MicrostockGroup

What do you mean by manipulate it, I can send you instructions on how to add a shadow to an isolated object if that's what you mean? and it will be on a seperate layer that you could manipulate to your hearts content.

You're on the right track.

Concentrate first on getting the right shape of the shadow, then add blur. For the final touches, duplicate the shadow layer a few times and try combinations of "multiply", "color burn", and "soft light" until you get a pleasing appearance.

For the baby's sake, I hope the roses are dethorned!

Thanks Sharply, you are very right to add the blur after getting the shape and I like the layering tips.   The roses were still on the truck to Costco when I took her photo, so no thorns.   


Great tip that I will find useful.  Thanks!

Getting back to this and my shadows keep looking like dirt against her sweet skin, so now I've turned down the opacity to barely there.    (Sigh, I just previewed the image and I guess in this small shot you can barely see my attempt at shadows anyway.)

If it looks familiar the mom came in with her baby and a page from a calendar and no roses.  It sure looks like the roses were propped there for the original. 

Good job, hope she's paying you well.

I think that's a typical reaction for non-commercial work. Sure, people like the image, but don't want to pay for it.

Lorraine, if I may, my first impression was same as Sharply .. 'ouch'.     The concept of this shot as it is would seem to create a bit of tension based on the pain factor as every guy learns annually on valentines - so with the baby it seems to be a bit too.. dunno, dangerous.    On the flip side the basic arrangement reminds me of a  pendulum - maybe there is something more that could be explored with this original usage of an upside down rose bouquet, a tie in with a time concept maybe.

Unless you are going for edgy, i think seeing the babies on the softer side of the arrangement, ala http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=american+beauty+soundtrack&btnG=Search+Images  would be an easier concept.

From the small preview picture, my thoughts are that the shadows on the stems are indeed to harsh relative to the skin so it approaches a recognizable 'photoshopped' scenario by the layman. The quickest way to clear up this type of issue: get a toy doll or any object with the same tonality and shoot the same shot without the actual model and compare the results with the artificially composed shot - i've been Photoshopping since v1.0 and more often than not the difference between the elements you manipulate is greater in your mind than in reality. Erring on the side of a vanilla blend of elements works more for me, more then getting caught up on focusing on the differences between objects.

Lol .. well I think, as Leaf knows, Northern Ontario/Praries is a prime tropical vacation spot for early 20th century Scandinavians.   I met a Tuomi here on MSG, running a photo agency even.. but it's not a huge event normally: Tuomi = Smith in Finn.