A few newborn from a recent session

J

JimPMM

Messages
372
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
They're utterly charming, beautifully lit & processed, even if the styling is bit of a marmite thing.
Out of interest, What focal length did you use? It may be that the little gem was naturally chubby cheeked but the colour ones look a bit wide-angley if that makes sense.
 
juggler said:
They're utterly charming, beautifully lit & processed, even if the styling is bit of a marmite thing.
Out of interest, What focal length did you use? It may be that the little gem was naturally chubby cheeked but the colour ones look a bit wide-angley if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for the comments.
Yep, makes sense Simon. What about the processing is marmite in your opinion (not saying you're wrong about that at all, just curious! I do think that often we are all too close to our own style and processing to see when it's gone that little bit too far)?
I use 35mm most of the time (all apart from the last one above are at 35mm, last one is 85mm). I have applied lens correction in LR though, so shouldn't be any added chubbiness from that! She was a real little chubby one though.
 
JimPMM said:
Many thanks for the comments.
Yep, makes sense Simon. What about the processing is marmite in your opinion (not saying you're wrong about that at all, just curious! I do think that often we are all too close to our own style and processing to see when it's gone that little bit too far)?
I use 35mm most of the time (all apart from the last one above are at 35mm, last one is 85mm). I have applied lens correction in LR though, so shouldn't be any added chubbiness from that! She was a real little chubby one though.
Click to expand...

It's not the processing but the styling...This is really personal, what you've done is great. I don't get why you'd put a baby in a basket. Or why they'd be naked but for a hat. I'm not sure what the alternative is; it seems to be what the newborn market demands.
 
Really like these Jim and there's a good bit of variety on a theme. I understand the comment Simon makes, as some people don't get the naked baby in a hat shot, but then they are equally very popular, the punters want it. Guess it's the cute perspective. My other half doesn't seem to like the naked baby shot either.

I am a little unsure about 35mm though. I personally do think there is still a little additional unwanted distortion at that focal length but I don't suspect anything too dramatic that a client could tell. Interested to see a comparison. I used both 50 and 85 at the weekend but I most always prefer the 85 unless it's half length portrait.

Our little one is 12 days old today and I so desperately need to get the beanbag shots done, though I am away with work this week, so looks to be Friday night or the weekend. If I can come up with anything nearly as good as these, I'd be happy.
 
Baby in buckets and hands from nowhere.... Proper marmite :D

Agree with Kris on the lens. These are lovely but you've done your little chap no favours with distortion.
 
Thanks for the comments guys - I always appreciate the different points of view on this forum!

Yes, there's a 'punters want this type of shot' element to it, with the hats and buckets, etc. And that's not to say I don't agree with you from a logical point of view (why on earth would anyone put a baby in a bucket?!) but I like the shots from the cute side too, which helps the creative process. Ditto for the naked baby shots. The market does love them though - funnily enough it does appear to be women unreservedly love these type of shots whereas guys tend to love them but also apply the logic bit to them and 'see' the technicalities more - again, neither way is a bad thing. I am consciously trying to keep to the more natural end of things and not overload an image with props.

Lens distortion is no doubt there a tiny bit - I usually just apply the standard correction profile in LR, but I guess I just have to try and get back that little bit further - difficult as I'm usually right up against the octabox for these shots. I love my 35mm but it's concerning me a little that distortion is so easily picked up by viewers...

Thanks also for the kind words - I'm pleased with where we've got to in terms of quality, and hope to keep improving. I'm finally confident in our ability, which helps as well! This forum has provided a lot of help in improving to this point, and it will no doubt continue to do so.

Cheers
Jim
 
These shoots normally go one of three ways....Very good, bad or really bad. There is no real middle ground IMO and yours are lovely..... BUT it's just not for me :D
 
JimPMM said:
I love my 35mm but it's concerning me a little that distortion is so easily picked up by viewers...
Click to expand...

..easily picked up by viewers who happen to be working on their own portraiture skills and are sensitive to that kind of thing. Your customers may well not notice.

AIUI the lightroom distortion correction is intended to correct optical lens distortion, not the perspective distortion resulting from the use of a wide angle lens.
 
WEll Jim.... If it's marmite, then I have changed my opininon on that awfull stuff. But I for one like them and my Mrs was oooh n are'ing when I had them on screen. Personally I love the poses, makes a chang from all the norm. Well done from me anyway!
 
Hi Jim, Just wondering how you have lit these? Planning on doing a beanbag shoot tomorrow but torn between trying to use the limited window light I have or strobes. Problem with the strobes is that they're still too powerful at lowest power to get somewhere around f2.8. I do want to achieve a nice shallow DOF.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Hi Jim, Just wondering how you have lit these? Planning on doing a beanbag shoot tomorrow but torn between trying to use the limited window light I have or strobes. Problem with the strobes is that they're still too powerful at lowest power to get somewhere around f2.8. I do want to achieve a nice shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

I would use strobes every time unless you've got really good window light - I just find it easier to know I'm in control of it and it's one less thing to have to think about when doing newborn sessions.

Lighting for the above is as follows (for all apart from the B&W, then substitute beauty dish for the octabox and remove the reflector to allow for more dramatic shadows):
Large (120cm) octabox camera left 2 - 3 feet from baby, as low as possible so angled downwards slightly and about 30 degrees from camera axis. Silver umbrella behind and right, about 4 feet from baby and 45 degrees from axis, about 5 foot high pointing down toward baby, feathering slightly so angled a little bit towards background. Large white or silver reflector camera right to just push a little light back in to the eyes and chin. I use a home-made beanbag frame which helps a lot with speed of setup and reliable positioning and background clamping.

My flashes are the older Lencarta Smartflash which are great for this as they don't push out as much power at the lower settings.
Most of the newborn stuff we do is at f/3.2 or f/3.5 (occasionally f/2.8) at 1/160sec and usually its exposed pretty well SOOC. If you're still getting too much power from the flashes I think your only option really is to add a filter to reign it in a bit.

Hope the above helps and makes sense! I must remember to do some pullback shots on the next session as they are quite useful (for me too, to see where I went wrong!).
Regards
Jim
 
JimPMM said:
I would use strobes every time unless you've got really good window light - I just find it easier to know I'm in control of it and it's one less thing to have to think about when doing newborn sessions.

Lighting for the above is as follows (for all apart from the B&W, then substitute beauty dish for the octabox and remove the reflector to allow for more dramatic shadows):
Large (120cm) octabox camera left 2 - 3 feet from baby, as low as possible so angled downwards slightly and about 30 degrees from camera axis. Silver umbrella behind and right, about 4 feet from baby and 45 degrees from axis, about 5 foot high pointing down toward baby, feathering slightly so angled a little bit towards background. Large white or silver reflector camera right to just push a little light back in to the eyes and chin. I use a home-made beanbag frame which helps a lot with speed of setup and reliable positioning and background clamping.

My flashes are the older Lencarta Smartflash which are great for this as they don't push out as much power at the lower settings.
Most of the newborn stuff we do is at f/3.2 or f/3.5 (occasionally f/2.8) at 1/160sec and usually its exposed pretty well SOOC. If you're still getting too much power from the flashes I think your only option really is to add a filter to reign it in a bit.

Hope the above helps and makes sense! I must remember to do some pullback shots on the next session as they are quite useful (for me too, to see where I went wrong!).
Regards
Jim
Click to expand...

Many thanks for that Jim, very helpful. I had put the beanbag in front of our large bay window and it isn't soft enough light or well positioned to work. Was planning on having a softbox directly above with a reflector below so wasn't thinking of a light from behind so will set that up too and compare. She seems most placid first thing in the morning so will set up tonight for a quick session tomorrow morning. Thanks once again.
 
Great set of images Jim, and very well done. I'm liking all of them very much but for me the clear fav' would be the first (B&W) shot. Apart from the delightful expression on the child's face I think those tiny fingers against the much larger hands is an excellent touch.(y)

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