Looking for feedback on pics

Took these shots of our 19 month old daughter a week or so ago.
Used a Canon Rebel t2i body with 50mm f/2.8 ISO 100 and 1/800sec were what these were all shot with.
Post processing mostly in Lightroom 4 and some resizing and sharpening done in cs6. I'm just looking for an overall opinion

Cute model, good shots. Probably not much you can do about the scenery it's a little distracting but it is tough to keep one so young engaged. And you got some great smiles and eye contact from her. Nice job!

Only real nitpick is that there is a slight green cast on her skin? Maybe play a little w/the WB?

Very nice though!

These are cute and pretty good, but way too much processing on the face. Back off a bit and these will be great.

^ Second the opinion. Kids have great complexions by and large. I wouldn't think of using Portrait Professional on them. Her face looks quite mannequin-like to my eye. Kind of freaky.

Great expression, though.

thanks guys, I'll definitely cut back on the skin softening tool

joedlh wrote in post #16771325
^ Second the opinion. Kids have great complexions by and large. I wouldn't think of using Portrait Professional on them. Her face looks quite mannequin-like to my eye. Kind of freaky.

Great expression, though.

Yep ^^! Love the pics in general. Face looks too smooth to me, almost like plastic. Other than that, great job!!!

Lovely child but I agree with what others have said - You've made her face look like a mask.

Again, great shots, exposure is nice and I like the composure but the skin is awful though, way to much PP on her face.

for some reason you are posting .png images, which are very big files - convert to more compressed jpgs?

Martin Dixon wrote in post #16772249
for some reason you are posting .png images, which are very big files - convert to more compressed jpgs?

PNGs support compression, and dimension-wise, these are not very big. For PNGs to display on the web, don't be scared to up the compression, and tick the *interlacing" option when exporting.

But agreed that these file sizes need to be smaller (compression needs to be applied). As for the interlacing for PNGs on the web, I believe it has to do with how browsers render bitmaps, and interlacing allows for some optimization in the rendering engine. This is why PNGs w/out interlacing seem to load slowly, line by line

^^ all points recalled from some vague memory on the topic

A quick Google refresher on the topic tells us this about interlacing:

W/out interlacing:
The image will be loaded line by line until the download is complete.

W/interlacing:
The image will fully display, but be fuzzy at first. Detail is loaded line by line until the entire file is downloaded.

So this is probably a compression issue more than anything.

In my experience, from my hosts, I always choose interlacing, and the highest compression level, and even very large files say 1920x1080 load in a split-second.

way too much processing on the face, imo, good composition and such

I agree with others, absolutely love the photos, but the processing on the face is overdone, would love to see the images with the no work done on the face, I bet they will be fantastic!