The most photogenic baby I've ever seen

[Txaggie08]

She LOVES to be photographed

I'm also looking for opinions from the proffesionals, If I intend to add a signature into photos, say if I want to sell them, is the way I have done it here appropriate?

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

I would crop the first one differently. It isnt doing anything special for the picture by having them it the middle it seems like.
And did you add saturation to these or are her cheeks very red normally. Because if you want you can still saturate her clothing and surrounding but keep her skin the right color. It seems like her face is very red. Nive job though, she sure is cute.

 

[zendianah]

I agree with Kathi... The second one can be cropped a little tighter as well... She is a cutey though!! Nice job.

 

[NJMAN]

Regarding the signature, it needs some work in #1 and #3 because it blends in with the background too much. #2 works okay though. If you are using photoshop and you want to keep that text color, you can make it stand out by using an outer glow and maybe a drop shadow or slight bevel to give it some dimension. But you could also mix it up a bit and change your font color to suit difference backgrounds. As far as position of the sig, I think it is acceptable the way you have it. It should not be intrusive to the subject, and I hate it when people place them in the middle of the photo or in some way that distracts the viewer from seeing the composition. What other people do also is put a copyright on it, such as © Cory Watkins 2007. Then you are taking ownership for your work.

One more thing. If you matte and frame any of your photos, it is very effective to put your sig on the matte in the lower right.

Hope this helps.

NJ

 

[Txaggie08]

Thanks on the sig..


Her face is actually pretty close to that color in person under the conditions we were in. These were shot(kind of on the fly, and with a borrowed lens)at a water-play day at the school my mother teaches at(that's one of her pupils little sisters). I was hesitant to try to desturate them for fear of losing some of the feel for the picture....point blank it was hot and she was a happy, but hot, little baby .


Please keep criticism or complements coming, they only help me in the end, and I appreciate them all.

 

[Txaggie08]

So would a crop more like this one

work better do you think?

 

[The_Traveler]

The following is my opinion only. (and I asked the OP if she wanted to hear it)

These are now OK pictures for memory but they aren't 'finished'.

In each of them, the baby is placed almost abitrarily in the setting and there is lots of space that doesn't contribute to the composition.; each picture needs to be cropped to place the baby better in the frame. (and in #1, you need to minimize the problem of the mother's feet being clipped off by cropping so the the arms and the baby are the focus of the shot.) #3 is cropped to an off-size dimension with the least amount of space in front of the baby; I would recrop this so its in a standard portrait and leave as much space as possible in front of the child. (why crop to an non-standard dimension unless there is a good reason?)

In pictures 1 & 2 the baby's face is way underexposed. In #2 her face is several shades darker than her arms. Because her head is outlined against the OOF background this under-exposure can be corrected relatively easily, if not perfectly. (it will still leave her eyes in shadow but that's life)

IMO, you should make the attempt to correct some of the redness in her cheeks; it may be real but it draws a great deal of attention and, after all, we are editing the images.

(last and least - I wouldn't put the signature where it appears the subject is looking at it.)

 

[EJBPhoto]

I'm not an a professional by any means yet, but I am highly involved in the childrens photography community and I am going to go ahead and offer you some very candid CC because I would love to see you GROW.

1. Eye contact. There is no connection between you the photographer and your subject, the baby. Its hard to get from a baby, but its what the professionals are looking for.

2. They are underexposed by what I would guess to be about two stops.

3. I think your choice of an aperture is a poor choice. The back ground is too busy. Try shooting at a wider aperture- a lower number. I consistently shoot at f/1.8, f/2, f/2.2. It makes photographs more professional looking and the background less distracting- a creamy DOF puts the focus on the subject.

4. Your white balance seems off. There seems to be a red cast to the photographs- not only in the skin, but also in the shadows of the shirt in the second picture. Do you see? That can usually be fixed in post processing, and is easily fixed if you're shooting in RAW.

5. This is something you don't realize at first, but look at the shadow on her arm in the close up. See that? That's from shooting in open sun. Make sure you're shooting at the golden hours- in the morning right when the sun comes up and right when it is setting- or lower in the sky. It is POSSIBLE to shoot on a sunny afternoon, but look for open shade and try to avoid shadows just by looking at your subject and seeing if you see them.

A few pros would be that you did a good job following the rule of thirds for the most part, the interaction in the one with Mom and daughter is very sweet, and the focus looks good, although it's hard to tell since they're not too close up.

Sorry to be very tough, but we all start somewhere! I would love to see your next batch!

**Make sure you get Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It's a MUST read for all photographers. It is just silly not to read such a tool of a book. It is probably and easily the most well known book for photographers to use to learn from. **

 

[Txaggie08]

Unfortunatly for me, that lens was not capable of anything less than F5(it was a cheap 75-300 I had to borrow) And I was a LONG way off from the baby taking those pictures. I considered bringing the exposure up, but I think my monitor may not be calibrated properly, they look awful if I bring it up anymore.....

The red cast- didn't pay close enough attention, but I do see what your mean. I'll be working on that and the baby's face over the next couple of days.

The sun was another factor I had ...little control over. These were shot without a plan, I actually went out to photograph this event for my mother , and had little to no chance to prepare(as I said, I was even using a borrowed lens...). They were in an open field, and I relly couldn't ask them to move. Her grandmother was watching her and I'lld snap a picture when I could catch one .

Some of the background issues with those may also be that I was panning in a burst mode , I know what that tends to do to backgrounds.


BTW, traveler....to many "s"s, it's "he",l ast time I checked at any rate (I'm just ribbing you.)


So let me ask this question. If I end up in this very spur of the moment situation again, what mode should I be in? I was shootig these in AV(aperature variable) because I've always been able to produce beter pictures than sports mode(or automatic), but my lighting was changing erratically(we'd go from bright sun, to cloudy, and even back in doors occasionally). I usually shoot macro and portraits in manual or this mode, Was I incorrect in my assumpions(the photography class I took was focused more on macro photography of artifacts for archaeological purposes, I've never been very good with sports shooting...)