Do you...

Consider these pictures to be professional? If so how much would you pay? Or would you pay at all? What do you like/dislike? Any constructive criticism?

I'd say yes.
I'm unsure what I would pay. I guess it would depend on what's offered? I know some professionals that charge 65-70 for sessions and only do CD's. But then there's the ones that are 150+ because they do prints and such too.
My only dislike is the buildings/cars in the backgrounds.

They're very cute pictures, adorable baby! But I wouldn't call them professional, I don't know they're lacking something I just can't put my finger on it.

The look pretty amateur but cute none the less.

I love the ones with him sitting inside the pumpkin lol

Not sure what I would pay. Love the pumpkin ones. Don't like the ones with the bib, blocks the face which is what should be showcased.

I'd say they're like a beginner-professional. Definitely better than some people who call themselves professionals. I'm not sure what I'd pay. It just depends though. Not TOO much but I'd definitely pay a little something.

No I wouldn't

I would say that first off, the baby is ADORABLE  

The camera is obviously very good. The pictures are cute. The background of cars and buildings is a big turn off though.

While they are good pictures, I wouldn't say they were professional. Some of the angles are kind of off and there are shadows that fall weird.

That said, they are better than what I can do. I can't take good pictures at all lol

You should look into some seminar's.. My sister did and it made a world of difference.

This is a year's difference in practicing photography. She is now professional in D.C and does shoots for bands(most recently was The Used) and lot's of other things.

They're nice, but I don't think I'd pay much. I agree with what another posted said... I feel like the photos are lacking something, I just don't know what.

Quoting Rebecca Hasbrook:" You should look into some seminar's.. My sister did and it made a world of difference. This is a year's ... [snip!] ... photography. She is now professional in D.C and does shoots for bands(most recently was The Used) and lot's of other things. "

That second picture is AWESOME

Thanks guys. I know I am not anywhere close to being a professional. Just a mom with a camera. I am learning right now and I wanted to see what people thought so far. These are all my "mom" photos, that is why some of them look unprofessional with the backgrounds.

<blockquote><b>Quoting wilde_mommy:</b>" They're very cute pictures, adorable baby! But I wouldn't call them professional, I don't know they're lacking something I just can't put my finger on it."</blockquote>




Constructive criticism:
They should be more focused on the child's face/eyes, making the background less obvious. There shouldn't be noticeable parking lots, cars ect in the background. If you're using an outdoor setting background should be slightly blurred so the subject "pops" Orvthe background should be very non descript. Subject isn't centered properly, margins are slightly off in some pics. Angles are not the most flattering.

I think they definitely have potential but aren't at a professional level yet.

Also, what kind of camera are you using?

That baby is so freakin' cute! He has beautiful eyes.

Yes, I would definitely pay to get them done. I don't how much pro pics are suppose ro cost so I'm unsure on the amount.