Real Photography?

[thereyougo!]

When my wife and I have children, there will never be any of these baby in a sling/bottle shots. It's a taste thing. I hate them they make me feel nauseous. Cute photos are all well and good, but these just try way too hard to be cute. They are sickly sweet and for me they show very little personality of the subject, just that which people outside the photo want to give the subject. To me these photos are of a thing not a child. Like I say all about taste....

 

[enzodm]

personally I like the natural approach to things.. It said in the beginner threads to find your strong point and market yourself that way so since I wanted to focus on families I thought my question was okay..

Apart that there is nothing natural in photography as in any other human technology, "natural" is not a great selling point, since is the standard "approach" (or non-approach) of what I understood is called "craiglist photographer" or "facebook photographer". You will be one of many, many, many.
Snapshots are perhaps what is most close to a partial capture of reality, but if you want to sell something, it should be better than what anyone can do - snapshots, which are better taken when you live close all the day, and you may capture that specific moment you will see by chance. If you have a one hour time frame to take some professional picture, you simply cannot wait the convergence of all the coincidences that produce a good picture. So you provide them with your knowledge, including postprocessing. If you are good, no one will know it because in your image you will capture the reality as seen by people' eyes. Including making a baby looking good even if ugly. (we too do some postprocessing to our memories, remember it. The first girl I falled in love with was the most beautiful in the world - unfortunately I have a picture of her ).