<p>I fail to appreciate the maternity shots…in the woods…with a gown on…with 4" red stiletto heels.
:-/
And the one with the dad with his underpants band showing. And why do they all have their eyes closed??</p>
<p>Perhaps, prying a newborn baby’s eye open and keeping them open was an added charge? :shrug:</p>
<p>It never failed, my VERY alert and awake all the freaking time babies would fall asleep in the photography studio. Every stinking time! Never thought to do a sleepy pose, so we just jiggled and tickled them awake, and usually got some horrific pictures. These are infinitely cuter than the blotchy faced pics we have :/</p>
<p>I think one of the photos is going for the “baby in a womb” theme. The pink baby is cute. It would have been lovelier if the photographer was able to capture the baby’s smile rather than what looks like a baby’s irritated expression.</p>
<p>A vote for creepy here. I’ve seen the Ann Geddes pics and they are artwork. These just look objectified- baby as decoration. I agree that the hospital newborn pictures are pretty bad. The baby’s been through an ordeal, hasn’t recovered much, and its’ not the best photo. A skilled photographer can capture the sweetness of a newborn later though. These don’t. </p>
<p>Wow, that’s a spectacularly annoying website. Takes forever to load and go through the photos. They’re nicely lit and the babies are kind of weirdly adorable, but the whole thing reeks to me of “too much money and not enough sense” (as my mother was fond of saying). It seems to me to be the logical follow-on to expensive wedding photography and the desire to capture every moment for posterity. </p>
<p>I don’t like the squished up unnaturally posed body positions. The babies don’t look comfortable and some of them look downright annoyed. And what the heck is with the one hanging in a pouch held by what looks like the mummy from old movies. </p>
<p>^^^ My interpretation is that’s a baby in the womb and the “mummy” hand is the umbilical cord.</p>
<p>My sister-in-law is a newborn/family photographer so I can say that the babies are conked out sleeping in these photos on purpose. When SIL does a photoshoot, she asks parents to keep the babies awake as much as possible the morning of, and if possible have a space heater in the area so that the babies will be warm and sleeping soundly when she photographs them. Apparently alert newborns don’t photograph well in this style (not poseable). Also, those photos are assuredly heavily retouched. Not perfect newborn baby skin at all - newborns tend to photograph very blotchy, according to her. </p>
<p>That said, those photos are a little heavily posed to me. My SIL’s photographs are posed, but not to that extent. </p>
<p>All I kept thinking was why were my kids always awake and then in tears when I tried to get photos at that age? I thought some were quite adorable, some seemed forced. The pregnant ones just not my style, maybe in my dream world lol.</p>
<p>The ones with the newborns swaddled creep me out. Their heads almost look like they were photoshopped in… </p>