More of my daughter for C&C.

[Mully]

I like the second image the best..... they are all tight so next time back off a little.

 

[JAC526]

They aren't cropped hardly at all. In fact I think the first one is the only one that is cropped at all. The big catch lights are from the umbrella. Guess I could of shot bare flash for a smaller catchlight but I'd rather have a large catchlight and prettier light than vice versa.

He meant in-camera crop. I would agree. I think they're lovely and she's cute, but she's being squished just a tad (I'm terribly guilty of this myself) and Personally I find the vantage point a bit too low.. the OOF hands kinda break it for me.. enjoy your babies.. they're awesome

They are indeed awesome. In camera crop?

 

[jowensphoto]

They aren't cropped hardly at all. In fact I think the first one is the only one that is cropped at all. The big catch lights are from the umbrella. Guess I could of shot bare flash for a smaller catchlight but I'd rather have a large catchlight and prettier light than vice versa.

He meant in-camera crop. I would agree. I think they're lovely and she's cute, but she's being squished just a tad (I'm terribly guilty of this myself) and Personally I find the vantage point a bit too low.. the OOF hands kinda break it for me.. enjoy your babies.. they're awesome

They are indeed awesome. In camera crop?

Framing, I believe.

 

[JAC526]

I like the second image the best..... they are all tight so next time back off a little.

Thanks for commenting. I think that its pretty unanimous that I got too close. Hahahaha. I think next time I have to try to pull her away from the tree which will give me better separation and that way I can step back a little from her and still preserve the oof xmas lights.

 

[JAC526]

He meant in-camera crop. I would agree. I think they're lovely and she's cute, but she's being squished just a tad (I'm terribly guilty of this myself) and Personally I find the vantage point a bit too low.. the OOF hands kinda break it for me.. enjoy your babies.. they're awesome

They are indeed awesome. In camera crop?

Framing, I believe.

Right on. Never heard it called in camera crop.

 

[jowensphoto]

LOL me either, that's just a SWAG.

 

[The_Traveler]

This is totally OOF except for her lip.
Your total DOF is probably 3 inches with a 50 at 2.8.
Why shoot at 50 ISO?
You could shoot at f5.6, a smaller f stop and get her face actually in focus.
You aren't controlling your camera settings for best results.
You need to take a step back and just learn to get good well exposed, well focused, images and stop worrying about trying to get big OOF lights in the background with inappropriate equipment.

Camera	Canon EOS 5D
Exposure	0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	50 mm
ISO Speed	50
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution	240 dpi
Y-Resolution	240 dpi

 

[JAC526]

This is totally OOF except for her lip.
Your total DOF is probably 3 inches with a 50 at 2.8.
Why shoot at 50 ISO?
You could shoot at f5.6, a smaller f stop and get her face actually in focus.
You aren't controlling your camera settings for best results.
You need to take a step back and just learn to get good well exposed, well focused, images and stop worrying about trying to get big OOF lights in the background with inappropriate equipment.

Camera	Canon EOS 5D
Exposure	0.013 sec (1/80)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	50 mm
ISO Speed	50
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Off, Did not fire
X-Resolution	240 dpi
Y-Resolution	240 dpi

View attachment 27565

First off....that's a little harsh. I used the equipment I had plain and simple. And yes it is not as sharp as I would like. One of the ideas of the shoot was the background so I wanted to see if I could do it. I realize that using f2.8 combined with how close I was gave me virtually no depth of field.

Next time I'd like to try the shot at 5.6 and see what the background looks like.

 

[JAC526]

So Lew kind of said that I don't have the ability to try something new and execute. Now please don't take this the wrong way. His criticisms were totally valid and correct. I am glad he gave me the feedback he did. It made me want to try again and this time do a better job. My only real issue with his post is the implication that my equipment is inadequate. I don't think its right to tell someone they can't do something based off their equipment (sorry Lew if I interpreted this the wrong way).

He was exactly right that I should of been shooting it at f5.6 or f8. I shot it at ISO 50 b/c I wanted to eliminate the background.

So I decided to try again taking into account the points Lew brought up.

The subject is the best thing I could find on short notice. I put my white balance on Tungsten b/c I wanted everything blue for that cool wintry feeling. I also gelled both lights with blue gel. My main light was camera right and above the snowmen. I put a second light directly camera left to try to get specular highlights. Not sure I succeeded enough on this front but hey I'm trying. I shot this at f10 and 1/20th of a second at ISO 50. I found that if I used to fast of a shutter speed I wouldn't pick up all the LED lights in the background. It's like they would flicker and I'd get some but not others. So I slowed my shutter speed down until I was getting them all. I originally started at a higher ISO (200) like Lew suggested but found that I needed to bring it down as low as possible to eliminate the background (which happens to be my office wall and desk).

This is what I got. I think its sharp and I think I succeeded at getting "big OOF lights with inappropriate equipment."


_MG_8357 by JChick526, on Flickr

Thanks for looking and thanks Lew for being honest.

 

[JAC526]

Morning bump.

 

[ManualMode]

They are indeed awesome. In camera crop?

Framing, I believe.

Right on. Never heard it called in camera crop.

I think it would be more common to just say: "crop too tight" or "framing too tight" both meaning the same thing because a viewer wouldn't know if this was because of the PP crop, or if the person was actually too close. They both mean the same thing: If you cropped, you cropped too tight, if you didn't crop, then you framed too tight.

 

[The_Traveler]

So Lew kind of said that I don't have the ability to try something new and execute. Now please don't take this the wrong way. His criticisms were totally valid and correct. I am glad he gave me the feedback he did. It made me want to try again and this time do a better job. My only real issue with his post is the implication that my equipment is inadequate. I don't think its right to tell someone they can't do something based off their equipment (sorry Lew if I interpreted this the wrong way).

He was exactly right that I should of been shooting it at f5.6 or f8. I shot it at ISO 50 b/c I wanted to eliminate the background.

So I decided to try again taking into account the points Lew brought up.

The subject is the best thing I could find on short notice. I put my white balance on Tungsten b/c I wanted everything blue for that cool wintry feeling. I also gelled both lights with blue gel. My main light was camera right and above the snowmen. I put a second light directly camera left to try to get specular highlights. Not sure I succeeded enough on this front but hey I'm trying. I shot this at f10 and 1/20th of a second at ISO 50. I found that if I used to fast of a shutter speed I wouldn't pick up all the LED lights in the background. It's like they would flicker and I'd get some but not others. So I slowed my shutter speed down until I was getting them all. I originally started at a higher ISO (200) like Lew suggested but found that I needed to bring it down as low as possible to eliminate the background (which happens to be my office wall and desk).

This is what I got. I think its sharp and I think I succeeded at getting "big OOF lights with inappropriate equipment."


_MG_8357 by JChick526, on Flickr

Thanks for looking and thanks Lew for being honest.

First, I owe you an apology. I should never have been so rude as to hurt your feelings and I am sorry.

My only explanation is that I have been quite ill since Thanksgiving and getting only a couple of hours sleep a night.
Last night I slept from 10 PM to 11:30 this morning (with an hour or two of acute pain around 3) so I am feeling much better albeit groggy.

My response to your original work was that you were trying to do too many things in ways that were counter-productive.
Children are difficult to photograph well at best because we all have preconceived images of skin tone, texture color. You were trying to get a moving child in a tiny DOF which you wanted for another reason.

Most of all you weren't looking at your work and being objective about it.
It's very difficult to do - even more so when your baby is in it.
But be ruthless.
Don't show your cr@p UNLESS you need help to figure out why it is crap and how to make it better.

Look at the reshoot when you took out the difficult, unnecessary variables that only complicated the original; I think it looks terrific and, best of all, you had control and made it come out right.

I'm still not doing well but I'm happy that you responded the way you did and I am really sorry that I was rude.

 

[ManualMode]

So Lew kind of said that I don't have the ability to try something new and execute. Now please don't take this the wrong way. His criticisms were totally valid and correct. I am glad he gave me the feedback he did. It made me want to try again and this time do a better job. My only real issue with his post is the implication that my equipment is inadequate. I don't think its right to tell someone they can't do something based off their equipment (sorry Lew if I interpreted this the wrong way).

He was exactly right that I should of been shooting it at f5.6 or f8. I shot it at ISO 50 b/c I wanted to eliminate the background.

So I decided to try again taking into account the points Lew brought up.

The subject is the best thing I could find on short notice. I put my white balance on Tungsten b/c I wanted everything blue for that cool wintry feeling. I also gelled both lights with blue gel. My main light was camera right and above the snowmen. I put a second light directly camera left to try to get specular highlights. Not sure I succeeded enough on this front but hey I'm trying. I shot this at f10 and 1/20th of a second at ISO 50. I found that if I used to fast of a shutter speed I wouldn't pick up all the LED lights in the background. It's like they would flicker and I'd get some but not others. So I slowed my shutter speed down until I was getting them all. I originally started at a higher ISO (200) like Lew suggested but found that I needed to bring it down as low as possible to eliminate the background (which happens to be my office wall and desk).

This is what I got. I think its sharp and I think I succeeded at getting "big OOF lights with inappropriate equipment."


_MG_8357 by JChick526, on Flickr

Thanks for looking and thanks Lew for being honest.

If I were in the store.. I'd actually consider picking these up as a christmas card..

 

[JAC526]

So Lew kind of said that I don't have the ability to try something new and execute. Now please don't take this the wrong way. His criticisms were totally valid and correct. I am glad he gave me the feedback he did. It made me want to try again and this time do a better job. My only real issue with his post is the implication that my equipment is inadequate. I don't think its right to tell someone they can't do something based off their equipment (sorry Lew if I interpreted this the wrong way).

He was exactly right that I should of been shooting it at f5.6 or f8. I shot it at ISO 50 b/c I wanted to eliminate the background.

So I decided to try again taking into account the points Lew brought up.

The subject is the best thing I could find on short notice. I put my white balance on Tungsten b/c I wanted everything blue for that cool wintry feeling. I also gelled both lights with blue gel. My main light was camera right and above the snowmen. I put a second light directly camera left to try to get specular highlights. Not sure I succeeded enough on this front but hey I'm trying. I shot this at f10 and 1/20th of a second at ISO 50. I found that if I used to fast of a shutter speed I wouldn't pick up all the LED lights in the background. It's like they would flicker and I'd get some but not others. So I slowed my shutter speed down until I was getting them all. I originally started at a higher ISO (200) like Lew suggested but found that I needed to bring it down as low as possible to eliminate the background (which happens to be my office wall and desk).

This is what I got. I think its sharp and I think I succeeded at getting "big OOF lights with inappropriate equipment."


_MG_8357 by JChick526, on Flickr

Thanks for looking and thanks Lew for being honest.

First, I owe you an apology. I should never have been so rude as to hurt your feelings and I am sorry.

My only explanation is that I have been quite ill since Thanksgiving and getting only a couple of hours sleep a night.
Last night I slept from 10 PM to 11:30 this morning (with an hour or two of acute pain around 3) so I am feeling much better albeit groggy.

My response to your original work was that you were trying to do too many things in ways that were counter-productive.
Children are difficult to photograph well at best because we all have preconceived images of skin tone, texture color. You were trying to get a moving child in a tiny DOF which you wanted for another reason.

Most of all you weren't looking at your work and being objective about it.
It's very difficult to do - even more so when your baby is in it.
But be ruthless.
Don't show your cr@p UNLESS you need help to figure out why it is crap and how to make it better.

Look at the reshoot when you took out the difficult, unnecessary variables that only complicated the original; I think it looks terrific and, best of all, you had control and made it come out right.

I'm still not doing well but I'm happy that you responded the way you did and I am really sorry that I was rude.

Please don't worry about it. I hope you feel better soon. The critique you gave me is exactly what I'm looking for as it is very hard to objectively look at pictures of your baby. Your comments were spot on.

If I were to re-do things I'd of shot the snowmen first and learned my lessons then shot the baby.

I was definitely managing too many things at once with the baby.

 

[JAC526]

So Lew kind of said that I don't have the ability to try something new and execute. Now please don't take this the wrong way. His criticisms were totally valid and correct. I am glad he gave me the feedback he did. It made me want to try again and this time do a better job. My only real issue with his post is the implication that my equipment is inadequate. I don't think its right to tell someone they can't do something based off their equipment (sorry Lew if I interpreted this the wrong way).

He was exactly right that I should of been shooting it at f5.6 or f8. I shot it at ISO 50 b/c I wanted to eliminate the background.

So I decided to try again taking into account the points Lew brought up.

The subject is the best thing I could find on short notice. I put my white balance on Tungsten b/c I wanted everything blue for that cool wintry feeling. I also gelled both lights with blue gel. My main light was camera right and above the snowmen. I put a second light directly camera left to try to get specular highlights. Not sure I succeeded enough on this front but hey I'm trying. I shot this at f10 and 1/20th of a second at ISO 50. I found that if I used to fast of a shutter speed I wouldn't pick up all the LED lights in the background. It's like they would flicker and I'd get some but not others. So I slowed my shutter speed down until I was getting them all. I originally started at a higher ISO (200) like Lew suggested but found that I needed to bring it down as low as possible to eliminate the background (which happens to be my office wall and desk).

This is what I got. I think its sharp and I think I succeeded at getting "big OOF lights with inappropriate equipment."


_MG_8357 by JChick526, on Flickr

Thanks for looking and thanks Lew for being honest.

If I were in the store.. I'd actually consider picking these up as a christmas card..

I can ship you some Christmas cards for a small price.....j/k. But thank you that is a wonderful compliment.