# More baby in a tub!  I love this prop!



## ababysean (Mar 8, 2011)

Did a more clean edit this time.

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2011)

These would look better if the logo were slightly smaller, and lower and to the right hand corner...when the logo's leves appear to tickle the babies, it's intruding too much into the photos. The colored logo on the monochrome images really is distracting.


----------



## ababysean (Mar 8, 2011)

I agree, I copied these from facebook and I had to start putting my stupid logo really huge on them because I found people using the photos from facebook to PRINT!  GAH!  I'd rather just give them the file then have them print a low res facebook photo. It blew my mind and then everyone that asked who took the picture, they threw my name out there with a shatty pixelated 8*10 print!  So now I'm watermarking the heck out of everything.  It makes me sad to have to do it.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Mar 8, 2011)

ababysean said:


> I agree, I copied these from facebook and I had to start putting my stupid logo really huge on them because I found people using the photos from facebook to PRINT!  GAH!




Typically... anything I put on FB or other places is exported at 25 DPI or less to discourange this. It doesn't change the look of the photo on a computer screen, but is a REALLY low quality print, if it prints at all.


----------



## ababysean (Mar 8, 2011)

I do upload to fb at 72dpi and 500px longest side, some people just dont care or figure they printed it out so they are going to hang it.  blah.  at least this way they have to work to take the watermark off if they try it.....


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 8, 2011)

25 dpi?  Whatcha talking about?



ChristopherCoy said:


> ababysean said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, I copied these from facebook and I had to start putting my stupid logo really huge on them because I found people using the photos from facebook to PRINT!  GAH!
> ...


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Mar 8, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> 25 dpi?  Whatcha talking about?




When I export from LR, I set resolution at 25dpi or less. If someone tries to print an image with a resolution of 25dpi, IF it prints, it will be extremely small, or highly pixelated. Anything on a computer screen displays at 72dpi regarless of the printing resolution. You could export at 1dpi and it will still display properly on a screen.

I can't explain it, because I am not that technically inclined, but it was explained to me by a graphic designer. I'll see if I can find the link for the information I was given.


----------



## AmberNikol (Mar 8, 2011)

I've been having the same issue, so I watermark right over my pictures so they can't take them. I've been trying to figure out how to have the photo without the watermark...if you find the link, please share! I would love to know how to do that.


----------



## Jace (Mar 8, 2011)

I swear I thought the topic title said 'Baby in a tube', so was like wtf. 


Anyway, great pics!


----------



## AtuspidsGoddess (Mar 8, 2011)

I love this series!  How are you able to keep the texture on baby's face?  I find that with such fine skin, it seems to show up as washed out for?   Or do I just not know enough about photographing babies?


----------



## FattyMcJ (Mar 9, 2011)

#1 - Too close to the wall, the shadow being cast looks...I dunno...snapshot-ish.  Also, the perspective is too tall, get the shot down lower, at least eye level to the baby.  However, I do like the prop.  I'd also like to see the exposure a bit higher, but that's just personal preference. 

#2 - Again way too close to the wall, and again too tall of a perspective.  Also, FILL THE FRAME.  So much dead space around the baby. There's more square inches (for lack of a better term that's escaping me right now) of floor & wall than there is of subject.

#3 - Looks dull.  I like the framing, her facial expression, her eyes and the catchlight...but the contrast is too lifeless and the colors don't "pop".  It may just be a personal preference, but I'd like to see some more "pop" from the image.

#4 - Excellent.  Nice contrast, I like the B&W processing.  I may have shown a bit more of the "tu-tu" (is that how it's spelled? lol) so that it's not just fabric popping up out of the bottom of the frame.  I may have also not had her SO centered, but she's not DEAD center, so it's passable IMO.  I like it and I'm sure the mother liked it too.

#5 - The best.  Good contrast, good processing, her eyes "pop" with life, and the framing/composition is great.  Like I said, the best of the set. Well done :thumbup:


----------



## ababysean (Mar 9, 2011)

FattyMcJ said:


> #1 - Too close to the wall, the shadow being cast looks...I dunno...snapshot-ish.  Also, the perspective is too tall, get the shot down lower, at least eye level to the baby.  However, I do like the prop.  I'd also like to see the exposure a bit higher, but that's just personal preference.
> 
> #2 - Again way too close to the wall, and again too tall of a perspective.  Also, FILL THE FRAME.  So much dead space around the baby. There's more square inches (for lack of a better term that's escaping me right now) of floor & wall than there is of subject.
> 
> ...



great cc guys!  yea!   These are uncropped versions.   I leave space because most people print 8*10 max and when you crop this to 8*10 you can cut the space at the top, even 5*7, the space goes away.  I learned the hard way to leave space, crop in post...

These are taken in my home and I have only a little space to work with, I wish so bad I could pull the subject from the background more, even a foot, but then I'd have to stand outside to shoot them.     I think I can try again and maybe give it another 6 inches or so.  I think the shadow is more coming from I'm only using one light? maybe?

  thanks so much!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 9, 2011)

you keep getting better and better crystal.  Moms would love photos like this.


----------



## KKJUN (Mar 9, 2011)

They look very nice overall, but the eyes look really overedited to me, especially on the b&w one.


----------



## ababysean (Mar 9, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> you keep getting better and better crystal.  Moms would love photos like this.


 

lol that is like an insult, saying mom will love it!  hehe 

I also wanted to say I was already sitting down to take these pictures, I'm not sure how much lower I could get.

I did not touch her eyes.


----------



## mwcfarms (Mar 9, 2011)

Most of it all has been said Crystal. I'm not a huge fan of the tub prop lol but that's just me. I really like the last one best. I do NOT agree that the eyes look overcooked. I think they are fine.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Mar 9, 2011)

ababysean said:


> I also wanted to say I was already sitting down to take these pictures, I'm not sure how much lower I could get.
> .




Until you've laid on the floor, on your stomach, and inadvertently licked the floor while trying to talk and shoot at the same time.... You haven't gotten low enough. Ask me how I know!


----------



## ababysean (Mar 9, 2011)

lol  yeppers, done that before,  I bumped my chin.  not fun. and this was outside on a public road.


----------



## Reyna (Mar 9, 2011)

i think they look great. i agree that the massive watermark is distracting but the photos turned out great! i do see shadows in 1 & 2. that can be easily fixed by pulling her forward and/or raising your iso.

love the lighting in her eyes! #5 is my fav.

what are you using for the faux wood floor?


----------



## FattyMcJ (Mar 9, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Moms would love photos like this.



No question, we're just being nit picky as photographers and see things that most "moms" wouldn't care about.  



ababysean said:


> I also wanted to say I was already sitting down to take these pictures, I'm not sure how much lower I could get.
> 
> I did not touch her eyes.



Kudos for at least THINKING about getting low, but as has been said...you're not low enough unless you're laying down lol  And I like the fact that you got her eyes so perfectly in the last two that you didn't NEED to overcook them, that's well done  



ChristopherCoy said:


> Until you've laid on the floor, on your stomach, and inadvertently licked the floor while trying to talk and shoot at the same time.... You haven't gotten low enough. Ask me how I know!



:lmao:


----------

