# The most beautiful child I've ever photographed.



## EJBPhoto (Sep 4, 2008)

Sorry for the big watermark, but these of are a client and people from orkut tend to stalk me a little and put my clients up and use them to roleplay... kind of strange I know- but this kid is so gorgeous I know he'd be on orkut in a heartbeat if I didn't watermark.

This is a little orthodox jewish boy I photographed- they do not cut their hair until they're 3 years old. How adorable is he?  I'm absolutely in love.  

These were with my 5d and 135L- Av mode at 2.8 while I ran around playing tag with the kids.  Basic editing- lifting midtones, defog, and burning edges- thats it!  Nothing to the eyes- just the right light.

Thanks for looking!


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 4, 2008)

He IS a cutie.  And, you've done a wonderful job of capturing that.

I like your approach.  Very nice!

BTW...  all appear to be slightly overexposed.  Hmmmm.

No matter.  Very nice!

-Pete


----------



## epp_b (Sep 4, 2008)

Wow, very photogenic kid!


----------



## 3of11 (Sep 5, 2008)

Love em!  And those eyes?!


----------



## PattiS (Sep 5, 2008)

Beautiful!  Love the expression in the last one.  
The first two look a bit overexposed on my monitor.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Sep 7, 2008)

He sure IS a cutie patootie.  Love those.
I think the overexposure discussed is nothing more than a matter of personal PP and style.  It suits some pictures and at the moment parents are in love with it!


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 7, 2008)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> ... nothing more than a matter of personal PP ...



Well, she should have gone before starting the sitting.

-Pete


----------



## wxnut (Sep 8, 2008)

HA! Took me a minute to get that one Pete. Good one. 

Doug Raflik


----------



## joecoulsonphotography (Sep 8, 2008)

Look perfect on my monitor (calibrated) and love the expressions you captured. Great work.


----------



## Casey (Sep 8, 2008)

No question.  Gorgeous little one.


----------



## Rabieshund (Sep 8, 2008)

The best child photographs I've seen here for sure.. Great exposure also. I love these, and it's not often that I love photos..  Good job.


----------



## NJMAN (Sep 8, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> Well, she should have gone before starting the sitting.
> 
> -Pete



Pete, you funny guy...hee hee 

Erin, stunning photos as usual!  :thumbup:

NJ


----------



## simplekym (Sep 8, 2008)

agreed - HE'S ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE. 
the images are beautiful.

and a side note. 
i don't think your images are over exposed, like someone mentioned earlier. they are the way they are because thats how you wanted it. they are magnificent.

kudos. good job.


----------



## aprileve (Sep 9, 2008)

definitely not over exposed. perfect!! I don't even know the kid and yet I want these photos hanging on my living room wall.   great job!


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 9, 2008)

OK then....  I need some help.  Somebody tell me what I'm looking at here.

Thanks!
-Pete


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 9, 2008)

I think that they are 'overexposed' but that the overexposure suits the subject.


----------



## joecoulsonphotography (Sep 9, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> OK then.... I need some help. Somebody tell me what I'm looking at here.


 

A good portrait.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 9, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I think that they are 'overexposed' but that the overexposure suits the subject.



Would someone expound on this please.  Where I'm having trouble is the thought of printing this.  Wouldn't I expect totally white cheeks with no detail?

Is that right?

Thanks!
-Pete


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 9, 2008)

There may be some areas that do end up totally white, with no detail...but if those areas blend the areas around them, then it can still work.  

Where you run into trouble, is when too much of the highlights are clipped...and you end up with a hard transition from some tones to pure white.  

In this shot, the brightest areas are the highest/closest parts of the child's face.  But there is a gradient down to the 'shadow' areas of the face.  (even though the shadow areas are still very bright).  

If we examined the full size file, we may easily be able to pick out where the highlights are clipped...but I don't know if that would come out in a print or not.

We have all (most likely) seen some images where a model's face was almost completely blown out, and only the face details (nose, mouth, eyes) are visible.  That is probably an artistic choice by the photographer...these could fall into the same mold.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 9, 2008)

Thanks, Mike.  I guess I just needed some afirmation that my thinking is valid.

And THANK YOU Erin for this wonderful portrait.

-Pete


----------



## NJMAN (Sep 9, 2008)

Its actually very popular for photographers that do contemporary children's portraiture to overexpose and slightly clip the highlights.  You will find a lot of them on ILP.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 9, 2008)

NJMAN said:


> You will find a lot of them on ILP.




Shoot!  Now I have to ask....  ILP?


----------



## NJMAN (Sep 9, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> Shoot!  Now I have to ask....  ILP?



ilovephotography.com


----------



## simplekym (Sep 10, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> Thanks, Mike. I guess I just needed some afirmation that my thinking is valid.
> 
> And THANK YOU Erin for this wonderful portrait.
> 
> -Pete


 
Why is it _Pete_ that you had to prove your point? Its very possible that your thinking is correct, but did you really need affirmation? EJBPhoto never posted a question. She never asked if the contrast was off. She only posted the images in hopes of getting affirmation to her art. 

As photographers we are held to a higher standard of learning. 

We get our hands dirty and we learn from the past. We are here not only to inspire one another, but to learn and teach. Yes we can critique, but how far is too far? Did you not beat a dead horse with a stick? We all knew you thought the contrast was off. Was it necessary to continue the banter?

Art is not about the rights and wrongs of contrast. 

The last time I looked, photography is about capturing moments. Photography is about capturing beauty. If an photographer chooses to use a forward thinking technique or an out-of-the-box technique . . . . or even if someone chooses to throw all their "training" out of the window and focus on the subject (god forbid) - that is their decision and you should trust them enough, as the artist, to do so.


And not to correct you or anything but you spelled affirmation with one F. :thumbup:


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 10, 2008)

simplekym said:


> Why is it _Pete_ that you had to prove your point? Its very possible that your thinking is correct, but did you really need affirmation?



Because I'm learning too, and I just wasn't "getting it."  Truly.  I was confused.  NJMAN cleared things up for me.



simplekym said:


> EJBPhoto never posted a question. She never asked if the contrast was off. She only posted the images in hopes of getting affirmation to her art.



I realized that, and that's why I felt it was necessary to thank her.  I learned something new.  And I DO like her approach.  



simplekym said:


> And not to correct you or anything but you spelled affirmation with one F. :thumbup:



Thanks for that.  Misspelling bugs me too.

-Pete


----------



## simplekym (Sep 10, 2008)

Pete,

Thank you for clearing things up. Sometimes the Forum is so overwhelming because people misunderstand the whole reason we are here. I'm tired of snobby photographers putting in their two cents, and its always negative!! You sound like an upstanding guy! Sorry if my post came off a tad abrasive. Actually I was rude. Please forgive me. 

Simplekym


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 10, 2008)

simplekym said:


> Sorry if my post came off a tad abrasive... Please forgive me.



Don't give it a second thought.

Have fun!
-Pete


----------



## unnecessary (Sep 11, 2008)

Me, I'm a big fan of the high contrast look. Only complaint is that you need more photos of her than just the tight cropped face shots.


----------



## EJBPhoto (Sep 11, 2008)

Thanks guys... yikes! It got long fast.

I tend to make my photos on the brighter side- altho looking at the final one I see clipped sections so I do believe that one is overexposed- the others are about right for me tho!  In the others it appears the red channel is blown- but that is quite typical for many of us modern children's photographers- it gives them that bright stylish look that sells with parents and you see in magazines.

Also, just so you know- I was just there to photograph his (he's a boy!) new baby sister who is just a couple of days old!  I stole some pictures of him while I was there- otherwise I usually get more than headshots.

Thanks for the comments folks!


----------



## Jennie (Sep 14, 2008)

Erin-Great shots! I love the eyes, wow!  I went on your site...I love it! Do you use any actions?


----------



## EJBPhoto (Sep 15, 2008)

I don't use any! Just for fun I sometimes do- Lilyblue- but they're not on my site- that's just for personal work.

Thanks!


----------



## JaimeGibb (Sep 16, 2008)

That IS a beautiful child, and beautiful pics as well. Awesome!


----------



## Mijoh (Sep 17, 2008)

Hi Erin! I'm only occasionally on TPF these days, more of an ILP girl now, but what a treat to check in and find bonus Erin Bell photos! Love them! Those eyelashes are To. Die. For. Gah! Your work is always such an inspiration, thanks for sharing them.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 17, 2008)

Christie Photo said:


> Would someone expound on this please.  Where I'm having trouble is the thought of printing this.  Wouldn't I expect totally white cheeks with no detail?
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> ...



Out of curiosity due to the discussion I pasted all of them into PS and lowered the exposure values with the Shadows/Highlights tool and they all look much MUCH better with the exposure lowered in the face and hair while keeping the BG darks about the same. 

The kid looks truly cute with flesh-tones as opposed to mummy-white and the depth of his innocent eyes really grabs you.


----------



## duncanp (Sep 17, 2008)

fantastic set, i can only criticise the burnt out areas of shirt in the first two, but other than that great job


----------



## ChrisOquist (Sep 24, 2008)

These images are great! The first one is fantastic - are you sure you didn't liquify a bit and enlarge his eyes?! They really jump out at you!

There are a few light specks near the right side of his head (our left) and one near the bottom left corner that I would clone out, but that's just being nitpicky.

The work reminds me a bit of Audrey Woulard's photos. Her images also carry that high-key look, saturated colors, and the lights in the eyes.

The photo I REALLY like is that one in your avatar. Did you take that? It's just a tiny thumbnail but it's gorgeous!


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 24, 2008)

I agree he is a worthy subject and you did well!


----------

