WhiskeyTango
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 286
- Reaction score
- 41
- Location
- Michigan (Detroit Metro)
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah, I knew the crop was too tight, but that was in-camera, so I couldn't do anything with it in post... I would like to have been about .8x on that and have pushed her head a little more left and down.I also love the second one. What a great, natural expression from the mother and the baby. The first one is cropped too tight. Sharp though.
Definitely thanks for the feedback!I had my AF point on the baby's closest eye, but it definitely isn't as sharp as the first photo. I'm guessing I either moved more than intended to before firing the release, or the mild noise reduction I did in post was too heavy handed.FWIW: The first shot was on a tripod, ISO 200. The second was handheld ISO 400.Let me preface this by saying I am a newbie as well, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. #1 - Baby is cute! The crop is too tight. You actually cut off a tiny bit of her ear. Her eyes look rather flat. I would like them to look brighter/less shadow on the upper face.#2 - From another baby wearer, I think this is adorable! However, it appears to be OOF to me.
Actual "backgrounds" are on my near-term wish list. That's my basement wall, and on my monitor is pretty close (just a bit more green in the image than real life). My monitor isn't high-end, but it is calibrated.WhiskeyTango#1 Compostion is off....#2 is a good one!...Not sure what color your background actually is but in the photo I think Ild like to see white if it was.
Wow! What a difference! Thank you for the insight!I had already cropped it, but only slightly. I didn't think about rotating it.WhiskeyTangoYou've heard about the first.I think the second is really nice.Very sharp, good color, a wee bit too bright I think.And, most of all, I think there's too much there.Rotating a bit and cropping will put both the mom and baby on the thirds and make a really nice tight shot.
JenR, thanks for the pointer! It is indeed a light on a stand. A shoot-through umbrella to be specific. Now that you point it out, the catch lights are a bit high. I will definitely play with it a bit.The models are my sister and her daughter, so there's plenty of re-shoot potential.WhiskeyTangoI'm not sure how you lit the first one. If it was a light on a stand, I would try lowering the light a smidge next time. You have a nice light ratio and good white balance. The first is underexposed, though. The Traveler gave you some great advice about your second shot.
WhiskeyTango said:Definitely thanks for the feedback!I had my AF point on the baby's closest eye, but it definitely isn't as sharp as the first photo. I'm guessing I either moved more than intended to before firing the release, or the mild noise reduction I did in post was too heavy handed.FWIW: The first shot was on a tripod, ISO 200. The second was handheld ISO 400.
The_Traveler said:You've heard about the first.
I think the second is really nice.
Very sharp, good color, a wee bit too bright I think.
And, most of all, I think there's too much there.
Rotating a bit and cropping will put both the mom and baby on the thirds and make a really nice tight shot.