Cannot get a crisp photo indoors

[ja20]

Hi,

I have been taking photos of my baby for about 6 months. I have a canon t5i with a 50mm 1.4 lens. I typically shoot in Av mode, but in order to get the shutter speed that I need to stop the motion of his flailing limbs, I have to shoot in the 1.4-1.8 range. Despite my best attempts, I cannot get his eyes into focus. I try not to take the ISO above 800 because it gets too grainy. Is this a skill limitation or is it just not possible. I cannot be certain that it is a DOF problem, it could be a motion blur problem. Usually at 1.4 the shutter speed is 1/125. That has always been the slowest I will let it go, but it might be too slow. What do you all think? I just want some really crisp eyes.

 

[manaheim]

1.4 to 1.8 is a ridiculously shallow depth of field. So the tip of his nose may be sharp and his eyes will be fuzzy.

Stop it down to 5.6 or so. Use an external flash bounced off ceiling or turn up ISO to compensate.

 

[astroNikon]

As BunnyWabbit said, get an external flash. Since you don't like the results of a higher ISO it sounds like you have reached the "limitation" of your setup/config for the situation.

FYI - You need more light, maybe bring another lamp in the room or something and try some more photos. one of those bright halogen floor lamps that bounces off the ceiling might do wonders. A work light .... something

 

[amolitor]

Oh, you can do babies with available light. It just takes practice and effort.

I would stop down a bit, to 2.2 or 2.8. Adjust ISO to fit. Then use single-point focus, and move that focus point to the point closest to the eye you want in focus. Then focus/lock/shoot over and over and over. If you get one in a dozen that's not just a blurry mess, you're doing well. If you get a good picture one time out of a hundred, you're doing fine. Experiment with focusing on one eye, and then the other. Take a LOT of pictures. It's digital, it costs nothing. Go crazy.

 

[Derrel]

I think you're focusing too much of stopping the motion of the baby's limbs...and as a result that wife aperture in the f/1.4 to f/1.8 range is seriously impairing your success. If you want to shoot by available light, I think you will need to stop the lens down to at least f/2.8 to f/3.5, and allow the shutter to drop down in speed. A baby is not always moving...there are many,many times when you can get a perfectly good shot at a slowish speed, like 1/15 second, by shooting during periods when the baby is not "wildly flailing". THis is digital...just keep shooting...don't worry about the blurrier shots, unless they happen to look especially cool. You need some decent depth of field, much more so than sheer shutter speed. Keep the camera as steady as you can, by using found support, or shooting from a seated position, or propping your arm or elbows on surfaces, but definitely move AWAY from the wide-open f/1.4 and 1/125 type exposure range...that's just a loser.

 

[ja20]

I may ask for an external flash for christmas from my husband - any recommendations?
I do feel that light is a limiting factor in our house, we live under very mature trees. Before I get an external flash - is there a specific lightbulb I can put in a lamp that will mimic daylight so that I am not dealing with the white balance dilemma of sunlight from a window mixed with a tungsten bulb? Would a daylight bulb be best?
And, thank you amoliter - I do end up with at least one keeper out of about 20 or so even at my shallow dof, maybe I'm not as bad as I think. Are those really crisp eyes I see online that obviously have a really shallow DOF a product of photoshop/sharpening? Like this - http://photographyspark.com/images/photo-contest-depth-of-field.jpg
And to continue my random list of questions and comments, does more light always mean a better picture. For example if I can get the exposure I need at ISO 100, 1/400 and f/3.5, will more light make that picture better?

 

[amolitor]

Often people will sharpen the eyes specifically, which while it doesn't actually make the picture "sharper" per se definitely creates that feeling that the eyes are going to pop right off the screen. You do need to start with a really sharply focused eye, though.

Keep in mind that babies will rarely arrange to place both eyes exactly the same distance from the lens for you, like a model (even a toddler) might, by looking straight at the camera. This means that, usually, one eye sis going to be at a different distance than the other - in "real" shooting. I think the recommended procedure is to focus on the inner corner of the eye. I think there's a recommendation for whether to use the nearer one of the farther one. I think the nearer one. Anyways. In real life you are going to need more depth of field than those hyper-stylized "shallow DoF with super-popped eyes" photos, unless you get really lucky, hence the various recommendations all of which come out to "stop down at least a bit!"

 

[raventepes]

I'd go for a Yongnuo 568EX for a flash. Relatively inexpensive, and great output.

 

[Luke345678]

Post a few pictures for us to inspect further maybe?

 

[keethjon]

I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash. In any case, if you must use available light, set your camera to a focusing mode that will concentrate directly on the area of the baby's eyes. Also, try taking the picture on a bright day with the light coming through the window falling on the baby. You should be able to use aperture f4-f5.6 and still use a decent shutter speed like 1/125. I agree with the previous statement that babies don't move every second so patience also comes into play.

Keith
Easy Basic Photography

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.

Well in theory I guess that's possible - only thing I've noticed is that I don't see a whole lot of pictures taken with the built in flash that were very good, I'm guessing that's probably why so many others are suggesting an external.

 

[The_Traveler]

I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.

Using on camera flash means that there is little of the micro-texture that makes a baby's skin look 'velvety' because all the light is straight on and no shadows are thrown, except under the skin.

Additionally there is often so little color in a baby's skin that the flash just blows it all away.

 

[Tailgunner]

I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.

Using on camera flash means that there is little of the micro-texture that makes a baby's skin look 'velvety' because all the light is straight on and no shadows are thrown, except under the skin.

Additionally there is often so little color in a baby's skin that the flash just blows it all away.

This, I've been playing around with my built in flash and my new Speedlight shooting our son. My built in flash is nice for misc items such as furniture but I get much better people results bouncing the light off a wall or ceiling using my Speedlight.

 

[cynicaster]

Personally, I wouldn't even consider using a pop-up flash for anything other than maybe to take a photo of a refrigerator in my garage that I want to post in the online classifieds. Even then, it would probably make me a little bit itchy.

Get a half decent external flash unit and watch your results improve by leaps and bounds as you learn how to use it.

 

[Braineack]