Baby Portraits - C&C please

[Pete'sGirl]

I have been reading and practicing and have a long way to go still, but would like some feedback. The first two I took about two months ago (no PP), the third, fourth, and fifth this past week (curves adjustment, sharpening in GIMP.) Let me know what I am doing wrong, how I can improve, and what I am doing right! (Be gentle, that is my baby!)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Why be gentle? Nobody will critique the child.

Iron your sheet.
Use a large aperture to blur the background.
Get a 50mm 1.8, that'll help. Or get more distance from the background.
Watch how you cut limbs, and where. Don't be afraid to crop close and fill the frame with the subject.

4 and 5 are the keepers. Toss the others.

 

[mwcfarms]

What BJ said is all spot on. I would also add, try to avoid shooting down on the infant like you did in number one. Much more please to shoot on his level.

 

[Pete'sGirl]

Why be gentle? Nobody will critique the child.

Iron your sheet.
Use a large aperture to blur the background.
Get a 50mm 1.8, that'll help. Or get more distance from the background.
Watch how you cut limbs, and where. Don't be afraid to crop close and fill the frame with the subject.

4 and 5 are the keepers. Toss the others.

Thanks! I did use a 50 mm 1.7 Minolta lens for the last 3. I have found that when I shoot wide open I have a hard time getting both eyes in focus. I tried to iron the sheet but got tired. Will do for next time!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yup, there's the trade off for going wide open.
Just like you could use a longer lens to get farther away and get good background separation, but the trade of often becomes needing faster shutter speeds to combat camera shake.

I know you are just practicing around the house, but try to pay attention to backgrounds and try to utilize them to add to the image, rather than detract. This doesn't mean always finding a blank wall. You can see how the chairs are distracting in shot 3, but aren't as bad in shot 5. The lines of the carpet or floor, or whatever it is actually created some leading lines, that are kinda nice.

 

[Pete'sGirl]

Anyone else? Please??

 

[willis_927]

You could try an off camera flash (if you have) and fire it on the background... if you have it exposed 1-2 stops brighter than the light on the child it can make the background pure white.

 

[Pete'sGirl]

You could try an off camera flash (if you have) and fire it on the background... if you have it exposed 1-2 stops brighter than the light on the child it can make the background pure white.

Thanks. I have a flash but I do not have anything to trigger it off camera. Once I do, how close to the background should it be?

 

[Ajlista]

I like them, i agree that 4 and 5 a real nice
Yeah, I highly suggest ironing the sheets for the first few
I like them though,
Good job

 

[Pete'sGirl]

I like them, i agree that 4 and 5 a real nice
Yeah, I highly suggest ironing the sheets for the first few
I like them though,
Good job

Thank you! Yes, the sheet! I will not be lazy next time!

 

[willis_927]

I'm not too sure if there is a golden rule for how far from the background the flash should be... I have done it with the flash about 4 feet away from the white sheet.. I believe more importantly is that the exposure on the sheet is 1-2 stops higher, and the subject is a sufficient distance from the wall. If the subject it too close you might notice that the bright flash reflection off of the sheet over powers the persons skin... Good thing about dslr cameras is that you can view your shot and adjust settings if you have to .

 

[pgriz]

It’s tough to critique photos of someone’s kids, since most parents have no ability to see their kids for who/what they actually are. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that what the parent sees is not what the rest of the world sees. So any critique of the images, comes loaded with all kinds of emotional landmines. However, you’ve asked for comments, and you have received some very good ones.

First of all, depth-of-field. At a focal length of f/2 and focusing at a distance of three feet, your depth of field is about 1 inch deep (2’11.5”-3’0.5”). To get 6” of DOF at that distance, you will need to stop the lens down to at least f/11. Given that you’re dealing with a subject that’s always moving, you’ll probably also need to have a shutter speed of at least 1/125 to avoid motion blur. At ISO 100, the amount of light you need to get those exposure values is direct sunlight. If you’re not posing your kid in the sun, then you either go high on the ISO, or more open in aperture (with lower DOF), and slower shutter (with more risk of motion blur). So to be able to shoot with adequate DOF and minimize both motion blur and ISO noise, you’ll need to go to flash.

Your pictures 3, 4, and 5 were taken with your boy in front on a large window. The good things were that you were at your kid’s eye level, there was obviously a good interaction with you, and the pictures are more-or-less well exposed. However, you have to keep in mind the background of your shots – you don’t see it, but the camera does. Another thing – when we don’t know the person being photographed, we stay interested if we can read a story in the picture.

So. Pic 1: appear to be out of focus, background too clear, light on right needs somewhat more fill from front.

Pic. 2: Same comments as above. Picture is too centered. Kid’s looking directly at the camera and smiling – great for the parent, but not too interesting for the rest of us.

Pic 3. Light’s good. Focus is good. Baby’s face at the 1/3 mark (better composition), and is looking away – dynamic. Less good is the background, and that we can’t see the eyes.

Pic 4. Light’s good, but needs some fill on the right. Focus is off (too soft). Can see eyes but no catchlights (because you were shooting down, not at eye level or even a bit up). Engagement is there, but positioning of the face almost at dead center makes the composition static. Background is somewhat distracting (dark thing growing out of head on left, and bright out-of-focus thing on right).

Pic 5. Exposure’s a little on the bright side. Focus is off (actually, not surprising given the DOF you’re working with). Catchlights in the eyes are good. Kinda wish you left the top of his head in the picture. Positioning to right of frame is good.

Oh, and BJ’s a crusty character, but he gives good advice. Have a look at Dee’s shots – she has some really good ones elsewhere.

 

[Derrel]

Anyone else? Please??

Turn the camera to VERTICAL on a standing person or an upright,seated child.

 

[Pete'sGirl]

It’s tough to critique photos of someone’s kids, since most parents have no ability to see their kids for who/what they actually are. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that what the parent sees is not what the rest of the world sees. So any critique of the images, comes loaded with all kinds of emotional landmines. However, you’ve asked for comments, and you have received some very good ones.

I can handle the criticism, as long as you aren't criticizing the subject himself. Obviously, I see a gorgeous baby, (as does anyone with eyes! ) but I do also see my grandma's foot sticking out of his head in #4 as you mentioned and the soft focus (which I seem to have an ongoing struggle with). But, I CAN handle comments on how I took the picture without getting emotional. So, what do you suggest I do to get the blurry background but still keep BOTH eyes in focus? Also, I do see the overexposure - will work on that as well. Question about keeping the whole head vs. cutting the top off (sounds grisly!) - when is it appropriate to cut the top off a bit? And how much is enough? Thank you so much!

 

[Pete'sGirl]

Turn the camera to VERTICAL on a standing person or an upright,seated child.

Is this always the rule? Also, I have a hard time not centering him when I turn the camera vertical (as you can see in #4). Should I get further away? Closer up?