People First baby shoot

FrancisK7 · 06-04-2011, 06:41 PM

This morning I performed my first baby shoot ever. I normally don't do babies (no particular reason), but it really is a niche market for which there are few photographers in my area (that aren't boxed studios). I've been thinking of getting into it more seriously, and this was my trial run.

If I do go down this avenue, I will definitely need a new camera. The AF motor on my puny little K10D was way too slow. I've definitely outgrown the camera (had it for 4 years), might be time to upgrade to the K-5 (I already have good glass).

I'm definitely not too happy about all of them, but I have a few faves.

C&C very welcomed! Girls are 18 and 4 months old.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Thanks for looking!

**Fries** · 06-04-2011, 07:00 PM

Beautiful work!!! And with some humor to. The only one that didn't provoke any reaction with me was nr. 13 witch is quite a dull picture that doesn't relate anything.

FrancisK7 · 06-04-2011, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Fries

Beautiful work!!! And with some humor to. The only one that didn't provoke any reaction with me was nr. 13 witch is quite a dull picture that doesn't relate anything.

Agreed 100%. The client insisted on it, apparently there's a personal story behind this type of shot and the place. It's my least favorite, by far.

Thanks for the feedback

FrancisK7 · 06-05-2011, 07:03 PM

^^^^^^

twitch · 06-05-2011, 08:41 PM

Fantastic pics. The only suggestion I have is that the umbrella catchlights in the first picture are a distracting only because they are obviously umbrellas.

**Schraubstock** · 06-05-2011, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Fantastic pics. The only suggestion I have is that the umbrella catchlights in the first picture are a distracting only because they are obviously umbrellas.

Hi
Agreed! My niece's three children were photographed by a so called "professional" and all of them had three catch lights in their eyes, most annoying. When I reprimanded the profi over this he said "go jump".

I always make sure there is ever only one reflection in their eyes and if it is very pronounced (as in yours) I soften them in Photoshop and even make them a wee bit smaller sometimes. This is the beauty of modern PP.

I have taken the liberty to "fiddle" with the baby and please tell me what you think. Above all else, I hope you are not upset with me for mucking around with your image it was not done to upset you but to illustrate the point I made.

Greetings

FrancisK7 · 06-05-2011, 09:53 PM

Personally, I find the catchlight of an umbrella to be less distracting than a ringflash or even a beauty dish (as you see in picture #7). I love the light a BD gives me, but I notice its catchlight a lot more. Even in #9, I still prefer it over #7.

Schraubstock, I do understand what you mean and I am not offended at all. I am about to order softboxes very soon. Considering their size and price at first, umbrellas and a BD served me just fine. But I know nothing beats the boxes for light. Before I preferred to invest in better glass, and I didn't really have the space for softboxes. Now I got the room and the money, so I should be leaving umbrellas behind very soon (except for exterior/mobile shoots I imagine).

DSims · 06-06-2011, 04:01 AM

Your pics are fabulous.

Your logo is rather distracting, plus it keeps moving all over the frame. I think one or two standard locations might be better. Perhaps a more translucent logo would be better on the photos, whereas the bright blue should be nice on something like your business card. (But since you're getting the customers you can't be too far off in what you're doing!)

FrancisK7 · 06-06-2011, 09:39 AM

DSims: You probably meant it as a negative, but I kind of like that you find the logo is distracting. My rationale is this: I've seen logo that are huge and take 10-15% of the frame, which isn't the case here, but my watermarked shots are used for web sharing (facebook, blog, e-mail) and after two years of doing it, people started to recognize the logo and immediately associate my name with it. It has definitely gotten me some commissions.

Is it distracting to the point of taking away from the subject, though? That is the question. I used to place it in a corner, but I find it does its job better when placed in negative space , as if it were an ad. None of my clients ever complained about it (I do provide a DVD with unmarked photos for very low resolution prints (4x6" or wallet size), whereas anything bigger than 4x6" must go through me.)

I don't charge a lot compared to boxed studios in my area (350$ for a one hour session, with two 8x10 and five 5x7 plus wallet sheet, whereas my competitors charge 500$ for less) but I should mention I am a 25 years old full time university student and only shoot professionally full time during the summer. It's definitely the high season right now. A great time to re-orient my business' niche.

I do thank you for your feedback, I will try reducing the logo's opacity to 50% and see if it has the same impact, or simply using the initials in the box for a more subtle look!

DSims · 06-08-2011, 01:38 PM

If any of your clients can give you more feedback on this that would be helpful, to prevent going down the wrong path when things are going well.

Your idea of reducing the opacity sounds like it might be good. Perhaps the whole logo should be reduced in size instead, or in addition. But I'm not so sure about just going with the initials. That sounds like a bad idea - at least until you become a household name, where potential new clients will recognize it immediately!

FrancisK7 · 06-08-2011, 01:41 PM

Well, someone talked about this to me today as well... it used to be in the corner.

I'll have to experiment, I definitely don't want things to be a turn-off!

FrancisK7 · 06-08-2011, 02:13 PM

If you reload you'll see new logo placement. Let me know what you think!

DSims · 06-08-2011, 02:31 PM

I think it is probably better. The logo had actually become a part of the photo - which actually was compelling, in a strange sort of way - filling up the empty space. Now the photos will have to stand on their own.

#6 almost looks like a different photo now, causing me to really see the image more, rather than just getting a certain impression.

What you did is similar to what I've been advised by experienced professionals, and is what I was thinking of. I do believe it looks more professional, if that is what you're seeking.

And for the record, I find #13 interesting (though perhaps not compelling), as I'm guessing the client did. I think it shows a strength that you were able to produce this shot for the client, despite it not being your personal taste.

FrancisK7 · 06-08-2011, 02:34 PM

Unless I'm running a special promotion, I usually only include 2 or 3 prints and a DVD with the watermarked pictures for websharing.

The issue I've had in the past is I had clients use these pictures to make prints. They'd either clone the logo out (badly) or when placed in a corner, could be easily hidden in a frame. Of course, anyone who knows PS will clone ANY logo out just fine. Reducing the web images to 72dpi and a bigger logo fixed the issue, but even with a smaller logo, 72dpi is still too little for any quality prints whatsoever. So there really is no need for the logo to be so big, nor do I want it to be a turn-off.

06-08-2011, 02:31 PM	#13
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	I think it is probably better. The logo had actually become a part of the photo - which actually was compelling, in a strange sort of way - filling up the empty space. Now the photos will have to stand on their own. #6 almost looks like a different photo now, causing me to really see the image more, rather than just getting a certain impression. What you did is similar to what I've been advised by experienced professionals, and is what I was thinking of. I do believe it looks more professional, if that is what you're seeking. And for the record, I find #13 interesting (though perhaps not compelling), as I'm guessing the client did. I think it shows a strength that you were able to produce this shot for the client, despite it not being your personal taste. Last edited by DSims; 06-08-2011 at 02:41 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upgrade from K20d to K-7/K-r to shoot video of upcoming baby?	K206	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	02-17-2011 09:16 AM
People Baby Human and Baby Tiger	iqbal	Photo Critique	5	12-08-2010 03:55 AM
do I need more stuff to shoot my baby ?	dreamfall	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	54	11-15-2010 06:12 AM
Baby shoot	Ash	Post Your Photos!	25	08-20-2009 02:53 PM
Baby Christmas Shoot! C&C Please!	Sarahbell	Post Your Photos!	4	12-23-2007 11:38 PM

06-04-2011, 06:41 PM	#1
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474	First baby shoot Lens: Pentax 35mm limited macro Camera: Pentax K10D Photo Location: Montreal ISO: 100 Shutter Speed: 1/180s Aperture: F8 This morning I performed my first baby shoot ever. I normally don't do babies (no particular reason), but it really is a niche market for which there are few photographers in my area (that aren't boxed studios). I've been thinking of getting into it more seriously, and this was my trial run. If I do go down this avenue, I will definitely need a new camera. The AF motor on my puny little K10D was way too slow. I've definitely outgrown the camera (had it for 4 years), might be time to upgrade to the K-5 (I already have good glass). I'm definitely not too happy about all of them, but I have a few faves. C&C very welcomed! Girls are 18 and 4 months old. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Thanks for looking!

06-04-2011, 07:00 PM	#2
Fries Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Gauw Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,582	Beautiful work!!! And with some humor to. The only one that didn't provoke any reaction with me was nr. 13 witch is quite a dull picture that doesn't relate anything.

06-04-2011, 07:06 PM	#3
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Originally posted by Fries Beautiful work!!! And with some humor to. The only one that didn't provoke any reaction with me was nr. 13 witch is quite a dull picture that doesn't relate anything. Agreed 100%. The client insisted on it, apparently there's a personal story behind this type of shot and the place. It's my least favorite, by far. Thanks for the feedback

06-05-2011, 07:03 PM	#4
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	^^^^^^

06-05-2011, 08:41 PM	#5
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Fantastic pics. The only suggestion I have is that the umbrella catchlights in the first picture are a distracting only because they are obviously umbrellas.

06-05-2011, 09:28 PM	#6
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Originally posted by twitch Fantastic pics. The only suggestion I have is that the umbrella catchlights in the first picture are a distracting only because they are obviously umbrellas. Hi Agreed! My niece's three children were photographed by a so called "professional" and all of them had three catch lights in their eyes, most annoying. When I reprimanded the profi over this he said "go jump". I always make sure there is ever only one reflection in their eyes and if it is very pronounced (as in yours) I soften them in Photoshop and even make them a wee bit smaller sometimes. This is the beauty of modern PP. I have taken the liberty to "fiddle" with the baby and please tell me what you think. Above all else, I hope you are not upset with me for mucking around with your image it was not done to upset you but to illustrate the point I made. Greetings Last edited by Schraubstock; 07-24-2011 at 11:43 PM.

06-05-2011, 09:53 PM	#7
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Personally, I find the catchlight of an umbrella to be less distracting than a ringflash or even a beauty dish (as you see in picture #7). I love the light a BD gives me, but I notice its catchlight a lot more. Even in #9, I still prefer it over #7. Schraubstock, I do understand what you mean and I am not offended at all. I am about to order softboxes very soon. Considering their size and price at first, umbrellas and a BD served me just fine. But I know nothing beats the boxes for light. Before I preferred to invest in better glass, and I didn't really have the space for softboxes. Now I got the room and the money, so I should be leaving umbrellas behind very soon (except for exterior/mobile shoots I imagine).

06-06-2011, 04:01 AM	#8
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Your pics are fabulous. Your logo is rather distracting, plus it keeps moving all over the frame. I think one or two standard locations might be better. Perhaps a more translucent logo would be better on the photos, whereas the bright blue should be nice on something like your business card. (But since you're getting the customers you can't be too far off in what you're doing!)

06-06-2011, 09:39 AM	#9
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	DSims: You probably meant it as a negative, but I kind of like that you find the logo is distracting. My rationale is this: I've seen logo that are huge and take 10-15% of the frame, which isn't the case here, but my watermarked shots are used for web sharing (facebook, blog, e-mail) and after two years of doing it, people started to recognize the logo and immediately associate my name with it. It has definitely gotten me some commissions. Is it distracting to the point of taking away from the subject, though? That is the question. I used to place it in a corner, but I find it does its job better when placed in negative space , as if it were an ad. None of my clients ever complained about it (I do provide a DVD with unmarked photos for very low resolution prints (4x6" or wallet size), whereas anything bigger than 4x6" must go through me.) I don't charge a lot compared to boxed studios in my area (350$ for a one hour session, with two 8x10 and five 5x7 plus wallet sheet, whereas my competitors charge 500$ for less) but I should mention I am a 25 years old full time university student and only shoot professionally full time during the summer. It's definitely the high season right now. A great time to re-orient my business' niche. I do thank you for your feedback, I will try reducing the logo's opacity to 50% and see if it has the same impact, or simply using the initials in the box for a more subtle look!

06-08-2011, 01:38 PM	#10
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	If any of your clients can give you more feedback on this that would be helpful, to prevent going down the wrong path when things are going well. Your idea of reducing the opacity sounds like it might be good. Perhaps the whole logo should be reduced in size instead, or in addition. But I'm not so sure about just going with the initials. That sounds like a bad idea - at least until you become a household name, where potential new clients will recognize it immediately!

06-08-2011, 01:41 PM	#11
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Well, someone talked about this to me today as well... it used to be in the corner. I'll have to experiment, I definitely don't want things to be a turn-off!

06-08-2011, 02:13 PM	#12
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	If you reload you'll see new logo placement. Let me know what you think!

06-08-2011, 02:34 PM	#14
FrancisK7 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 474 Original Poster	Unless I'm running a special promotion, I usually only include 2 or 3 prints and a DVD with the watermarked pictures for websharing. The issue I've had in the past is I had clients use these pictures to make prints. They'd either clone the logo out (badly) or when placed in a corner, could be easily hidden in a frame. Of course, anyone who knows PS will clone ANY logo out just fine. Reducing the web images to 72dpi and a bigger logo fixed the issue, but even with a smaller logo, 72dpi is still too little for any quality prints whatsoever. So there really is no need for the logo to be so big, nor do I want it to be a turn-off.