Holy Cuteness!

[sarah_19_nz]

Full crit please... took these as a favour for my best friend... let me know what I need to improve etc etc. You know the drill.

 

[Granddad]

A VERY apt title. I can't think of any criticism at the moment (maybe you'll get some stick for the hair sticking up in #2 but I write that off, she's a baby, immaculate coiffeur is unnatural). I'm not usually interested in baby photos but I like these and I'd call them excellent. Love the crisp white of the dress, like the headband thing (which I normally hate with a passion) and the string of pearls is a brilliant prop.

VERY WELL DONE! :thumbup:

 

[DanOstergren]

I really love the soft lighting, and you said it perfectly with your title! The exposure is right on as well. My only critique is over the vignette. A vignette can sometimes compliment a shot, but in these photos I find it distracting. Almost gives it the appearance of a cheap lens being shot with a wide open fast aperture, and to me it doesn't compliment the shot.

 

[frommrstomommy]

I saw these last night but I was mobile.. so waited til I was at my computer to comment. These look fantastic Sarah! I don't often like what flash does to portraits.. but this looks soft and not like the baby was flashed to death. What was your lighting setup?

 

[tirediron]

I would have to say that #3 ranks as one of the best baby photos posted on TPF in a very long time! Excellent work.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Wow thanks everyone!!!! I am soooooo chuffed with the comments here! Absolutely made my day


The hair sticking up: I was going to edit it out but decided it was just cute as it was, adds character to the pic.

The vignette: Now that I look at it, you are right, perhaps a little distracting, it was actually a texture overlay applied in PP. Thanks for the tip.

Lighting setup: 2 large softboxes, down low and on either side of the camera on slightly differing powers, although you can't really tell that they were. They were more or less 45 degrees angled to bubs.

Thank you all So happy right now, feel like I might be 'transitioning' to the next stage (as far as studio portraits go anyway)

 

[jowensphoto]

I would have to say that #3 ranks as one of the best baby photos posted on TPF in a very long time! Excellent work.

I have to agree! Very nice.

 

[HL45]

I would have to say that #3 ranks as one of the best baby photos posted on TPF in a very long time! Excellent work.

I have to agree! Very nice.

Ditto!

 

[TimothyJinx]

Great job, Sarah! These are all really, really nice!

 

[amolitor]

I am going to differ, here.

I think the lights are too big, too close, and ratio is too much 1:1. You've transitioned from softness over into flatness. The catchlights in the eyes are much too big. Look at her eyes in #3, they look almost like she's got silver contacts in. The flatness and the grey background seem to me to give this a sort of somber feeling.

That said, there's a lot of excellence going on here as well.

Basically these are still very cute photographs with a lot to like. The poses are sweet, the accessories are excellent. You've framed them well (surely a royal hassle given an even slightly mobile kid, and all that stuff to toss around -- and out of frame!). Focus etc look nice.

 

[ktan7]

Extremely cute baby photographs! Thanks for sharing!

 

[sarah_19_nz]

I am going to differ, here.

I think the lights are too big, too close, and ratio is too much 1:1. You've transitioned from softness over into flatness. The catchlights in the eyes are much too big. Look at her eyes in #3, they look almost like she's got silver contacts in. The flatness and the grey background seem to me to give this a sort of somber feeling.

That said, there's a lot of excellence going on here as well.

Basically these are still very cute photographs with a lot to like. The poses are sweet, the accessories are excellent. You've framed them well (surely a royal hassle given an even slightly mobile kid, and all that stuff to toss around -- and out of frame!). Focus etc look nice.

I did question the catchlights being too big, so perhaps more appealing if I had the soft boxes a bit further away? also you say its more flat than soft light so do you think having one light even less power than the other? or just position it/them differently? Thanks for the crit!

 

[amolitor]

Further away will definitely make the catchlights smaller, and will also un-soften the shadows to an extent, so it's a bit of a balancing act.

For lighting ratio, you can just turn one of the lights down a bit, or move it further back, or some combination. You might even turn it DOWN a stop, and then move it IN a little to get some of your one-stop of minus back. A more dramatic lighting ratio will give you more depth, a more three dimensional look. Too dramatic, of course, and it's not the soothing soft baby-lighting you want. You don't want it to look like some 1940s era noir film! So, that's another balancing act.

I will let wiser heads make suggestions on positioning.

 

[CherylL]

Number 3 is beautiful! Love those chubby legs too.

 

[sashbar]

To balance things a little - I really do not like it when babies are being decorated with adults jewelry etc. To me aestetically babies are beautiful by default, they are not Christmas trees. Other than that and rather gloomy gray background - very nice.