Ellison's photo shoot

With the first two kids, the hospital nurses take a really crummy picture and then it gets posted on the Hospital website and published in the sunday paper. Now there's a contracted photographer that comes in and takes pictures... We bought 'em (just like everyone else does). Enjoy... and if you're interested, you can read what I think about photography at the bottom.

These were the main reason we bought the pics. The two bigger kids were too cute with Ellison to pass up... If you know Ettoile, she's the most unphotogenic child on the planet so we need good pics whever and wherever we can get them.

My Opinion on Photography: I'm sure some of my photographer friends won't like what I have to say. Maybe I'm just ticked because these pics cost $200 for a CD of about 30 pics, no prints (the pricing went as follows: 2 pics on a CD for $99, 4 on a cd for $149, or all on a cd for $199 - If Im already into it for over a hundred bucks, whats another $50?). I think what I should have done is gone out and put that $200 towards a nice digital camera that I've had my eye on for some time now but can't bring myself to spend the near $1k for it. Also, we had some family pics taken in Vegas a few years ago, the photog was just some chick with a pretty nice digital camera that photoshopped the crap out of the images and they turned out OK, but not great for the rediculous sitting fee she charged (the "family-friend discount"). All we got was a CD of the images with few of them ready to frame... and even then she did strange things with angles... I can respect the artistic value of a diagonal picture, but I dont generally hang a diagonal frame on my wall so it made all of the diagonal photos useless. Regardless, the milk is spilt and I'm happy with the baby pics.

Am I wrong to say that almost anyone can take a descent picture now days? I'm not a photographer but I'd have to say that I have a good eye and generally most of my pictures that I put any effort into turn out really nice. With modern cameras it seems like almost anyone can pick up a camera, switch it to the auto mode and whip out a good pic. (Auto Mode translated means, I have no idea what shutter speed is, that light is a factor in taking pics, and I dont want to deal with focusing). Is it me or has the art of photography significantly changed? When I first got into photography, I bought a nice hard film Pentax Camera and got a nice Tamron telescoping lense. While the camera did a lot of the work, one still needed to know the functions to be able to spit out a good picture. Back in those days, photography was about taking a good picture ready for processing, and it seems like today photography is about good editing regardless of the POS picture you took. Has editing always been a part of photography? You bet... but significantly more today... which Im not saying is wrong but allows almost anyone to pick up a camera, blur out the background and have a stellar picture. i think these comments was sparked by the photog's comment when we were about to start the session, Me: "Where do we take the pics at?" Her: "Just in here is fine." Me: "oh." Her: "it doesnt really matter about the background, I'll just photoshop what I need to." These pics were taken in the hospital room, on the hospital bed with one of the hospitals boppy's with a sheet over it. I guess it worked.

Just my opinions above, don't take offense photographer friends... I still have respect for good editing and still believe that one does need to have a good eye and a knack for taking pics. I have seen many of your photos and websites and am quite impressed by your work. But I have greater respect for traditional hard film photographers. BUT, with technology changing, like everything else, I guess even photography needs to evolve out of the hard film dark ages.