mommy-medic
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 113
- Location
- Atlanta
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
deleted
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
what he said.... beautiful workI would think about starting to work in square format. I am pretty sure I could take all six of those images and crop them to square format, as if they had been shot on a a Rolleiflex TLR (1928-1985), or a Hasselblad (1948-2012) or a Bronica SQ (197x-2000), and make them look like classic, old-timey baby photos made with film and professional, square-format cameras of the past eighty years.
#1.. lighting is ok. This is one of those times when a Horizontal format would have worked. You have a horizontal subject.
#2.. pose just looks weird! I would even say ugly. Almost deformed with the feet out there like that. Sorry.. just my opinion!
#3.. Dead space, and a incoherent subject (the mother may like it... but as a non biased observer.. MEH!)
#4.. very doll like.. . interesting! You need to seriously back off on the eyes though, the kid looks severely stoned or possessed.
#5.. That cloning / busy bokeh in the background is not pretty... very distracting. Highlights on the face are too bright too. I never have cared for this washed out Fake Vintage look anyway, but have see it done much better.
#6.. Looks like you used the Blur too a bit too much, focus is in and out in odd places. Eyes are strange again, and looks like slight coon eyes.... needed fill.
I agree about the horizontal crop and will give that a try. I think I ordered this one in a 24x30, so the print version of this has less void room at the top. The newborn pose is a current popular "trend", and while awkward, is often requested (and a favorite of) clients. Just working on my composite shots. As for the baby with the apples, I didn't alter her eyes, not sure what to "back off" of. Nor did I add any blur- I used a shallow DOF, hence the OOF areas in the foreground and background. In hindsight I need to step it down a bit to allow more to be in focus, but it wasn't done in post processing. #6 had fill- note the catchlights. Here is another of her notoriously big eyes
(again with too shallow a DOF- still learning):
that was a 50 mil charlie, read exif lazy man. lol
that was a 50 mil charlie, read exif lazy man. lol
I did go to Flickr and read the Exif.... since it was not in the shot she posted. And yes.. a 50mm... but WHICH 50mm? Cause that is either some REALLY bad cloning (probable) or some of the ugliest bokeh I have seen a 50 1.4 produce.
Probably bad cloning- the top left corner was the only cloned spot though. The rest of it was as-shot on a Nikkor 50 1.4. I didn't brun the edge of the iris- those are her eyes. As they are. If you go on flickr and open the image in it's full size you can see it.