Beginner First Experience With Pro Baby Photographer

I could tell there were companies telling high-volume photographers how to skin people. It was obvious, because I am old, and I know how the world works. I Googled it, and yes, there are coaches out there telling them what to do. How to upsell. How to force people to book far in advance to create the illusion of exclusivity. They sell them the pretty boxes. Two such coaches are Sue Bryce and Bernie Griffiths. And those $2900 metal photos come from companies like labs like White House Custom Colour (WHCC), Bay Photo, or Miller’s. They cost $250, max, to the photographer.

They provide all kinds of scripts. How to handle price objections. How to make 1000%-markup prints seem like a great deal. It's amazing.
 
Personally I think you have made the right choice.
Photos like this are more than what the child looked like, they are memories of the family life,
Setting up your own studio would be part of that life, and the reasons for doing so would be an interesting story later down the line.
Now matter how much a photographer tries to sell the "experience", I just don't see how that is a memory worth paying so much for, when most of the memories you will look back on will be at home and in your daily life.

As using a home studio will be planned, not a spur of the moment, the equipment doesn't take long to pack away in a cupboard, and often you won't need the whole lot out.

If you have high ceilings it makes things easier (the average ceiling in the UK is about 2' lower than I am used to).

Remember though that you are part of the family that will make memories :) Don't always be behind the camera!
 
Sony Corleone said:
Seriously, anyone can do this kind of work.
Click to expand...

That’s simply not true. And to prove my point you’ve gone on to prove it yourself with some candids that wouldn’t make it to my sensor, let alone my recycle bin.

In learning terms you’re still at the stage of ‘unconscious incompetence’. Basically, you still don’t know what you don’t know.

You’re not producing ’photographs’ yet because you haven’t learned to ‘see’ what’s in the viewfinder, you’re still ‘looking’ at your subject.

A good candid contains all the elements of all photography, it’s well composed, it’s well lit and taken at the right time.

If we’re being honest here, your timing isn’t bad, sometimes you fall on a pleasing composition, but you’re not always ‘seeing’ what can be improved before pressing the button. You’ll improve so long as you keep practicing.

Whereas the studio is a completely different proposition, unlike a candid portrait, a studio portrait centres on the fact you have absolute control over the lighting and composition. Candids take more obvious skill, but the studio portrait starts with an idea but requires the knowledge and precision to realise that vision.

When you visited the studio you noticed a ‘basic camera and a couple of lenses’. You missed the important stuff, because you didn’t understand it was the important stuff.

How many lights, what kind of modifiers, what angles and distance from the subject, what camera angle? They’re what makes the image, not the camera lens and props.

None of this is difficult to learn btw, so long as you’re open to knowledge gathering and prepared to practice a lot.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
Like what?
Click to expand...
They want photos of them with the newborn - mum, dad and baby - while you can try doing this using remote triggers, timers, etc. you will get better results if a photographer who specialises in that type of shots does the job.

I'm a 'keen amateur', but I've no regrets about having used a professional for a set of newborn shots for both my daughters (and likewise hiring a professional to photograph our wedding). The results are far superior to anything I could have achieved, both in terms of my being in a number of the shots, and in general the quality and ideas for the images.
 
Phil V said:
That’s simply not true. And to prove my point you’ve gone on to prove it yourself with some candids that wouldn’t make it to my sensor, let alone my recycle bin.

In learning terms you’re still at the stage of unconscious incompetence’. Basically, you still don’t know what you don’t know.

You’re not producing ’photographs’ yet because you haven’t learned to ‘see’ what’s in the viewfinder, you’re still ‘looking’ at your subject.

A good candid contains all the elements of all photography, it’s well composed, it’s well lit and taken at the right time.

If we’re being honest here, your timing isn’t bad, sometimes you fall on a pleasing composition, but you’re not always ‘seeing’ what can be improved before pressing the button. You’ll improve so long as you keep practicing.

Whereas the studio is a completely different proposition, unlike a candid portrait, a studio portrait centres on the fact you have absolute control over the lighting and composition. Candids take more obvious skill, but the studio portrait starts with an idea but requires the knowledge and precision to realise that vision.

When you visited the studio you noticed a ‘basic camera and a couple of lenses’. You missed the important stuff, because you didn’t understand it was the important stuff.

How many lights, what kind of modifiers, what angles and distance from the subject, what camera angle? They’re what makes the image, not the camera lens and props.

None of this is difficult to learn btw, so long as you’re open to knowledge gathering and prepared to practice a lot.
Click to expand...

I think I need to agree with Phil on the subject of it not being something that anyone can do. My stepdaughter has some beautiful images on their wall at home, certainly not something that I could match and I'll admit that. But, on the other hand, I also don't think it's worth paying thousands of pounds for either..... Hundreds yes, but not several thousand.

And I also stick with what I previously said about having a nice X100/GR series camera, preferably with a built in flash for every day moments. I think that's pretty important. When both of mine turned 18, I gave them both a 65-70 page A4 size book with the first image being taken on the day they were born still in the maternity hospital. Obviously the photos improve over the years for several reasons, but the books contain 2mp Sony Cybershot images, late 2000's era phone images, 35mm film images through to 5d2 and A7Riii/ 35GM images.... None of that really matters too much tbh There's first cuddles, highchair photos with faces covered in food, Christmas outfits, first day at nursery and school, first tooth to fall out, first time riding a bike without stabilisers, there's a film photo of my daughter having a bath in the kitchen sink at the (now ex-) in laws, holidays, etc etc...... Given the choice of just one thing, I'd pick that over a single professional photo shoot. We did have professional sessions too though, on two occasions iirc
 
This is all wrong. Rule-following isn't art. Perfect exposure and orthodox, predictable, unoriginal composition aren't art.

Anyone can do formulaic baby photos. That's why it all looks the same no matter who does it. My wife thought it was hilarious when I used the phrase, "Insert your baby here."

Any family photo that requires props is impersonal and fake. I don't want phony photos of my son with toys he never played with.

We're not paying a hack who tried to manipulate us using dishonest methods from a coaching company.

I think the price for the digital package is a screening device. It's intended to shoo off people who aren't suckers so she will spend more time with simpletons who think a tin poster is worth $3000.

We already have a $250 collection of pro shots that are as good as anything that was offered to us last week, so it's silly to pretend similar work is worth thousands.

We have never even considered printing our existing pro shots, but our own shots are going up on walls day by day.

Some people see things others can't.
 
Generally, portraits are not art in the sense of carrying a message from the intent of the artist - most people would not find artistic images particularly pleasing, let alone flattering. Rather what they will prefer is something that makes the subject look interesting/attractive/provide a good likeness to remember, so more a form of documentary photography with added marketing.
 
Phil V said:
Most people who would describe themselves as ‘keen photographers’ have little interest in photographing people.
Click to expand...
Amen.

I generally reply when asked to shoot someone's wedding / kids etc. "look, if i'd wanted to shoot people, I'd have joined the Army."
 
The cheaper outfit we used before sent me a PDF today, and to prove my point about the foolishness of paying too much for cookie-cutter shots, I will post a JPG.

Their work is actually a little better than the work of the $2900-poster lady, and there are plenty of businesses just like them. I know the quality of their work because we hired them last year. Technically acceptable. Basic. Unpretentious.

I have already emailed the poster lady to cancel our shoot, so thank God, that is over with. I can't post a shot of her work for comparison, but it's exactly like everyone else's.

Screenshot 2026-02-09 090429.jpg
 
It's a difficult conversation to get involved in now because you've posted someone else's work and the challenge is not to critique it.. If you're happy with the quality of the work and it meets your expectation then that's perfect. The work looks typical of what you see in the facebook groups, where someone has picked up photography and started out in business 1 month later.
 
That is pretty much what we were after. A few competent shots at a modest price.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I hope people will be blunt. I didn't come here to get sensitive about my photos. I need to know what's wrong with my work and how to fix it.
Click to expand...
What happened to that guy? The guy who wanted to understand photography and get better?


Sony Corleone said:
See, I don't care about the clutter or the shadow on the face, because this is a candid shot, and it's supposed to capture a real moment. In real life, the world isn't a tidy studio full of carefully set-out props, and you have to take the lighting life offers you.
Click to expand...
Decided he couldn’t be bothered, and so it’d be easier if he became the arbiter of what is right and wrong.

Composition crap? Doesn’t matter cos I decided that’s ok

Light crap? Doesn’t matter cos I decided that’s ok

Those of us who’ve studied, worked hard to learn our craft and understand the language of imagery?

Unimportant because we can’t see the genius among us who doesn’t need to bother with any of that.

It’s a shame. Cos the guy who wanted to learn, could have become a decent photographer, it’s not difficult
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top