Cute!
Cute baby, but I can't see too much of her. I would get rid of the fuzzy thing. I think it detracts from the baby. Three months is a hard age to shoot. So tiny, hardly strong enough to hold up their head.
I do like the black and white one better than the color, but I'd like to see the whole face. Maybe prop the baby's face up on her hands laying on a smooth blanket. Good detail in those close ups!
Thank you so much Snappy and Tim...
I did her at five weeks and indeed it was easier. I had no clue that 3 months is something to work on...
Here is one last pic of this session. Yesterday it seemed OK to leave her nappies on, today I wonder if we should have had her without them...
I like the above shot you did photocat, except for the nappy, if it had been a cloth nappy it would have been nostalgic.
I met my 3 mo old grandson for the first time at Thanksgiving. I mostly saw him in the company of someone. Here are a few.
My flash battery was going out, the colors I guessed at (I didn't like the blk and white as much though I have one), but his arm shows that the flash was not working that well, I like the arm moving. The "old" person is my youngest daughter, her first time seeing her nephew.
This one was a hit, but I am sure it was not what you were going for. It is called multi tasking. I thought it was funny and snapped it. His father is holding him, drinking water, the boy holding the baby's hand is the baby's cousin.
Father, my son, Jon, and baby, Ian
I have more, the baby was always with someone. Sometimes I used him just as a vehicle to get a picture of the person the baby was with. I have seen some great shots of a three month old, but I would not know how to get them to you to see. They were taken by the son of a woman in my dog club. I have not seen them for awhile. He took a gazillion photos of the child, weekly it seemed. I don't remember what he did.
The photo you took with the nappies reminds me of those babies with flowers that are/were so popular. You might look at some of her stuff. Just go into the book store and look, don't need to buy anything.
I took a close shot of his head, too. I don't like those. I don't know why, other people seem to do it. I wish I had a close up of his hands and feet. I was only with him during large family groups. I did take lots of photos of the babies of my daughter above, at that age, natural light from a window while the baby was in a bounce seat, etc. Those were good, however I have no idea where they are now.
I would work from the direction of the nappy shot.......no nappy, lol.
g (look at that book to see how she deals with the nudity) You may be able to find some of the photos online. I don't know her name.
Photocat, I like the colors in that nappy shot, love them, actually. The whitish background, the white towels, then the color of the baby. So good, I would use that again.
Photocat, I like the colors in that nappy shot, love them, actually. The whitish background, the white towels, then the color of the baby. So good, I would use that again.
g
Thanks Ginger for your feedback... very good idea to have an oldfashioned nappy with me...
Your grandson is so pretty... Sounds like you hd a good time with your family
They just bother me when the heads seem larger than the baby's head. When I took natural light pictures of Sara's babies in the bounce thing, I was very tight, didn't want to show any background, and they worked, I know that, but the one I took over Thanksgiving didn't.
I think I put blur on it, rather than take the rash off of his face. The up close photos I am seeing here, including mine, I think all the babies could be intercangeable. The one's taken by the dog owner's son who seems to be an excellent photographer, he was very tight, but his shots somehow showed the babies personality.
ginger
I will try to get his web site address and lift one. The baby is older now, though.
Rutt's yours is a bit better as you are showing expression in the baby's face, but I still think it is kind of generic. That is just my opinion.
Comments
Cute baby, but I can't see too much of her. I would get rid of the fuzzy thing. I think it detracts from the baby. Three months is a hard age to shoot. So tiny, hardly strong enough to hold up their head.
I do like the black and white one better than the color, but I'd like to see the whole face. Maybe prop the baby's face up on her hands laying on a smooth blanket. Good detail in those close ups!
Susan Appel Photography My Blog
Great work!
Tim
Speak with sweet words, for you never know when you may have to eat them....
I did her at five weeks and indeed it was easier. I had no clue that 3 months is something to work on...
Here is one last pic of this session. Yesterday it seemed OK to leave her nappies on, today I wonder if we should have had her without them...
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
I met my 3 mo old grandson for the first time at Thanksgiving. I mostly saw him in the company of someone. Here are a few.
My flash battery was going out, the colors I guessed at (I didn't like the blk and white as much though I have one), but his arm shows that the flash was not working that well, I like the arm moving. The "old" person is my youngest daughter, her first time seeing her nephew.
This one was a hit, but I am sure it was not what you were going for. It is called multi tasking. I thought it was funny and snapped it. His father is holding him, drinking water, the boy holding the baby's hand is the baby's cousin.
Father, my son, Jon, and baby, Ian
I have more, the baby was always with someone. Sometimes I used him just as a vehicle to get a picture of the person the baby was with. I have seen some great shots of a three month old, but I would not know how to get them to you to see. They were taken by the son of a woman in my dog club. I have not seen them for awhile. He took a gazillion photos of the child, weekly it seemed. I don't remember what he did.
The photo you took with the nappies reminds me of those babies with flowers that are/were so popular. You might look at some of her stuff. Just go into the book store and look, don't need to buy anything.
I took a close shot of his head, too. I don't like those. I don't know why, other people seem to do it. I wish I had a close up of his hands and feet. I was only with him during large family groups. I did take lots of photos of the babies of my daughter above, at that age, natural light from a window while the baby was in a bounce seat, etc. Those were good, however I have no idea where they are now.
I would work from the direction of the nappy shot.......no nappy, lol.
g (look at that book to see how she deals with the nudity) You may be able to find some of the photos online. I don't know her name.
g
Thanks Ginger for your feedback... very good idea to have an oldfashioned nappy with me...
Your grandson is so pretty... Sounds like you hd a good time with your family
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
Thx Lynn
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
my photos go here
D200
D70
18-70/3.5
85/1.8
50/1.8
lens baby 2.0
I think I put blur on it, rather than take the rash off of his face. The up close photos I am seeing here, including mine, I think all the babies could be intercangeable. The one's taken by the dog owner's son who seems to be an excellent photographer, he was very tight, but his shots somehow showed the babies personality.
ginger
I will try to get his web site address and lift one. The baby is older now, though.
Rutt's yours is a bit better as you are showing expression in the baby's face, but I still think it is kind of generic. That is just my opinion.
This is my absolute favorite:
I have more, too, but those are some of my favorites, I just love that bottom one.
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes