A few firsts (7 photos).

[honoryourlife]

Here is my first Maternity shoot ever and the first time using my lights (Camray 3 piece lighting kit; 2 umbrellas, 1 softbox).

Let me know what you think.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

I got the ideas for 5 & 6, after my friend let me touch her stomach when her baby was kicking and I noticed my hand left a white print. So I got her boyfriend to leave prints on her stomach and I took some photos of em! Never saw something like this used in a Maternity shoot before.

The clients were completely satisfied with the work that was produced and recommended me to many people.

So, what do you guys think of the set?

 

[MLeeK]

They're a bit underexposed and you REALLY needed a hair light. She blends into your background in all of these. 4 is an incredibly sweet moment. 3's pretty cute too! I'd like to see that one brightened a couple of stops.
I have to say the hand print thing is kinda... I dunno, maybe creepy. Not really the word I want, but it's definitely... something.

#1 will be a crop problem when you go to print at any standard size. 4, 6, & 7 might also be really tight if you have to print to 8x10. You have to leave room in the image for printing crops. Which are NOT standard to your camera's sensor size. Worst case scenario is the 8x10 in which case you lose about 2 inches off the long edge of the image.

Your focus and color look pretty great to me!

 

[MLeeK]

This was just QUICK and really dirty in adobe camera raw. It's about a stop and a half underexposed.

 

[honoryourlife]

Thanks, I see what you mean.

I was using my 5DII, so why would there be a problem?

 

[MLeeK]

Why does the camera have any bearing on what is wrong with the images? The camera doesn't make the decisions on how to expose the image in manual mode, you do.
It's underexposed. That comes from the settings you chose and how you chose to expose the image.
Your settings on the one I edited are ISO 250; f/5; 1/200 shutter. I am not too sure what your lighting kit is but from the name you give of it I am guessing it's a cheap light set. They aren't much power so combined with your settings that would tell me you needed to raise your ISO to about 640 to 800 to have properly exposed the image.

 

[ababysean]

They are under exposed and I don't understand the hand print one? What is the meaning of that? Did she use sunscreen with a hand print and then go into a tanning bed or something? I'm just confused as the what they/you were trying to achieve?

 

[Markw]

Wow. Lol. He specifically stated how he got the handprints..

 

[o hey tyler]

They are under exposed and I don't understand the hand print one? What is the meaning of that? Did she use sunscreen with a hand print and then go into a tanning bed or something? I'm just confused as the what they/you were trying to achieve?

Did you read the post?

 

[Robin Usagani]

it looks like kareem abdul jabar palming a basketball.

Maternity photo is very hard to do in a studio IMO. Very hard to make it look "tastefully" done. These dont work for me based on technique, pose and wardrobe.

 

[ababysean]

No I only read what was above, I did not read below. Sorry for that. But that is weird. oh well. nothing like cutting off blood flow to a part of the body to get the photo. lol

Either way, I do think they are a good start. just lacked in a bit of the technical stuff, like exposure. They seem to be comfortable in front of the camera, and that is important as well.

 

[Joel_W]

I read through the entire thread before commenting, especially since any type of portrait work is not what I do. So after reading the entire thread I went back and studied the photographs. In picture #1 her hair does in fact blend right into the background. So the suggestion of a hair light, or maybe using a different background color would work. In picture #3 she looks under exposed compared to the previous pictures, and in picture #4, the boy friend is under exposed more then she is. As for the hand imprints, that would be a subjective call by the clients.

 

[Sean1965]

How did you get the black background

 

[MLeeK]

as I look at these on my uncalibrated laptop (which shows blue, besides being way to bright...) I do see the exposure as what I am thinking maybe you are seeing? Is your monitor fully calibrated? My guess is that even though your color is good on your monitor it is still way to bright for editing.
In the image that I edited can you see the background as solid black or do you see some of the folds in the background?

I do think for a first time and in studio with only a black backdrop? They are really pretty well done overall. You have great basic images to work with, you just need to adjust your curves and exposure a bit. They are clean, clear and crisp. Could they have been better? Sure, but they are not bad by any means. You'll improve in every session you do.

 

[Joel_W]

I'm on a laptop as well. I use a calibration chart to set the gamma black scale by tilting. Once set, I made a plastic angle guide to reset the screen each time to the same angle.

I can see in all the pictures vertical lines in the back drop, and a slight variation in the black of some of the folds.

 

[honoryourlife]

Why does the camera have any bearing on what is wrong with the images? The camera doesn't make the decisions on how to expose the image in manual mode, you do.
It's underexposed. That comes from the settings you chose and how you chose to expose the image.
Your settings on the one I edited are ISO 250; f/5; 1/200 shutter. I am not too sure what your lighting kit is but from the name you give of it I am guessing it's a cheap light set. They aren't much power so combined with your settings that would tell me you needed to raise your ISO to about 640 to 800 to have properly exposed the image.

I'm asking, because you mentioned something about the print sizes. I know my exposures were off.

Its a Camray light kit ($1,200), pretty cheap as far as lighting goes.

They are under exposed and I don't understand the hand print one? What is the meaning of that? Did she use sunscreen with a hand print and then go into a tanning bed or something? I'm just confused as the what they/you were trying to achieve?

They are underexposed, it was just a random/neat idea. No, it was a hand pressed lightly on her stomach. It was just a different idea to try.

Wow. Lol. He specifically stated how he got the handprints..

^This.

They are under exposed and I don't understand the hand print one? What is the meaning of that? Did she use sunscreen with a hand print and then go into a tanning bed or something? I'm just confused as the what they/you were trying to achieve?

Did you read the post?

Clearly not.

it looks like kareem abdul jabar palming a basketball.

Maternity photo is very hard to do in a studio IMO. Very hard to make it look "tastefully" done. These dont work for me based on technique, pose and wardrobe.

Schwetty, I leave it up to them on what to wear and how to pose.

And I agree, maternity photos are very hard to do. But as for it being my first one and my first "studio" type shots, I think these are alright.

No I only read what was above, I did not read below. Sorry for that. But that is weird. oh well. nothing like cutting off blood flow to a part of the body to get the photo. lol

Either way, I do think they are a good start. just lacked in a bit of the technical stuff, like exposure. They seem to be comfortable in front of the camera, and that is important as well.

You should read.

I read through the entire thread before commenting, especially since any type of portrait work is not what I do. So after reading the entire thread I went back and studied the photographs. In picture #1 her hair does in fact blend right into the background. So the suggestion of a hair light, or maybe using a different background color would work. In picture #3 she looks under exposed compared to the previous pictures, and in picture #4, the boy friend is under exposed more then she is. As for the hand imprints, that would be a subjective call by the clients.

Thanks.

How did you get the black background

Black Muslin Backdrop, lower exposure. Too high of an exposure and I could see too much of the backdrop (folds, bright color, etc). I didn't want that.

as I look at these on my uncalibrated laptop (which shows blue, besides being way to bright...) I do see the exposure as what I am thinking maybe you are seeing? Is your monitor fully calibrated? My guess is that even though your color is good on your monitor it is still way to bright for editing.
In the image that I edited can you see the background as solid black or do you see some of the folds in the background?

I do think for a first time and in studio with only a black backdrop? They are really pretty well done overall. You have great basic images to work with, you just need to adjust your curves and exposure a bit. They are clean, clear and crisp. Could they have been better? Sure, but they are not bad by any means. You'll improve in every session you do.

I don't edit. I'm going to start trying it though. Thank you.

I'm on a laptop as well. I use a calibration chart to set the gamma black scale by tilting. Once set, I made a plastic angle guide to reset the screen each time to the same angle.

I can see in all the pictures vertical lines in the back drop, and a slight variation in the black of some of the folds.

Interesting.