Would you pay for these? If not what would make you?

Yes I would buy them. I used to do portraits, although you won't find any to look at since I quit quite a few years ago should you look, and now I only do wildlife for my own enjoyment. Now here is my critique of each photo since I think you can take it objectively but remember this is just my critique and everyone likes something different. In the first photo I think I would have chosen a little different composition and centered the baby's face more since the photo seems to be more heavy on the right side, and the baby is face on. I like the lighting on the baby's face but I think a dark vignette may have worked here so your eye is drawn to the baby's face and not looking at the rest of the photo. You have posed the baby perfectly IMO and could not really be improved upon. The second photo the only things I would change may be the composition, there seems to be too much dead space on the right side of the photo and maybe the angle of the basket to show more of the baby's face. The lighting in the second one is perfect and I like the dark vignette since it draws your eye to the baby IMO. All in all very nice images and I think most mothers would like them and buy them since I think these are very sellable photo's.

Talaska wrote in post #16474418
Yes I would buy them. I used to do portraits, although you won't find any to look at since I quit quite a few years ago should you look, and now I only do wildlife for my own enjoyment. Now here is my critique of each photo since I think you can take it objectively but remember this is just my critique and everyone likes something different. In the first photo I think I would have chosen a little different composition and centered the baby's face more since the photo seems to be more heavy on the right side, and the baby is face on. I like the lighting on the baby's face but I think a dark vignette may have worked here so your eye is drawn to the baby's face and not looking at the rest of the photo. You have posed the baby perfectly IMO and could not really be improved upon. The second photo the only things I would change may be the composition, there seems to be too much dead space on the right side of the photo and maybe the angle of the basket to show more of the baby's face. The lighting in the second one is perfect and I like the dark vignette since it draws your eye to the baby IMO. All in all very nice images and I think most mothers would like them and buy them since I think these are very sellable photo's.

Awesome! So thorough, thank you!!!

I am going to redo the pp on one. Will be back!

Would I pay for them? Heck no, I'm a photographer, I'll shoot my own, thank you.

Do I like them? I do, I think they are quite well done. At first two thing threw me off. The shallow DOF and the tone of the images. The lighting, focus, even composition are quite acceptable to the point that slight changes would be for taste.

The DOF, especially on the first, is a bit too shallow for my taste. And I like shallow DOF. But the eye is drawn to the face and that is well lit and quite sharp with a good amount of defining shadow.

The tone of the images - mostly earth tones, brown, muted yellows, is interesting but I would expect more pastels for babies. Again, I personally like the tones in anything but baby portraits. Again, personal preference.

Would I recommend you? Sure, why not. The images show some thought as well as technical ability. Posing, color tones, mood can be quickly determined by the parents for their child.

I'd say, nice work.

Titus213 wrote in post #16474482
Would I pay for them? Heck no, I'm a photographer, I'll shoot my own, thank you.

Haha, I said the same thing to the lady that came around the morning after she was born! They want big cash for SOOC jpg's shot on a hospital bed sheet... No thank you.

Thanks for your input! I agree with the tones being out of the norm, which is what I, the Dad, wanted. Mom got all her pink and frilly stuff too

I agree with the others that think any tweaks that might be made would be just a matter of personal taste. It sounds like you had "satisfied customers" all the way around.

navydoc wrote in post #16474708
I agree with the others that think any tweaks that might be made would be just a matter of personal taste. It sounds like you had "satisfied customers" all the way around.

Thanks for the input! We are satisfied yes

chubbyone wrote in post #16473928
I'll probably get some grumbles for this, but anyways, rant incoming:

So when I post here I know I open myself to critique from people of all levels of skill and experience. I am a beginner at this and need the feedback to keep learning. One thing I do lately tho, is before I blindly follow the recommendation of others, I try and find photos by them which speak to there level of skill. That way I can know whether or not to really put too much weight (and valuable time) into reworking something based on poor advice.

So tmoore, I did look up your flickr ( https://www.flickr.com​/photos/47401703@N06/p​age1/ ) and I'm not saying this maliciously, but I did find a lot of your photos to be a bit underexposed on my monitor and too be frank poorly composed. I usually wouldn't bring this up but I did find it a touch comical given your critique.

So, my monitor and iPad are maybe set a bit dim, and I do prefer a brighter photo personally. All of this contributes. Preference is such a huge part of this art form. I guess all this useless banter is just me being a poor sport about your comment, of course that's not my intent but probably hard to believe otherwise.

If you wouldn't recommend me based on poor exposure and composition, I would at least expect you to have those concepts grasped yourself.

/rant

We are all here to learn, and I appreciate your feedback as I've learned a lot from this site...

On your edit look at the histogram, not just your monitor your pushed far to the right, I will use the first one as my example:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And here is what I would do with your picture:

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1259.photobuck​et.com …uteInfant_zpscb​0f77bd.png

tmoore323 wrote in post #16477522
And here is what I would do with your picture:

IMAGE LINK: http://s1259.photobuck​et.com …fant_zpscb0f77b​d.png.html

If you want to call out some specific examples from my page, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, many have been up here for critique before..

Remember, you specifically asked if "you" would pay for these, as family memories they are great, as a paid shoot IMO they are not...

/rant

I think this is overdone. I prefer the original image over this one. A little more contrast to the original would be great

Would I pay?
As a generic answer? Yes, because of the many reasons listed by the users here.
There are many good things here, excellent even.
Personally, would I pay?
Heck no. I do not see 'cuteness' in what is after all just a food processor!!!

Photography is a hobby of mine, so I am not a professional, but I did just have my first child and I would be very happy to pay for photos like yours!

tmoore323 wrote in post #16477522
And here is what I would do with your picture:

IMAGE LINK: http://s1259.photobuck​et.com …fant_zpscb0f77b​d.png.html

If you want to call out some specific examples from my page, I'd be happy to discuss them with you, many have been up here for critique before..

Remember, you specifically asked if "you" would pay for these, as family memories they are great, as a paid shoot IMO they are not...

/rant

I'd rather not get into further critique of your work here. I do find your edit too contrast and oversharpened. The skin looks spray tanned and shadows are harsh.

CanonVsNikon wrote in post #16478505
I think this is overdone. I prefer the original image over this one. A little more contrast to the original would be great

Agreed.

Rongnongno wrote in post #16478574
Would I pay?
As a generic answer? Yes, because of the many reasons listed by the users here.
There are many good things here, excellent even.
Personally, would I pay?
Heck no. I do not see 'cuteness' in what is after all just a food processor!!!

Haha yea, I didn't necessarily mean pay in the sense of buy as an outsider just to hang on your wall. That would be weird. But if this was your food processor, would you?

KBruley wrote in post #16478606
Photography is a hobby of mine, so I am not a professional, but I did just have my first child and I would be very happy to pay for photos like yours!

Thanks! Congrats on your little one, this is our first too!

Personally I like them both. I have a 21 week old myself so I am just learning baby posing as I go along (not a professional photographer).

The only thing I would say is the second one with regards to composition, I would probably have positioned everything further to the right in the frame but that's just personal taste. What I find when posting photos of my little guy on this forum is you cant please everyone. A perfect looking shot to one person may look average to the next. Some people like certain processing and others don't, you just have to get to a point where you are happy with it. If I had taken those two shots of my son I would be more than happy, good work.

Fair enough, like said cute kid - but we will leave it at that..

Congratulations!

I really like the second one, but the first one the head looks detached from the body. Not sure if it is the narrow depth of field, or the fact that the image is so light in color, but something seems a bit off to me. I am by no means an authority on photography of any kind, I just know what I like!
Congratulations on an adorable little sweetheart!