Another family photo shoot almost good.....

Tgoodwater2002

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So, I had another family member let me take their photos. They look great until you blow them up to see details. They seem a little blurry or they have a lot of noise.? I think I got the aperture right this time but I am thinking the ISO was to high. I experimented with a few different things this time. I bought a reflector and also used the flash. Let me know what I need to change! I did also try and use the kit lens for some of these. Maybe a mistake. I still love my 50mm lens as it take much better pictures. I'm sold on that. I was playing around with the aperture around the yard and when I went to a higher aperture it took so long to take the picture of still things. But when I tried it on people at the same aperture it was quicker... was it the lighting? And the ISO maybe? Here are some examples.

This was with kit lens 18-55mm 5.0 at ISO 200
IMG_3374.JPG


Kit lens again with aperture at 5.0 and ISO 400. I hate the dead grass in this one but love the pose!
IMG_3393.JPG


This one was with the 50mm with aperture at 4.0 and ISO 400. I think this one turned out great! Let me know otherwise if not so great or how to improve.
IMG_3471.JPG


This was the kit lens. 8.0 and ISO 1600. Now it was getting a little darker now and I was afraid the picture would be dark is lower ISO. Let me have it! This picture was 49mm out.
IMG_3563.JPG


This one was same exact settings as above except this one was 39mm out. Now this is what confuses me. The lighting can change depending on my distance from the subject?
IMG_3562.JPG



50mm 6.3 at ISO 400. Now I did use the reflector in this one. I'm thinking to bright. Reflecting light not the right place?
IMG_3453.JPG



50mm 8.0 and 1600 with flash fired! Way too bright!
IMG_3582.JPG



50mm aperture 10 and ISO 1600. This time the flash did fire but I covered it up with my hand and looked a lot better I thought.
IMG_3591.JPG


Let me know what I did wrong and what I need to change! Thanks!
 
Check your WB - a few are a bit too blue.
Straighten the horizons, especially the last two with the pond.
Dad's are closed in #7.
 
Do you have a protective filter on your lens?

Filters can kill clarity.
 
Check your WB - a few are a bit too blue.
Straighten the horizons, especially the last two with the pond.
Dad's are closed in #7.

If there is too much blue than what do I need to do? And I know the horizon was off I just fixed that with editing and not all of them dads eyes were closed I just posted examples but have same picture with everyone looking good!
 
Do you have a protective filter on your lens?

Filters can kill clarity.

Yes I do have a protective lens on. Is that messing with the pictures?
 
Do you have a protective filter on your lens?

Filters can kill clarity.

Yes I do have a protective lens on. Is that messing with the pictures?
Could- I'd try some shots with and without to compare. Also, your lens might be front-focusing just a tad? Dad's watch in #1 could be just a tad sharper than his eyes. Maybe.

Line up some objects (I've used batteries) and focus on the middle one and then compare the focu on the batteries in front and behind to confirm that your camera is getting it right.
 
When you say Higher Aperture, I think you are referring to a higher number that the camera is showing as you mentioned the camera went to a longer shutter speed. You need to think of aperture in how it relates to the amount of light that it allows to reach the sensor.

You learned from your previous outing that the aperture has an effect on the depth of field. Now take a look at how aperture relates to the amount of light that passes through the lens.

Take a look on-line about f-stop (or f-number - the numbers the camera shows you) and aperture size (the relation to the orifice size the lens diaphragm adjusts to using its aperture blades). You don't need to spend any time learning that stuff, the main thing is to know how to control the amount of light reaching the sensor using the lens aperture and the shutter speed and finally having the right ISO that allows you to select the best aperture and shutter speed.

So in your initial "When I went to a higher aperture...", I interpreted that as "I stopped my lens down to a smaller aperture" based on what the camera was doing.

Anyway, your shots show great promise. The family has some good natural smiles and the location is good with good poses. You'll get the exposures down soon enough and will start to see where you can improve the composition (how your subjects are placed in the frame).
 
Check your WB - a few are a bit too blue.
Straighten the horizons, especially the last two with the pond.
Dad's are closed in #7.

If there is too much blue than what do I need to do? And I know the horizon was off I just fixed that with editing and not all of them dads eyes were closed I just posted examples but have same picture with everyone looking good!

Your camera has these white balance settings:
Auto
Daylight
Shade
Cloudy
Tungsten
Fluorescent
Flash
Custom

I suspect you had the WB set to Daylight. Shade would have been better, but any one of first 7 of the above 8 options would have been wrong to some degree. To get accurate white balance you have to either set a custom WB for the given light condition at the time or shoot a WB reference to use later when processing raw files.

You're shooting camera JPEGs so you need to set a custom WB (see manual). To set a custom WB use a piece of white Styrofoam like the lid from a take-out container. Here's an idea of how far off some of these are.

Joe

family.jpg
 
Check your WB - a few are a bit too blue.
Straighten the horizons, especially the last two with the pond.
Dad's are closed in #7.

If there is too much blue than what do I need to do? And I know the horizon was off I just fixed that with editing and not all of them dads eyes were closed I just posted examples but have same picture with everyone looking good!

Your camera has these white balance settings:
Auto
Daylight
Shade
Cloudy
Tungsten
Fluorescent
Flash
Custom

I suspect you had the WB set to Daylight. Shade would have been better, but any one of first 7 of the above 8 options would have been wrong to some degree. To get accurate white balance you have to either set a custom WB for the given light condition at the time or shoot a WB reference to use later when processing raw files.

You're shooting camera JPEGs so you need to set a custom WB (see manual). To set a custom WB use a piece of white Styrofoam like the lid from a take-out container. Here's an idea of how far off some of these are.

Joe

View attachment 129940

So I see what your saying with the picture now. I was in Av mode and it just sais white balance is in manual. So I'm not sure what WB mode I was in...:/. But I will pay attention to that too
 
In the top photo the family is in the shade and the background is brightly lit by the sun.

The family is very under exposed and looks quite cool (blue) because shade has a cooler color temperature, and needs a different white balance setting, from a bright sunlit background.
Understanding White Balance

Flash has a color temperature very similar to sunlight. So if you had used flash the family would be lit by the same color temperature of light that the background is lit by.

When doing portraiture on location, it is not often that some type of fill light - reflected, constant, or flash - is not needed to balance the exposure and white balance of your subjects with the background.

Filters used for 'protection' usually cause more problems than they solve.
Cheap 'protection' filters cause the most problems, but filters made by quite reputable makes can also cause problems, like soft focus, and Newton's rings.

Lens front elements, and their coatings, are a lot tougher than many new to photography realize:
Video: Torture Testing the Front Element of Canon's 'Thrifty Fifty' 50mm f/1.8 II
 
Excellent advise above. One key point not addressed fully however is fill light. All of these images would have benefited greatly from fill light. IMO, it's virtually impossible to do a good job of work like this without some off-camera strobed fill light. Acquiring and mastering even a single decent off-camera speedlight would have taken these images into a whole 'nother category.
 
Take some time and read through the camera manual; you want to be familiar with the settings.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top