# Adorable 1 year old twin girls!



## twocolor

1.







2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





7.





8.





9.






10.


----------



## willis_927

Definately cute pics. Not too sure how much PP you did on the eyes... but I think they are over done, they pop so much that its kinda creepy..


----------



## twocolor

willis_927 said:


> Definately cute pics. Not too sure how much PP you did on the eyes... but I think they are over done, they pop so much that its kinda creepy..



Thanks for your reply, I understand your thoughts on my pp.  This is the style of pics I advertise on my website as well as on my facebook.  Clients come to me because they want what they see on my marketing.  I actually have been toying with the idea of toning down the eyes, a little bit  but I have never had a client complain about it . . . quite the opposite, they tend to love it.


----------



## twocolor

I wanted to show a SOOC image to show some of the processing I normally do.  It shows that I usually try to either use a reflector, or have the subject look up into the sky to help light the eyes directly.  It gives a natural bright eye look.  I obviously do process the eyes, but it is usually a slight sharpening and a contrast boost.  I usually brighten the entire image which also brightens the eyes, but I keep the level of brightening equal from eyes to entire image.

The first one is of my son, I took him outside about 5 minutes ago so recreate the image.  The second one is of one of the images above.  The second is more extreme, but she has larger, bluer, brighter eyes to begin with.   Feel free to give me your honest opinion on the eyes as well as the rest of the processing!


----------



## Merdoc

The after for that one looks pretty cool. Definitely makes her pop out more.


----------



## Derrel

Oh,man the eyeballs on that child look absolutely HORRIBLE. Seriously. They look ridiculously over-cooked. Frames 1,2,4,6,and 8 are just simply...well, clearly faked, and will one day look as awful as late 1990's selective color, deckle-edged 1950's prints, or fake film scratches, or "solarized" prints from the 1970's. Sure, clients might think it's 'neat'...but it's easy to please the uneducated and the visually unsophisticated. Especially now....but the longer the images are on the wall, and the more they look at them, the greater the chance that they'll see the fakery. If those images were entered into a PPA print contest, I think most professional judges would mark each of those images down--severely.


----------



## twocolor

Derrel said:


> Oh,man the eyeballs on that child look absolutely HORRIBLE. Seriously. They look ridiculously over-cooked. Frames 1,2,4,6,and 8 are just simply...well, clearly faked, and will one day look as awful as late 1990's selective color, deckle-edged 1950's prints, or fake film scratches, or "solarized" prints from the 1970's. Sure, clients might think it's 'neat'...but it's easy to please the uneducated and the visually unsophisticated. Especially now....but the longer the images are on the wall, and the more they look at them, the greater the chance that they'll see the fakery. If those images were entered into a PPA print contest, I think most professional judges would mark each of those images down--severely.



I guessed I asked for that when I said give me your honest opinion.  OUCH.  I did ONLY what I explained that I did above.  They ARE NOT FAKE.  WTH.  I use a prime lens at it's sweet spot do a mild selective sharpening, contrast bump and brighten the entire image.  I will probably start toning it down, but that bright look is my style.

Here is what the client emailed me this morning:

"Oh my goodness Amber!!!

You did such an AMAZING job with my girls!!  I cannot thank you enough for the beautiful moments you have captured!  I am just in awe over all these pictures!!"

So you know what, these may not be your cup of tea, but my client is in love with the product I gave her, and I'm sure she will be in 10 or 20 years.  I'll make sure and NOT enter them in a PPA contest.


----------



## nickzou

Derrel said:


> Oh,man the eyeballs on that child look absolutely HORRIBLE. Seriously. They look ridiculously over-cooked. Frames 1,2,4,6,and 8 are just simply...well, clearly faked, and will one day look as awful as late 1990's selective color, deckle-edged 1950's prints, or fake film scratches, or "solarized" prints from the 1970's. Sure, clients might think it's 'neat'...but it's easy to please the uneducated and the visually unsophisticated. Especially now....but the longer the images are on the wall, and the more they look at them, the greater the chance that they'll see the fakery. If those images were entered into a PPA print contest, I think most professional judges would mark each of those images down--severely.



Will HDR fit into that category years from now?


----------



## zabulondesigns

willis_927 said:


> Definately cute pics. Not too sure how much PP you did on the eyes... but I think they are over done, they pop so much that its kinda creepy..



That was my first thought when I saw them. Their eyes are way over done.


----------



## silentanathema

I like how much the eyes pop.  I have a 3 yr old and a 1 1/2 yr old and with all of their pics i like it when the eyes have an extra pop of color.  My wife is in the wedding buissnes and knows many prof photographers and i think out of the 4 sessions we have done only 1 of the photographers didn't PP the eyes a bit.  I think that is one of the best parts of a child is that their eyes are so colorfull and bright and i feel that bumping it up a bit is a good thing.  I think these photos are very nice and i don't feel that they are going to be in the same catagory of selective coloring.  Also these are pictures of the peoples kids so even if they where under exposed, oof and poorly croped (which i don't think any of them are at all) they will still love them down the road and I think they will love being able to look back at how clear and bright their childrens eyes are.  I think the kiddos looked like they where having a good time and it looks like you where able to get some good memories for the parents. Keep up the good work


----------



## twocolor

Thank you silentanathema!  I do the same PP on my own kids' pics, and they are hanging ALL over my house.  I have never once looked at them and thought ewwwwww.  I think they are beautiful!


----------



## ghache

From your SOOC images, the eyes clearly doesnt need any post processing since they already have crazy popping eyes. no need for the added clarity to the eyes.
IMO if you do the same post processing to the rest of the frame without touching the eyes they will look alot better. especially on #1 #8,


----------



## twocolor

ghache said:


> From your SOOC images, the eyes clearly doesnt need any post processing since they already have crazy popping eyes. no need for the added clarity to the eyes.
> IMO if you do the same post processing to the rest of the frame without touching the eyes they will look alot better. especially on #1 #8,



I've been debating today if I should go back and reprocess those two.  If I get a second or two, I might just do that.  Thank you for the constructive idea.


----------

