A couple from yesterday's newborn session

cowboy said:
Very nice although in the first one it does look a little precariously balanced :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark. It is of course a composite - baby on the tray was taken separately on a wide stable box with dad securing baby the whole time, then combined with a shot of dad pushing down the scales to the correct weight :)
Actually, looking at it now I realise I didn't add in any shadow for the tray - does it need it?
Cheers
Jim
 
Thing that stands out for me is the very tight crops on them. Can you open them up a bit? They just don't sit right... I think it lets them down a bit. Sorry... But the lighting is lovely though. :)
 
sunnyside_up said:
Thing that stands out for me is the very tight crops on them. Can you open them up a bit? They just don't sit right... I think it lets them down a bit. Sorry... But the lighting is lovely though. :)
Click to expand...
Yep, I see what you mean Bethy - think I got carried away with cropping to get rid of things like dad's foot and vinyl edges and didn't think to add some space back in. Will give it a try later.
Thanks
Jim
 
Love the shots of the babies, and the props (as I think I have said in a previous post). I could be completely wrong here, and I'm only mentioning it as to me something doesn't quite look right with the second shot, as a whole. Could I ask if the prop and baby actually on the wooden floor when the shot was taken? It looks like 'baby and prop' have been PhotoShopped onto a separate shot of the background (or more specifically the wooden floor). In this one you have areas of out of focus floor which look like they should be within the DOF of the shot of the baby (so should be in sharp focus) - this isn't the case in the first shot where areas of the floor that you would expect to be in focus are. It gives a kind of 'floating' effect to the baby and prop, if you see what I mean, as the base of the prop is in focus but the floor isn't.
 
Thanks for the comments Ian - the baby and prop on the second one were definitely on the wooden (actually vinyl!) floor as per the shot in the second one (with the addition of dad's hand supporting baby's head, removed in PS obviously). There was a fairly small area on the right which needed PS attention as it contained dad's foot which could possibly be the issue with DoF? Otherwise, I think it's probably a combination of the lighting, processing and low DoF which makes it look almost 'cut-out' against a separate background. I do definitely see what you're talking about, it's a way of lighting that I'm getting used to using and quite liking so far as it does make everything kind of crisp in conjunction with the processing. Not eveyone's cup of tea I know, and that's understood and accepted!
Thanks
Jim
 
Thanks for the explanation Jim. It is the bit on the right, just in from the bottom corner where the paint is peeling off which I thought should be sharp. Maybe it's my eyes ! Keep up the good work, loving these shots.
 
Last edited:
JimPMM said:
I think it's probably a combination of the lighting, processing and low DoF which makes it look almost 'cut-out' against a separate background.
Jim
Click to expand...

They're absolutely charming.
The lighting on the children is lovely but the lack of shadows and depth of the props gives both images a distinct atmosphere which won't be to everyone's taste. I wonder whether lighting the props slightly differently from the babes would look better or just odd?

fwiw I like the styling of the first - putting a newborn on some scales makes sense - but not the second. I don't know why you'd put a baby in a garden urn. Perhaps I should have tried it with mine before he got too big?

Personal taste aside, I have to admire the fact that you've come up with an original style in a very crowded market.
 
Hi Jim,

I agree with all what is said before. Two great shots but they do look a bit 'floaty' on the background which is a shame as they aren't!

If I took these I would think my problem is the DoF. It looks like the sharp area/window whatever you want to call it ends on the subject as from what I can see at the bottom, the foreground looks to be in focus too (I think they call it front focusing or something). Maybe try to get your focus centered on the scales/urn?

Sorry I'm not up with the technical terms but I hope you get my drift.

I hope this serves to motivate rather than de-motivate as you are 99% there and these are better than most!

Happy snapping, Gary
 
juggler said:
They're absolutely charming.
The lighting on the children is lovely but the lack of shadows and depth of the props gives both images a distinct atmosphere which won't be to everyone's taste. I wonder whether lighting the props slightly differently from the babes would look better or just odd?

fwiw I like the styling of the first - putting a newborn on some scales makes sense - but not the second. I don't know why you'd put a baby in a garden urn. Perhaps I should have tried it with mine before he got too big?

Personal taste aside, I have to admire the fact that you've come up with an original style in a very crowded market.
Click to expand...

braveboy2012 said:
Hi Jim,

I agree with all what is said before. Two great shots but they do look a bit 'floaty' on the background which is a shame as they aren't!

If I took these I would think my problem is the DoF. It looks like the sharp area/window whatever you want to call it ends on the subject as from what I can see at the bottom, the foreground looks to be in focus too (I think they call it front focusing or something). Maybe try to get your focus centered on the scales/urn?

Sorry I'm not up with the technical terms but I hope you get my drift.

I hope this serves to motivate rather than de-motivate as you are 99% there and these are better than most!

Happy snapping, Gary
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments. To be honest I'm a little surprised at the reaction - not complaining at all just to be clear! I'm always open to advice, opinions and critique. I just didn't think the style was that different to the norm but clearly it is. I myself am in two minds about it - I do like it, it's clean and crisp, but as stated by Simon and Gary, it's probably not to everyone's taste, and I'm undecided about the DoF (which I think is the main cause of the 'difference' in look). hmmmm.......
As for the urn - this was a parent choice. I do offer a variety of props for this section of the shoot, and that's what they liked (they also wanted a suitcase shot but little Aria was having none of it!). I do absolutely get that some / many consider these prop shots cheesy but they are popular and let's not forget that we look at these as photographers - parents look at them as cute newborns being cute in cute situations and poses. I do generally do quite a bit of 'beanbag' work with the sleepy curled up more natural poses but this little one wasn't too keen on that. Maybe time to rethink my session process to get more of them.
Anyway, as always thanks - it's so good to be able to get someone else's opinion in a considered constructive way, which is generally the case on this forum. This has highlighted the fact that you can become so close when taking / processing images that you lose the 'everyone else' perspective.
Cheers
Jim
 
I think the lighting is awesome Jim. You've done a great job and would be interested to know how you lit them.

They do look like they're floating though. Especially the urn. Can see why people think they're 'shopped. I love the use of shallow dof usually so can't quite put my finger on it.
 
Thanks David - lighting was studio flash (Lencarta Smartflash) in 120cm octabox camera left about 4 foot away and with the centre 4 foot off the ground, approx 45 to prop pointing down at the prop, Yonguo 460II speedlite with silver umbrella camera right slightly further away at 45 degrees to prop, same height pointing down at prop. Power of the speedlight was pretty much balanced & equal to studio flash - this is the bit I did different as normal I'd have the speedlight lower powered to give a less even light and create some shadow on the right.
Both were shot on Canon 6D with 85mm 1.8 lens 1/160 sec at f2.5 ISO 100.
Hope this helps.
Jim
 
These are fab and way beyind what I could produce. They don't look cut out to me. Yes cropped a bit tight but hey ho thats not a deal breaker.

Gaz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top