Chubby-cheeked baby C&C!

Z3phyr · Aug 20, 2012

I have never really photographed people at all. I always find myself looking at plants, animals, cars and architecture more than anything else, but at the rate everyone in my family is popping out kids, I'm going to need to get acquainted with the human kind sooner rather than later.

I took these two yesterday as my niece was crawling around and taunting my dogs with their favorite ball. In the first, she was crawling, and I was standing, so I held the camera in front of her and hoped for the best without being able to see through the viewfinder. I know the focus could use some improvement, her forehead got chopped off (as I couldn't really see where I was aiming the camera), and the depth of field is just a hair too shallow... I think? I know people like soft baby photos, but I think she could benefit from a bit more detail. I'm not great at retouching in photoshop which is why I didn't bother to try to remedy the red spot on her forehead where she had been sleeping on her face. Anyway, any other tips are welcome!

jowensphoto · Aug 20, 2012

First, try turning the camera into portrait (vertical) orientation. Landscape can work for some portraits, but there's a reason it's called what it is. The first photo, not sure of your EXIF, but you could stand with a smaller aperture. The eyes and nose are in focus and ears nicely blurred, but it's a bit too soft for my personal taste.

Second, watch your backgrounds. If your lens is not capable of distorting the BG to remove distractions, you should change angles or other adjustments within the shooting environment. The baby is in focus, as far as technical concerns go, but isn't really the focus of the photo, if you know what I mean; I see the dogs, a foot, someone picking at their foot... I'd say this is one for the recycle bin.

Z3phyr · Aug 20, 2012

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I couldn't agree more on the first one. The color seems ever so slightly out of whack in #1 to me, but I could be overanalyzing. She seems kind of greenish rather than a nice healthy pink. Then again, my work monitor isn't particularly great either.

The second one is definitely not one I'd put in an album. We were just all piled in the living room chatting, so I'm obviously lacking a favorable backdrop! If I were half way decent at photoshop, I'd try to remedy the legs in the background. I was trying to keep the dogs in the frame because they were so focused on the baby since she stole the prized ball. I was going to scoot over a bit more behind her, but she can't really crane her neck around any more and still be comfortable. As far as the baby goes, I think the exposure is right and color is a bit better in the second than the first. I just wish there weren't random human limbs strewn about the frame.

Stradawhovious · Aug 20, 2012

Z3phyr said:
The second one is definitely not one I'd put in an album.

Let me preface this with "I'm not tyring to be an ass"

There. Now that that's out of the way....... If this is a shot that you would definately not put in an album, why would you post it here to C&C?

Here is what I've found to be the most helpful on this forum. Give these guys what you feel is your best to critique. Let them pick it apart, and learn from what they have to say. If you post up photos that you know could use improvement based on your current skill set, it says to the folks here that you are not working to use the tools you have learned to get the best shot you can.... If people feel you have that mindset they are far less likely to offer helpful critique.

Again, not trying to be an ass.

That said, #1 is cute, but like was mentioned, really suffers by having the poor kid's head cut off. #2 looks very snapshotish to me, but based on your comments you feel the same way.

Keep shooting, keep posting!

Z3phyr · Aug 20, 2012

Stradawhovious said:
Z3phyr said:

The second one is definitely not one I'd put in an album.

Click to expand...

Let me preface this with "I'm not tyring to be an ass"

There. Now that that's out of the way....... If this is a shot that you would definately not put in an album, why would you post it here to C&C?

Here is what I've found to be the most helpful on this forum. Give these guys what you feel is your best to critique. Let them pick it apart, and learn from what they have to say. If you post up photos that you know could use improvement based on your current skill set, it says to the folks here that you are not working to use the tools you have learned to get the best shot you can.... If people feel you have that mindset they are far less likely to offer helpful critique.

Again, not trying to be an ass.

That said, #1 is cute, but like was mentioned, really suffers by having the poor kid's head cut off. #2 looks very snapshotish to me, but based on your comments you feel the same way.

Keep shooting, keep posting!

No preface needed. Critiques are welcome whether there is something positive mentioned or not. How else am I going to improve if I don't try to see things through different eyes as well as my own. I should have cropped the second photo down to only the baby as that is the part that feels so foreign to me. When I tried that initially, I just didn't have enough resolution/clarity to pull it off in that picture, but the current form isn't really working either. Oh, if only I had the resolution of a D800!

The second photo is definitely not a portrait I would print for obvious reasons. I guess I just find myself torn as to what direction to go with kids. I typically prefer crisp, sharp photos with great clarity, but I see so many baby portraits that are so smooth, soft, and ever so slightly over exposed. I guess I should have explained the specific questions or direction I was looking for in the initial post--whodathunkit?

Assuming I cut the baby out of photo 2 and plopped her in front of a nice backdrop, what could be done to improve the shot of her and her alone? I see soft eyes, soft skin, but overall a decently exposed kiddo. I'd like there to be more definition, clarity, and contrast around her eyes, but I'm afraid it will make the rest of her look too harsh. Tweaking the contrast a bit may help, but I don't want to lose the baby fat wrinkles either.

I guess I don't really have a question in this post at all as I just realized I'm kind of thinking out loud. My apologies. Thanks for the insight however.

jowensphoto · Aug 20, 2012

Z3phyr said:
Assuming I cut the baby out of photo 2 and plopped her in front of a nice backdrop, what could be done to improve the shot of her and her alone?

Reshoot. Something as simple as background should not be done in post, since you know, you can do it in camera. Not 100% of the time, but definitely a lot of the time, you can tell that something has been C&Ped into a photo.

MTVision · Aug 20, 2012

Z3phyr said:
No preface needed. Critiques are welcome whether there is something positive mentioned or not. How else am I going to improve if I don't try to see things through different eyes as well as my own. I should have cropped the second photo down to only the baby as that is the part that feels so foreign to me. When I tried that initially, I just didn't have enough resolution/clarity to pull it off in that picture, but the current form isn't really working either. Oh, if only I had the resolution of a D800!

The second photo is definitely not a portrait I would print for obvious reasons. I guess I just find myself torn as to what direction to go with kids. I typically prefer crisp, sharp photos with great clarity, but I see so many baby portraits that are so smooth, soft, and ever so slightly over exposed. I guess I should have explained the specific questions or direction I was looking for in the initial post--whodathunkit?

Assuming I cut the baby out of photo 2 and plopped her in front of a nice backdrop, what could be done to improve the shot of her and her alone? I see soft eyes, soft skin, but overall a decently exposed kiddo. I'd like there to be more definition, clarity, and contrast around her eyes, but I'm afraid it will make the rest of her look too harsh. Tweaking the contrast a bit may help, but I don't want to lose the baby fat wrinkles either.

I guess I don't really have a question in this post at all as I just realized I'm kind of thinking out loud. My apologies. Thanks for the insight however.

I agree with the above poster. That's a lot of work to cut and paste onto a new background - an make it look real. Plus I don't see it as being an improvement. It's a cute snapshot that i'm sure the parents will like. But it's definitely not worth the time and effort of replacing the background.

paigew · Aug 20, 2012

Cute baby, love her teething necklace

. Agree with what everyone else said. You need to reshoot this beauty for sure!

Z3phyr · Aug 20, 2012

MTVision said:
I agree with the above poster. That's a lot of work to cut and paste onto a new background - an make it look real. Plus I don't see it as being an improvement. It's a cute snapshot that i'm sure the parents will like. But it's definitely not worth the time and effort of replacing the background.

That wasn't the intention. It's a cluttered background, and I'm not going to fuss with trying to magically teleport her to some divine setting. I just want to know how the baby looks. If you ignore every aspect except the child, what improvements could be made in the future that would make her look best? I know the setting, depth of field, and general environment of the photo affect its final composition and quality as much as the subject itself, and I think we can agree this one picture is nothing more than cute. That said, she's already home which is 5 hours from here, so I'll have to practice with the other children around in the meantime--plopping her squishy baby rolls in another setting is out of the question until their next visit.

I also just realized that I never mentioned my camera or lens, but I took those, obviously in a very casual setting, with my D7000 and 35mm f/1.8. I was using mostly natural light as our house has some huge windows, but I did use an SB-400 reflecting off of the walls/ceiling for some fill light. I have a 70-200 in the mail on its way to me as I type this that I'll be able to utilize in the future.