Experimenting with lighting...CC. Trying my best.

[AMOMENT]

I have a NikonD3100 and a 50mm f/1.8 lens. For these photos I only used a pop up flash for fill. I happened to walk past a room in my house and observed a really nicely illuminated spot. I positioned my "subjects" aka my poor subjected children once again, and took some shots. Here are some of the photos. I don't have any lighting gear yet so I did my best which I'm sure is not very good. (there's alot so I will put them in two threads.) I also tried a piece of tp over my flash to soften it a bit. Thanks in advance!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

[AMOMENT]

Barely any pp on these.

 

[AMOMENT]

That's not saying it's a good thing. Just mentioning ..........

 

[MTVision]

Honestly they look like regular photos taken with the pop-up. See her cheeks on some of the photos - I can't really explain it but they have that "flashed look". How are you using it as fill flash - besides the toilet paper?

 

[tirediron]

Do you know how to control your flash out-put?

 

[LifterCatcher]

You are getting much better I like following your progress

 

[MTVision]

The data on the pictures say the flash did not fire. Some of them look like they definitely have flash but its weird - every photo says flash did not fire.
It also says your shutter speed was 1/400 at ISO 100 and f/3.2 <---- its pretty hard to get your shutter speed up to 400 inside with ISO 100. Oh yeah my Nikon won't go above a shutter speed of 1/200 with a flash so are you sure these are the right photos?

 

[Derrel]

Shots #1,2,4,and 5, all those images exhibit the "classic" over-exposed Nikon look. Yellow skin. Very yellow skin. And highlights that are blown and white/yellow. Look at shot #4--do you see how detail-free her little shirt is??? That is severe over-exposure.

Do you have the camera cranked to "Vivid"? The dark background, with the baby in a "pool" or "shaft" of sunlight coming in from a window might look good to the human eye, which an handle extreme dynamic range, but the camera will often tend to exacerbate problems with that high-contrast light--especially if the camera is set to capture in JPEG mode, and if the color settings are set to say, Vivid, or Direct Print.

You absolutely NEED to shoot in RAW capture mode in that kind of lighting, and then "develop" the images properly, using a low-contrast tone curve so as to avoid an excessive degree of image contrast ruining the photos. Does your camera offer in-camera RAW developing after the shoot? Do you have post-processing software that can handle Nikon .NEF raw files?

Anyway...this type of lighting looks beautiful to the human eye--but film or digital needs some "help" with it. A very large reflector, like one 5x5 feet in size, is very helpful in these kind of situations, and will allow you to get away from flash.

 

[MTVision]

Shots #1,2,4,and 5, all those images exhibit the "classic" over-exposed Nikon look. Yellow skin. Very yellow skin. And highlights that are blown and white/yellow. Look at shot #4--do you see how detail-free her little shirt is??? That is severe over-exposure.

Do you have the camera cranked to "Vivid"? The dark background, with the baby in a "pool" or "shaft" of sunlight coming in from a window might look good to the human eye, which an handle extreme dynamic range, but the camera will often tend to exacerbate problems with that high-contrast light--especially if the camera is set to capture in JPEG mode, and if the color settings are set to say, Vivid, or Direct Print.

You absolutely NEED to shoot in RAW capture mode in that kind of lighting, and then "develop" the images properly, using a low-contrast tone curve so as to avoid an excessive degree of image contrast ruining the photos. Does your camera offer in-camera RAW developing after the shoot? Do you have post-processing software that can handle Nikon .NEF raw files?

Anyway...this type of lighting looks beautiful to the human eye--but film or digital needs some "help" with it. A very large reflector, like one 5x5 feet in size, is very helpful in these kind of situations, and will allow you to get away from flash.

These photos look like flash was used right Derrel? I'm not imagining it am I? The EXIF data says that the flash didn't fire and that her shutter speed was 1/400 which makes absolutely no sense - maybe my EXIF reader is wrong. The OP said she used flash, the pictures look like flash was used........confused I am

 

[fjrabon]

These photos look like flash was used right Derrel? I'm not imagining it am I? The EXIF data says that the flash didn't fire and that her shutter speed was 1/400 which makes absolutely no sense - maybe my EXIF reader is wrong. The OP said she used flash, the pictures look like flash was used........confused I am

Yes, if you look at the ribbon, on some of the photos you can actually see the different colors of light. The slightly more yellow natural light coming in from the bottom right and the more blue light coming from the flash.

 

[RichardsTPF]

Looks like you shot it with your aperture wide open. The DOF is not enough, look at her ears and her hair there.
At this short distance (I assume you didn't crop the pics), F4 might not be able to give enough DOF. Check out the online DOF calculator.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Looks like you shot it with your aperture wide open. The DOF is not enough, look at her ears and her hair there.
At this short distance (I assume you didn't crop the pics), F4 might not be able to give enough DOF. Check out the online DOF calculator.

+1, and you can download free depth of field apps to your smart phone. I enjoy having mine at the touch of a button anywhere.

 

[joealcantar]

I believe you missed the idea of the nifty fifty, when you see that great light put that lens on aperature priority and set it to what you want to shoot and let the camera do the rest. When you throw in that pop up flash the shots go back to looking like a point and shoot camera because the flash is not high or off camera etc. Find out your cameras max ISO that you are willing to use (at what setting will you start to see that noise) but keep in mind that noise in certain style shots can also look great. Use the center focusing point on the camera so the focus assist light helps the camera focus correctly (basically focusing and then hold the button half-way down and recompose to your liking if need be). You have a great subject so shoot away.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[gsgary]

Shots #1,2,4,and 5, all those images exhibit the "classic" over-exposed Nikon look. Yellow skin. Very yellow skin. And highlights that are blown and white/yellow. Look at shot #4--do you see how detail-free her little shirt is??? That is severe over-exposure.

Do you have the camera cranked to "Vivid"? The dark background, with the baby in a "pool" or "shaft" of sunlight coming in from a window might look good to the human eye, which an handle extreme dynamic range, but the camera will often tend to exacerbate problems with that high-contrast light--especially if the camera is set to capture in JPEG mode, and if the color settings are set to say, Vivid, or Direct Print.

You absolutely NEED to shoot in RAW capture mode in that kind of lighting, and then "develop" the images properly, using a low-contrast tone curve so as to avoid an excessive degree of image contrast ruining the photos. Does your camera offer in-camera RAW developing after the shoot? Do you have post-processing software that can handle Nikon .NEF raw files?

Anyway...this type of lighting looks beautiful to the human eye--but film or digital needs some "help" with it. A very large reflector, like one 5x5 feet in size, is very helpful in these kind of situations, and will allow you to get away from flash.

What is this classic over-exposed Nikon look ? i always thought Nikon exposure was perfect