Newborn shoot C&C please and thank you

[CorrieMichael]

1. 2.3.4.

 

[jowensphoto]

The poses are nice and natural. Much better than the baby-twisted-into-a-pretzal that popular now for some reason.

What did you do to the skin? Something about the post work seems... off. Also, are you calibrated? My monitor is showing the B&Ws as being quite green.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Pretty good.

#3, I would get rid the thing between her cheek and the baby's eye. I assume that is the baby's hand but it is better if you make it black.

 

[cgipson1]

I don't care for the lack of background separation in the B&W's... the mother's hair just disappears! Especially in #4. #3 has that huge spot of black in the hair above her forehead that just blends with the background. Looks like there need for a hairlight or rim light. There is also more shadow than is needed on the #4 on the mothers right cheek. Let me guess... Natural "Ambient" Light only, right? No reflectors? No fill flash?

#2... baby is soft.. happens often when shooting at F1.4.

#2 also had too much tilt... since they are the same baby, and the same support. It makes the baby look like it is uncomfortable, compared to #1.

I won't mention the overly tight framing on the B&W's...

 

[joshua_]

I like the first two pics of the baby.

Plus that's really a fun baby - lots of rolls and wrinkles. Fun little face.

The pics with mom seem like they are good, but like someone else said the background makes her hair look odd. I like the poses with mom.

 

[greenx]

I don't care for the lack of background separation in the B&W's... the mother's hair just disappears! Especially in #4. #3 has that huge spot of black in the hair above her forehead that just blends with the background. Looks like there need for a hairlight or rim light. There is also more shadow than is needed on the #4 on the mothers right cheek. Let me guess... Natural "Ambient" Light only, right? No reflectors? No fill flash?

#2... baby is soft.. happens often when shooting at F1.4.

#2 also had too much tilt... since they are the same baby, and the same support. It makes the baby look like it is uncomfortable, compared to #1.

I won't mention the overly tight framing on the B&W's...

Agreed about the #3 being a little too tight framed.

#2 is a little too tilted. I would have gone with a complete horizontal look to the baby.

Overall though as long as mom loves the pictures thats all that matters...

 

[cgipson1]

I don't care for the lack of background separation in the B&W's... the mother's hair just disappears! Especially in #4. #3 has that huge spot of black in the hair above her forehead that just blends with the background. Looks like there need for a hairlight or rim light. There is also more shadow than is needed on the #4 on the mothers right cheek. Let me guess... Natural "Ambient" Light only, right? No reflectors? No fill flash?

#2... baby is soft.. happens often when shooting at F1.4.

#2 also had too much tilt... since they are the same baby, and the same support. It makes the baby look like it is uncomfortable, compared to #1.

I won't mention the overly tight framing on the B&W's...

Agreed about the #3 being a little too tight framed.

#2 is a little too tilted. I would have gone with a complete horizontal look to the baby.

Overall though as long as mom loves the pictures thats all that matters...

Not if the mom knows anything about photography!

 

[CorrieMichael]

Thanks everyone

 

[manaheim]

I hate new baby photography. Hate it.

That said, I like the ones with mom. I understand there may be some issues with them compositionally, but I like the concept... particularly mom kissing baby. It feels very genuine, and I like that. None of the ridiculous "naked shrivel monster with giant ribbon flower deformity strapped to its skull" nonsense.

 

[thetrue]

Mana and Jess - I LOLed at both of your posts. Just thought I'd share.

 

[Derrel]

Not too shabby, Corrie!!! Did this set take five hours to shoot??? lol.

Agree with jowens and manaheim...no ridiculous "twisted-pretzel posed baby", and no "ridiculous 3-lb baby headband" nonsense. And NO ridiculous and dangerous, non-age-appropriate poses for the newborn either!!!

 

[CorrieMichael]

Not too shabby, Corrie!!! Did this set take five hours to shoot??? lol.

Agree with jowens and manaheim...no ridiculous "twisted-pretzel posed baby", and no "ridiculous 3-lb baby headband" nonsense. And NO ridiculous and dangerous, non-age-appropriate poses for the newborn either!!!

. This baby was EXTREMELY fussy! It wasn't much fun trying to get this little peanut to stay asleep he really did not want to be moved at all.....I got what I could when I could. Lol. The images of mom and babe are literally in between screams.....I was rushing which may have been some of my problem. All in all the session took 1.5 hours of photographing (no feeds in between~ I may have been able to get a few more if mom fed then I started again), and in total I got if I remember correctly about 55-65 edited images.
and thank you!

 

[thetrue]

You didn't sell the lot for $50, did you?

 

[Lmphotos]

#1 Is my fav I like soft looks with babes.....#2 the baby looks awkward to me and uncomfortable.

 

[Tee]

I like images 1, 3, and 4. In #2 (and #1), shooting at 1.4 proved to be a disadvantage because there's too much out of focus on the face to instantly see what's intended to be in focus. I know it's very shabby-chic to shoot as wide as humanly possible but with a nondescript background, stopping down would bring out more detail in the cute little face. Just my worthless $.02