Does it just look out of focus?

[Emerana]

A wee bit of background - My 2 year old loves to listen to my ipod (his favorite is Crosby, Stills and Nash - Greatest Hits). Its super cute but he always makes this face:

It isnt that he is sad, but it sure looks like it! So it gave me an idea to get a photo of his feet with his face not in focus. I thought it would be super cute and not so ... standard. My husband wasnt too keen on them though, he said it just looked like our son wasnt in focus. So I was wondering what other people thought:

What does everyone think? Anyone know how better to pull off this photo or is it just not meant to be (people will always look to the face and think "eww this is out of focus"?). I thought maybe if he was reclining more and the feet appeared even closer to the camera? Thoughts, ideas?

Much appreciated!!

 

[Mav]

I like #2 best.

On the first one it looks like focus missed just a tad. You can see it come into focus where the wire is on the left in the photo, but I can't tell if that's in front or behind the plane of his face. Either way, that's the trouble with shooting kids at f/1.8. I take it that was natural light? Just shoot a 3 shot burst and as you and he shift around a bit, hopefully one will have the focus where you want it. Or crank the camera up to iso1600 and shoot at f/2.8, or use a flash.

#2 I love. Your husband sounds like he has the same artistic sense as my wife does.

#3 isn't too flattering with his pants showing. :blushing:

 

[Emerana]

This is why you are my new best friend (lol even though I totally thought you were a woman! Sorry). #1 was just an example of the "ipod face" ...I had some better focus ones but the face wasnt quite as classic. I also love #2, added #3 cause I thought it might have had a clearer focus on his foot...but you are right, the diaper shot is not a good look!

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

I think it would help if you could get a little tighter in on the subject. It will bring the feet more into focus, and there will be less of a background distraction.

 

[kdabbagh]

These pictures are priceless

Beautiful child and #2 is my fav....it should be on a poster with a witty slogan! like.... "it's my day off" hahaha

sorry i laugh at my own jokes

 

[Emerana]

Thanks for the feedback. I might play around with this one more trying to get the feet more centerstage. All I have to do is give him the ipod and he vegges out.

Here is one closer in, is it better then #2?

 

[kdabbagh]

Thanks for the feedback. I might play around with this one more trying to get the feet more centerstage. All I have to do is give him the ipod and he vegges out.

Here is one closer in, is it better then #2?

I still like the original one for two reasons
1) I feel it has better composition
2) the size of your child relative to the size of the couch makes the shot more interesting and created the comfort effect

just my 2cents

 

[JerryPH]

Well, technically the issue is shallow depth of field, not focus (though pic #1 seems a little soft). This is to be expected if you take your pics at F/1.8 (like you did). If you changed it to F/8 and took the same shot again, it would be all in focus, then you will please what your husband's idea of a "nice picture" is.

The kinds of pictures where all the child is within the DOF are important, the "standards" are wonderful for documenting his growth process and so on, however, the less standard pics like you have done are also important as they add variety and spice to your collection.

As for my fav, its #2 as well. I say that you achieved your goal of not taking the same old picture again, well done.

 

[Mav]

This is why you are my new best friend (lol even though I totally thought you were a woman! Sorry).

Aren't there any other daddys here that love taking photos of their kids?

 

[Emerana]

There has to be! When I am at a kid event, its all the Daddies taking photos...I actually feel out of place. But unlike the dads I can multitask watching the kids while taking their photos.

I think it was the baby pictures mixed with the name "Mav". Your little one isnt into Thomas yet, but my 2 year old is obsessed and there is a car names Mavis who is a girl. I think it reminded me of that.

I guess I sholdnt be so quick to make gender judgments. I think alot of people dont use their names (I am not Emerana!)

 

[Mav]

We have one of those Learning Connections trains for her, but she just likes to bust the thing up and beat them against the floor, lol. The little engine is sorta heavy and she'd manage to hurt herself more often than not so we had to take it away for now. Just the engine, she still plays with the cars. Those were all taken with my 85mm f/1.8 at 1.8 during the day indoors, with Auto ISO set to maintain at least 1/125s.

I saw somebody else refer to me as a "her" also. :raisedbrow:

 

[nicfargo]

I think these are great shots and a nice use of Depth of Field. When you start using Depth of Field for other things, your husband will think it is awesome. He just may not like it here, which is fine, to each his own.

 

[Emerana]

Very cute photos of your baby with the train! It helps to have cute kids! My baby (who is one) takes great joy in ripping apart all trains and tracks.

My husband has said he changed his mind and likes them. LOL he usually says he loves everything. Not the best for honest feedback