Half way through the busy season...

[EJBPhoto]

Haven't posted here in forever so figured I would post some recent images from this fall's sessions. It's been a busy year- tiring but a lot of fun.

All shot with the 5d, 85 1.2, at around 1.2.

Thanks for looking! Happy to answer any questions or get settings.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. Singing Taylor Swift for me...

8.

9.

11.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

 

[ErectedGryphon]

Some very nice work, don't much care for that distracting band running through the middle though.

 

[EJBPhoto]

Some very nice work, don't much care for that distracting band running through the middle though.

It's a watermark. It is meant to protect your images from clients saving them off of your blog, and to protect your clients from internet predators. It is a necessity for children's photographers- I'm not sure if you work with children.

Always open to CC, although CC on the watermark seems a bit trivial! Especially on the professional forum where professionals understand clients stealing work is a prevalent problem today.

CC on the actual art is always very appreciated though.

 

[Derrel]

I have no idea why 1,8,13,and 16 are framed as horizontals. Same with 9, with the family under the pier; by framing them horizontally, it makes them appear smaller and less significant.

 

[mrodgers]

It's a watermark. It is meant to protect your images from clients saving them off of your blog, and to protect your clients from internet predators. It is a necessity for children's photographers- I'm not sure if you work with children.

Always open to CC, although CC on the watermark seems a bit trivial! Especially on the professional forum where professionals understand clients stealing work is a prevalent problem today.

CC on the actual art is always very appreciated though.

Hard to give CC on the actual art when all the eyes see is a watermark band running through the photo drawing the eye to it.

I'm pretty sure people on here understand what a watermark is. It is very distracting, especially this one, and detracts from enjoying the photos or giving CC.

A perfectly acceptable comment in my opinion from ErectedGryphon. There are two choices, put a distracting watermark so that no one will bother looking at the photos, or chance that someone is going to steal a small jpg from the internet.

 

[bigtwinky]

I don't find the watermark THAT distracting and in fact find it way less distracting than other watermarks I have seen here. I guess I'm not zen enough to get into the CC trans that most people get into here and can't be distracted by anything. I try and see it as white noise, learn to look around it!

Oh wow, look at that nice image... oh wait, I can't see anything anymore there is this darn watermark that totally destroys it. Seriously.

Without turning this into a watermark debate...

I love the bokeh on these images, its simply outstanding.

I wont go through and comment on all, as there are too many for that. I'm also not a pro and don't have the expertise to shoot things like this, so that kinda limits what I can say

4- I'm wondering how being slighty more to the right in this image would of worked, which would of allowed to see both eyes. While the framing is great, being a portrait of a kid, the eyes and establishing more contact with the viewer is important.

5- I absolutely love the framing in this one and the texture of the tree.

9- While I agree with Derrel with the horizontal framing of 1, I like the horizontal framing of 9. It allows for better use of the peer and the lines and tunnel effect it creates.

15- is just precious.

 

[MACollum]

I agree with bigtwinky; the watermarks are not THAT much of a distraction. I love the photos and had no trouble "looking through" the watermarks. I can't go as low as f/1.2 but now I want to try some portraits wide open on my 50mm 1.8!

 

[Felix0890]

If you are being distracted by a simple transparent watermark, consider getting some medication for ADD . . . a professional is not going to post up his work for the world to download at their hearts' content.

The shots are beautiful! This made me want to buy that lens hehe. Do you have any tips on getting those bright, reflective eyes (besides focusing on the eyes)? You capture them so beautifully. I do agree that some should be vertical to bring more attention to the family, but only 9 would really benefit form this, IMO.

 

[[Dillz]]

11 and the last are awesome! Couldn't be any better! Great job.

 

[Rekd]

Those watermarks are distracting from the complete picture, so to speak. They remove the initial wow factor you'd get when seeing them for the first time because your eye focuses on the watermark instead of the composition. Then you kind of just look at it for a second and think to yourself "Oh, yeah. That's pretty good."

Pictures that make more people literally say "wow" don't have the distractions like that. Look in the Put Up or Shut Up thread.

Anyone can see the composition after examining it for a second or three, but they don't get the feeling they would get when seeing the picture for the first time instead of the watermark.

Know what I mean?

IMNSHO, a talented photog shouldn't put something that gawdy across nice shots like that, especially if said photog were in a forum full of professionals asking for critiques on their work.

It is meant to protect ... your clients from internet predators. It is a necessity for children's photographers- I'm not sure if you work with children.

Orly?

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Howard Johnson's last weekend (went to Disneyland for my 15 year anniversary. Kids had more fun at the mini water park at the hotel than they did at Disneyland. We could have saved hundreds!!), and I've been using children in my work for years. Never heard of watermarking your child picts to "protect them from predators" before. Releases? Check! Not showing faces or "distinguishable" features? CHECK! Watermaking? Uh. Newp. :er:

Heck, most of your watermarks aren't even over the the children's eyes. Perhaps if you used one of those black bands across their eyes like they do on America's Funniest Home Videos it would "protect" them better?

Seriously, I'm just poking fun. You know your stuff is good and we know you're just here to garner praise from your peers. You'll have better luck wowing some of the real talent here if you either post un-fubar'd fotos or reduce them to a size you'd be comfortable with having people, um, steal.

As for a critique on the actual shots, there are several heads chopped off that probably would be better if left intact, or if you truly were trying to get the faces isolated, chop the necks off, too. 3 should simply show the entire head.

Really like the DOF on the baby feet. The cropping should be horizontal on that one.

 

[rubbertree]

beautiful!!
#3 though... wow. So much wisdom in those eyes!

 

[EJBPhoto]

Those watermarks are distracting from the complete picture, so to speak. They remove the initial wow factor you'd get when seeing them for the first time because your eye focuses on the watermark instead of the composition. Then you kind of just look at it for a second and think to yourself "Oh, yeah. That's pretty good."

Pictures that make more people literally say "wow" don't have the distractions like that. Look in the Put Up or Shut Up thread.

Anyone can see the composition after examining it for a second or three, but they don't get the feeling they would get when seeing the picture for the first time instead of the watermark.

Know what I mean?

IMNSHO, a talented photog shouldn't put something that gawdy across nice shots like that, especially if said photog were in a forum full of professionals asking for critiques on their work.

It is meant to protect ... your clients from internet predators. It is a necessity for children's photographers- I'm not sure if you work with children.

Orly?

I'm no lawyer, but I did stay at a Howard Johnson's last weekend (went to Disneyland for my 15 year anniversary. Kids had more fun at the mini water park at the hotel than they did at Disneyland. We could have saved hundreds!!), and I've been using children in my work for years. Never heard of watermarking your child picts to "protect them from predators" before. Releases? Check! Not showing faces or "distinguishable" features? CHECK! Watermaking? Uh. Newp. :er:

Heck, most of your watermarks aren't even over the the children's eyes. Perhaps if you used one of those black bands across their eyes like they do on America's Funniest Home Videos it would "protect" them better?

Seriously, I'm just poking fun. You know your stuff is good and we know you're just here to garner praise from your peers. You'll have better luck wowing some of the real talent here if you either post un-fubar'd fotos or reduce them to a size you'd be comfortable with having people, um, steal.

As for a critique on the actual shots, there are several heads chopped off that probably would be better if left intact, or if you truly were trying to get the faces isolated, chop the necks off, too. 3 should simply show the entire head.

Really like the DOF on the baby feet. The cropping should be horizontal on that one.

Your posts are incredibly negative. I've been a member here for 3 years, from the moment I picked up my camera and was shooting in automatic mode. I'm hardly someone that is here for praise from my peers- I'm a member of many forums and my membership here existed long before I even knew how to operate a camera. You're more than welcome to look back at my original posts and see my progression and questions. I've never been one to post out of ego. I can't tell you I'm here for CC- I think you understand as a professional who shoots a lot, at a certain point you can CC your own photos quite well. I'm here to share with the community, to be one of the few children's professionals who posts in this forum (most tend to work in other genres), and to share inspiration for posing and newer photogs. i'm here because I think it is helpful to have photographers on all different walks posting in this forum, and because it is fun to share. Why are you here? I have a hard time believing, with all of the hot air, that it is purely for critique of your images.

With all that said, I am not at all opposed to good CC. I welcome it happily, always have. But to say I'm here to look for compliments seems silly and superficial. I'm here for the same reason other professionals are here. I'm sorry my watermark is so offending to you- I truly suggest you consider opting out of my threads in the future as I feel you will be utterly disappointed every time as I will always include a watermark. It's understandable that not everyone enjoys every single thread and I completely respect your right to not read mine. I do think you are completely absurd to say that a talented photographer wouldn't watermark this work like this. It seems entirely simple-minded to judge talent on a watermark, but to each their own. Thank you for the valuable CC that you did offer. I'll understand your stance when you no longer offer CC in my threads. Certain threads on here aren't for everyone- unless I have something constructive to say I generally skip out on the threads that don't appeal to me.

To everyone else, thanks so much for the CC. It's hard because I have most pictures as vertical and horizontal for the client to choose- I just generally choose horizontal for my blog as I like the way it reads better. I definitely agree about the feet picture- would definitely have liked that as horizontal. Tried doing some cropping but didn't like the look in the end, but wish it had been composed better in camera. Twinky- great advice on 4. I definitely see that and am uphappy with the angle as well. I have a couple other similar versions but none I'm in love with.

About the eyes, it's mostly just getting a lot of light in the eyes. A lot of facing my subject into the sky, open shade, garages, etc. I occasionally dodge the catchlights only on highlight mode to bring the catchlights out a bit more. I hope that helps!!

The lens is fabulous- I absolutely adore it. It is just so magical and once you get used to shooting wide open, the more fun it gets. I guess I'm someone that needs a lot of BAM in my images, and I feel like this lens provides that. Sometimes I go too crazy with it and I actually think the picture would benefit from a more closed up aperture, so still always working on that.

Thanks for the CC and comments! Appreciate it!

 

[Christie Photo]

I don't understand the hang-up on the horizontal framing... especially here!! I can't imagine the first one framed vertically. You'd lose much of that wonderful background. You'd definitely loose that outdoor... that "orchard" feel.

Whether you realize it or not, you're picking up on the subtle leading lines created by the shoulder in 3 and 8, and by the hair in 16. These lines combined with the negative space afforded by the horizontal framing brings our eye right to your subject. Well done!

It looks like you had a tough time with the girl in 7, flat lighting and all. Neither of these images would be very strong on it's own, but putting them together like this is a creative solution. And, you did get her in 5.

All very nice.

 

[_rebecca_]

re: watermarks.... as someone who has had pictures of children "stolen" and used by others, I can definitely understand the need for it. Like it or not, it happens. Sometimes it can be very unpleasant. I will always use a watermark when posting pictures of little ones on-line and I consider it a "lesson learned". I think critiquing an obviously well-done photo based on something as trivial as a watermark is just petty.

Very nice collection! I find posts like this inspiring. There are a lot of ideas here I can keep in mind for myself to improve!

 

[zendianah]

Erin, I have always been a fan of your work and this time is no exception. I love what you do and you do it very well. Your DOF is amazing. How do you get your pics so tac sharp?