the whites, see if I could bring out a little more contrast, and print it on ecrue paper.
The softness hides a lot of blotchyness and we used to use it a lot on people, even to putting Vasoline on the lens to add a slight blur.
Good Job---
Judge Sharpe

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

Thank you very much! I have heard of vasoline on the lens.. thanks for that tip!! They were snapshots pretty much, yes. I didn't have a bean bag or any plans going into them, but I am pleased with how they came out.

AThanks again!

 

[jlykins]

2 in color 3 in black and white

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

It was pointed out to me that these pics are distorted.. does anyone see that and if so, how bad is it? I don't personally see it, and I wonder if it is an issue with primes or an issue with proximity to subject? What do you think?

 

[caspertodd]

Distorted? I don't see that. One thing I see is that in #2 you cut off the fingers and in #3 it is the elbow and knuckles. I had always thought that you were not supposed to cut off at the joints. But maybe that is different with babies (I'm learning so bear with me). I think #1 is my favorite because of the composition and the expression. I also like that it is in B&W. In #2 I like the B&W version better because the floor is not as destracting.

 

[Lacey Anne]

I don't see any distortion.

 

[Judge Sharpe]

I do not see distortion either. Its just the normal shape and size of babies heads. The question here is does the mother like them? if so you are home free. Your adoring public has spoken. Children are the hardest subjects besides small birds and grasshoppers. You can't glue them in place or freeze their expressions so a lot of child photography would be clasified as advanced snapshot. You do a great job.
JS

 

[jols]

they dont look distorted to me.

and have been looking again and think i like the colour as well.

do you use the d40x for all your work.

what lens do you use most?

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

Thanks for the kind words.
I use a Canon Rebel XT, and recenltly just got the 50mm 1.8.

Someone on another forum insists that there is distortion and provided this insight:
If you are making a close-up, a short telephoto is the best choice, let's say an 80mm lens. Such a lens offers normal perspective, while a standard 50mm lens would force the photographer to get too close to the subject thus altering the perspective (a phenomenon known as "foreshortening"). If foreshortening occurs, the closer parts of the subject's face (the nose, the chin) would appear greater than they are, and the opposite would happen to the back of his or her head. Or, in case of a large group, the faces of the people in front would appear much greater than those on the back.


Interesting.. but I still don't see it in these photo's?

 

[jols]

sorry i must of looked on the wrong profile