Baby Portraits (first attempt) Printing advice needed

[Resin42]

I shall check em out. Thanks

 

[RebelTasha]

Like them all, I love that you didnt' cut the kiddies fingers off in any of them..
I don't like the version though that the dad picked out I prefer the ones in your OP.. but that's just me..
Awesome and refreshing shots though!!! (Which is strange since loads of people do shots like this but yours are just refreshing for some reason!)

 

[Resin42]

Hehe cool, thanks.

 

[momofthing1and2]

those pics are awesome! I am sure it helped to have a subject as stinking cute as him though!

 

[Chewbecca]

Maybe it's my eyes or my monitor, but the first and fourth ones tend to look slightly yellow in the face?
They are excellent shots!

 

[Resin42]

those pics are awesome! I am sure it helped to have a subject as stinking cute as him though!

Without doubt.

quote=Chewbecca;1401732]Maybe it's my eyes or my monitor, but the first and fourth ones tend to look slightly yellow in the face?
They are excellent shots![/quote]

I don't see it myself, the white balance is certainly different in these two. If anyone else can see this please let me know.

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

1 is really cute, good lighting, expression etc. Could use some color pop. I edited it, but it may be too sharpened in thiss version because the version i copied from here was very small. But just an idea on what you can do to bring out the color.

The second and 3rd have bad lighting/are snapshotty. The 4th is OK... especially if you used a pop up flash? You don't have harsh shadows which is nice, but the catchlights are really small and unflattering.. also the background could be touched up some.

 

[Resin42]

Ah, now we're talking! Proper nitty gritty. I was kinda hoping you'd reply actually.

Nice edit, was that colour balance or did you do something else?

As for the 2 and 3 I can see why you'd say snapshotty, I'd rather call them candid. They were taken in direct sunlight although it was at an angle rather than face on. I did kind of like the shadows and did boost the contrast to make more of them. My main problem was getting him to look at the camera, he's 9 months old and not remotely interested in any attempt by me to get his attention. How do you do it? I ended up taking 300 odd shots in 20 minutes and hoping something would work.

So are strong shadows less desirable in baby photos? I guess parents just want to see their little one's face and aren't concerned with much else.

The last one I did use a flash gun but it's rubbish and can't be adjusted! It has a bounce card on it and I also bounced off the white ceiling. Would you suggest making the catchlights bigger? I can now see what looks like a stain on the bottom left, is this what you mean or are you meaning something else in the background?

Ha! Many, many questions! You've made a rod for your own back here. I can't see me ever doing a lot of this kind of thing but I'd like to be able to do a decent job if called upon and obviously I want to give these parents the highest quality I can.

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

For the edit, I popped the color by balancing the color, fixing the exposure and saturating.

As for them being "candid"... ya, I guess you could mince words. I trhink childrens portraiture is more about taking a few awesome shots than taking 300 and hoping for the best. It goes with having an idea in mind and executing it- Bringing bubbles, or a chair or prop, etc. Planning, and executing, knowing your light, how to use it, how to interact with the child, and really just having the picture in your mind before hand, and then following through on it.

Its not that strong shadows are less desirable in baby photos, it is about using them appropriately. In 2, its more a lack of eye contact or lack of connection in the photo than anything. Its not interesting. The shadows come second fiddle to that, I think. If I had 1 and 2 in front of me, I would only be showing one of those to the parents , and immediatly I would toss number 2. 1 is strong and the same pose and same setting, same clothes etc. Close enough that I would pick the stronger photo and ditch the other.
Here's one of my son where the light is not directly in his face, but I chose the direction purposefully to get a nice backlighting.

#3 might have worked had you tried to back light him. That shadow of the leaf across his face just seems distractable to me and not really... showing the viewer anything.

As for #4, I can't tell you much about in regards to alternative lighting since I don't use any myself. The bakcground where its wrinkly and weird, might be better cloned out so its uniform. And yes, (for me) I might make the catchlights better in PS. I really love a good catchlight.

 

[Resin42]

I daresay the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I really liked 2 and 3 but the parents didn't go for either of these shots which I suppose entirely prooves your point. I did bring a bubble gun along but he ended up staring intently at the bubbles that fell on the grass and looked almost depressed.

I see what you mean about the back lighting here. If I had taken the shot you've posted I'd have been worried about blown highlights and the grass being too bright but it obviously really works here. I suppose this is the difference experience brings and how well you know your trade. If I get the chance to do this again I think a damn sight more forethought will be necessary.

This is all invaluable advice, I really appreciate it. I think I'll spend the next couple of nights touching up the two keepers I have and re-examining the rest of the shoot to see if there's anything else in there.

Thank you.

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

Happy to see someone take CC so well and to heart I look forward to more of your work

 

[Resin42]

Sorry to keep battering on in this thread but I really want to get this right.

I'm processing the shoot from scratch, (hopefully better). The parents want 8x10 prints so I'm cropping accordingly. My problem is the sharpness, obviously the sharpen tools are less effective at this resolution so how do you prevent your prints coming back to you soft? Is there an effective technique for sharpening at this size that doesn't leave the images looking, well over-sharpened? I'm struggling to find a middle ground.

[edit] resizing to 2000x2500 allows much more effective use of sharpening, is it worth submitting for printing at this size, (still substantially bigger than the minimum requirements) or will this have a noticable impact on the prints?