# Triplet Girls



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

These are my babies. They are spontaneous triplets (1 every 8000 odds). Please give me harsh C&C as I want to be a good photographer. I am a newbie and have had the camera for 2.5 weeks. I am using Canon T1i with 50mm f/1.4. Thanks!  I also used PP to add glowing dreamy effect on some of them.

1






2





3





4





5





6





7





8


----------



## ifi (Jun 6, 2010)

Congratulations, beautiful girls 

My favorite are 5, 6 and 7.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

Aww.. no love for my girls?  
bump


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 6, 2010)

Are they identical? What are their names? 

They all seem to be out of focus to me. I'm not sure if this is a result of the PP, but it seems that they are just not in focus.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

Yeah, I copied the layer, gaussian blur, opacity at 75%. Plus the DOF is very shallow. I think i wont use that dreamy effect anymore. Picture 2,3 and 6 do not have that dreamy effect.

They are not identical.  Katherine, Margaret and Isabella.


----------



## tommetass (Jun 6, 2010)

6 is probably the best shot of the lot.
It has a nice "anti-abortion ad" feel to it.
I like it.

Beautiful girls absolutely, though the photos in my honest opinion are not "great".

They don't pop. They're not super sharp. The compositions are ok.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

tommetass said:


> 6 is probably the best shot of the lot.
> It has a nice "anti-abortion ad" feel to it.
> I like it.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the critics.. I will post non photoshop edited photos shortly.  I was a little too PP happy.  Hopefully they are a little better.


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 6, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Yeah, I copied the layer, gaussian blur, opacity at 75%. Plus the DOF is very shallow. I think i wont use that dreamy effect anymore. Picture 2,3 and 6 do not have that dreamy effect.
> 
> They are not identical. Katherine, Margaret and Isabella.


 

I think the "dreamy" look you are going for is what happens when you use softer lighting. 

With a shallow depth of field I also find it hard to get that sharp focus. #6 is the best and the only one that is in focus - but it might be slightly out of focus, too. I, at least, would have to see the full size image to tell. 

I don't think these are bad for every day baby pictures and a start. I would say that you could start by working on making sure that the area of the picture you want in focus is in focus. Even wide open, something should be sharp.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

How about these?  No photoshop.  You also see skin blemishes.


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 6, 2010)

They look better as far as focus goes. I love the one of the feet. 

I seems like something different happened with the lighting on the first and fourth of the baby being held in your husband's? hands. I would go with whatever happened here with the lighting over the other two. The others are very orange and the lighting is very harsh. 

I would also try adjusting the aperature so that you can get the baby and hands sharp for this pose. 

You might try using light coming through a window for your next set of images and some homemade diffusers and reflectors. Sheer curtains to soften the light & white poster board or foil covered card board to reflect light back onto the babies. 

Here is the blog of another TPF member that might be helpful in getting a handle on your camera, photography in general, etc. Digital SLR Basics


----------



## knjrphoto (Jun 6, 2010)

How old are they? Do they still sleep a lot (for naps, not at night - yea right). 

I'm just asking, because how cute would a baby dog pile be? LOL


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 6, 2010)

they are going to be 4 months in 9 days.  But they were premies so they were about 2 months early .  You got it backward.  I was taking the picture and my wife was holding them LOL.  Yeah, I was a little aperture happy.  I wont do that again.


----------



## supraman215 (Jun 6, 2010)

Adorable. Instead of blurring the whole image to get rid of the blemishes try the cloning tool. You want to try to keep some point of focus or the eye gets confused. Like in #1 of the original. The one with the tongue out is a great picture. it would be nice as part of a college with some other more serious ones. I dunno I'm no pro these are just things that pop into my head.


----------



## Seekwence (Jun 6, 2010)

I really like #6 and the soft focus on #5 definitely works!


----------



## JasonLambert (Jun 7, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Yeah, I copied the layer, gaussian blur, opacity at 75%. Plus the DOF is very shallow. *I think i wont use that dreamy effect anymore.* Picture 2,3 and 6 do not have that dreamy effect.
> 
> They are not identical.  Katherine, Margaret and Isabella.



At least not in this situation. Some images work well with this kind of edit, just not these ones. I think we started off with OOF shots and hoped to make them better. 2,3 and 6 are also OOF. What were you settings/equipment? 

I love the finger one... I have A baby on the way (June, 6th) and can't wait to start clicking away!

Try again! I would like to see more.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 7, 2010)

I did use clone tool.  I just didn't want to do it again.  I didn't use the blur tool  just to get rid blemishes.  Will try again some other day. 



supraman215 said:


> Adorable. Instead of blurring the whole image to get rid of the blemishes try the cloning tool. You want to try to keep some point of focus or the eye gets confused. Like in #1 of the original. The one with the tongue out is a great picture. it would be nice as part of a college with some other more serious ones. I dunno I'm no pro these are just things that pop into my head.


----------



## tommetass (Jun 7, 2010)

Much better!
The two feet is my favorite!


----------



## paigew (Jan 30, 2012)

Awww! Well you have come a loooong way! I hope to improve as much as you. Cute baby girls  My 1/2 brothers are 'spontaneous' triplet boys! Now 12......yeah, fun hahaha


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 30, 2012)

Welcome to the forum!  I hope you arent scared away from this harsh CC.  Bad compositions, horrible post processing.  They look soft either from miss focus or camera shake.  Keep trying!


----------



## septy86 (Feb 2, 2012)

Good job, its hard to photo babys, thay keep moving.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Beautiful!


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 2, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> These are my babies. They are spontaneous triplets (1 every 8000 odds). Please give me harsh C&C as I want to be a good photographer. I am a newbie and have had the camera for 2.5 weeks. I am using Canon T1i with 50mm f/1.4. Thanks!  I also used PP to add glowing dreamy effect on some of them.


 


Schwettylens said:


> Welcome to the forum!  I hope you arent scared away from this harsh CC.  Bad compositions, horrible post processing.  They look soft either from miss focus or camera shake.  Keep trying!



C&Cing yourself? 

LOLWUT


----------



## Granddad (Feb 3, 2012)

*Gorgeous models!* You have years ahead to get the perfect portraits. 

*A word of caution,* (in case you haven't discovered this for yourself) a set of non identical multiples means that more than one egg was released ... some women do this a lot. Having done it once your chances of having more multiples is high compared to the population in general. My daughter has two sets of non identical twins and tells me that she has a friend on a forum for "mothers of multiples" who has two sets of twins, a set of triplets and a singleton.

You may never have to hire a model. 

May the force be with you! :thumbup:


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 3, 2012)

Wow, talk about digging up an oldy


----------



## mommy-medic (Feb 4, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> C&Cing yourself?
> 
> LOLWUT



Yeah that. I'm confused. (and never would have an idea they were triplets as there's no shots of them together).


----------



## chuasam (Feb 10, 2012)

When the face is the subject, try keeping the eyes in focus. If you want the blurred look, try doing a duplicate layer, applying gaussian blur and then going to mode overlay. You can even use layer masks to control where the skin texture is smoothed. For the birthmarks, you can use the clone tool or healing brush to remove those.


----------

