The first two are interesting, but kind of creepy. You're very close in, with what feels like it might be a moderately wide lens, and you've done something to emphasize the daylights out of the eyes. They're kind of creeping me out, but they're definitely *interesting*. I am going to assume that the overall light tones are a deliberate choice, as is the eye emphasis (sharpening? other local contrast changes?).
The light in the first one is quite nice, very soft, quite light tonally but you didn't lose the edge of the baby's face against the background (quite). The framing is very very tight, and the lens feels wide, to the perspective is pretty unconventional and not flattering per se. But definitely an interesting look.
The light is flatter in the second one, and you've done something to the colors which isn't very attractive. Some vintage filter, maybe? It looks like a cold toned photo that's aged badly. Again, tight framing etc. I assume all this is deliberate, so what we're left with is unconventional, somewhat interesting, not very flattering again. I don't think the color processing is very good -- it doesn't support the image in any way I can fathom, it just "looks cool".
The third one is much more conventionally framed, but the focus is noplace, and the framing is not very interesting. Even the exposure looks worse, things appear to be flatly blown out, not dancing around near blown-out. This one looks a lot more like a not terribly good snapshot. Maybe that one should get the vintage treatment?
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36679-b3112c1f4841912cbaa9edc11e6852fe.jpg?1734169174)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36676-cb11e40ab23f22c2a0af6fbf4ab02371.jpg?1734169174)
