Family portraits - C&C

[adamhiram]

I thought I would try taking my own family photos this year, myself included. This involved some interesting challenges, including using a tripod and wireless remote/timer, pre-focusing while trying to get a somewhat shallow depth of field with a rambunctious 3 year old in the mix, and in some cases dealing with less than ideal lighting. I opted to use natural light, as carrying additional lighting gear while hiking to various locations seemed a bit much.

It was a fun challenge, and I am looking for some honest feedback on what I did well, and what could have been done better.

I felt this first shot was my strongest, taken at 85mm at f/2.8 from around 25-30' away. I shot a bit wide and cropped in post to give some room for error, and stopped it down a little to give enough depth of field for a fast-moving toddler.
20171104-DSC_4547a by adamhiram, on Flickr
(Nikon D500, 85mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8, 1/200s, ISO 100)

With this next one, the idea was to have a nice rustic background and keep it a little more in focus. The lighting was a little flat, but I think it still works. My main complaint here is the lack of sharpness in the subjects - I'm not sure if I missed focus at f/2.8, or if this lens is really that soft at the long end, wide open (Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 @ 48mm).
20171104-DSC_4591a by adamhiram, on Flickr
(Nikon D500, 17-55mm f/2.8 @ 48mm, f/2.8, 1/200s, ISO 100)

Lastly, I really liked this location but think I just need to come back at a better time of day when there isn't direct sunlight overhead. I had to process the hell out of this one to crush the highlights and bring back some of the harsh shadows, so I'm not really thrilled with the end result. It was challenging enough getting a toddler to hike .3mi through the woods each way, let alone get there at the right time of day, but apparently 11am wasn't it... Same lens here (17-55 @ 50mm) but stopped down to f/4 seems to be a bit sharper.
20171104-DSC_4499a by adamhiram, on Flickr
(Nikon D500, 17-55mm f/2.8 @ 50mm, f/4, 1/1000s, ISO 100)

 

[SquarePeg]

I love the first one and think you nailed the lighting, dof, focus and family photo relaxed fun vibe. Did you take any from that spot looking up t the camera? I think you missed focus on #2. I agree with your self critique about time of day for #3. Great job on a difficult task! I’ll leave it to the experts to offer tips/advice on what to try next time to improve.

 

[Dean_Gretsch]

I like the spontaneous fun in #1 also. It is a genuine family moment.

 

[Derrel]

I like #2 the most, then #1, and the last shot looks too far away, and the backdrop seems "too brushy" to me. Maybe crop-in on #3?

 

[adamhiram]

I love the first one and think you nailed the lighting, dof, focus and family photo relaxed fun vibe. Did you take any from that spot looking up t the camera? I think you missed focus on #2. I agree with your self critique about time of day for #3. Great job on a difficult task! I’ll leave it to the experts to offer tips/advice on what to try next time to improve.

Thank you! With #1, I got a few shots that were more posed, but I really liked the genuine moment captured in this one. I assumed that with a tripod and self-timer, I was just going to walk away with stiff posed shots, so this was a nice surprise.

With #2, I'm still trying to figure out if this was missed focus, or something else. Looking at the ground when zoomed in to 100%, I don't really see anything tack sharp, so I wonder if this is an issue with this lens when shot wide open, or something else. I'm open to suggestions here, as this was an issue in other shots too. At a distance of 15' this should have given me about 3' DoF, which is plenty for some minor subject movement.

I think #3 is a non-starter - I went back to the location twice, and it's always either direct sunlight or dusk and I need to hike back through the woods in the dark. Definitely not an ideal situation with a toddler...

I like the spontaneous fun in #1 also. It is a genuine family moment.

Thanks! That was my thought as well.

I like #2 the most, then #1, and the last shot looks too far away, and the backdrop seems "too brushy" to me. Maybe crop-in on #3?

Any tips on better sharpness in #2? Good call on #3, a tighter crop is an easy fix in post, although I think the harsh highlights and shadows put it in the "reshoot" pile...

 

[vintagesnaps]

#2 made me smile. I agree about the light in #3, that's iffy. The first one's nice but could maybe use a crop since there's plenty of background space in the composition.

I think the second one looks sharp enough, especially on your Flickr. Looking at it a bit, I see the sweaters your wife and son are wearing have a geometric pattern to the knit, and yours is a heather knit so maybe it appears softer? Otherwise the building back there of course isn't in focus with the depth of field, and being a building having a more geometric element than trees/foliage, I wonder if that would have looked better in focus. I don't think it looks bad somewhat out of focus though.

I'd maybe make copies and try some cropping and see if that makes a difference. Maybe crop the left side just to the right of the branch that's sticking into the frame on the upper left to clean up the composition a bit. Or even crop that side of the photo to the building and then crop the right side a little to re-balance the image.

 

[adamhiram]

#2 made me smile.

I think the second one looks sharp enough, especially on your Flickr. Looking at it a bit, I see the sweaters your wife and son are wearing have a geometric pattern to the knit, and yours is a heather knit so maybe it appears softer? Otherwise the building back there of course isn't in focus with the depth of field, and being a building having a more geometric element than trees/foliage, I wonder if that would have looked better in focus. I don't think it looks bad somewhat out of focus though.

After going through other shots from the day, reviewing settings, and 1:1 pixel-peeping, I think I finally found explanations for the lack of sharpness in #2.

• This lens is soft wide open. With the Nikon 17-55, there is a world of difference between f/4 and f/2.8 when zoomed in to 55mm, which was pretty obvious in other shots I took. You can see a reference example here (the-digital-picture.com). On a more technical note, DxOMark rated the 17-55 as 7 P-Mpix on the body I used, while the 85mm f/1.8 used for the other shots was 15 P-Mpix. I typically don't go by specs alone but in this case it seems to clearly show one lens has nearly twice the effective sharpness as the other. I'm considering picking up an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 prime for future shoots.
• I'm pretty sure I see motion blur. I figured 1/200s was plenty for still subjects at 50mm, but toddlers are rarely still, which I'm sure was an issue here. I think bumping up my ISO to 200 or 400 would have been fast enough to counter this.
• Lastly, I think I see camera shake. I wouldn't think that'd be a concern with the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod very low to the ground, but this was also shot on the edge of a parking lot with cars driving by. With approximately 3' depth of field, I should be able to see a definitive strip of grass or gravel on the ground that is in-focus, but I just don't see it here. This wasn't as noticeable in other shots, so this may have also played a factor.

In the end, I agree that it's probably sharp enough, especially for smaller prints, and probably not worth reshooting. Thank you for the great feedback!

 

[jcdeboever]

Wonder shots. What everyone else said. Looks like that glass is stellar.

 

[adamhiram]

One more follow-on question that's a bit of a tangent, but related to this shoot. I'm happy with the white balance settings for these shots, but I tried using a gray card at each location (Lastolite EzyBalance), with results that were all over the place. I'm pretty sure I am using it correctly, however I encountered two issues: the white balance was significantly off in every test shot, and it was off by wildly varying amounts for each location.

Here's how much it was off by for each shot above:

1. Gray card = 5850+1, my edit = 4500+12, off by +1350-11
2. Gray card = 7750+5, my edit = 5500+8, off by +2250-3
3. Gray card = 5150+10, my edit = 4450+9, off by +700+1

I have no problem setting my white balance manually, but does anyone have any thoughts on why I am getting unusable results with this gray card? I would think if it wasn't pure gray and had a color cast, it would at least be off by a consistent amount. Perhaps it is too reflective and is picking up casts from whatever is around it that the subject is not? Am I using it wrong, or is this thing just junk?

wb by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

I used to work at a studio where we photographed a MacBeth color checker and a gray card at the start and end of every,single 100-foot of long-roll film, and at day's start/day's end...My guess is what we were always instructed to avoid: GLARE on the gray card can significantly skew the results...in the warm shot...card is held skyward...in the shot of the wife, card looks non-glared...the surface of a gray card may, or may not, create a diffuse highlight (that soft, DULL 'glow')...depends on what is lighting said card!

AS to shot #2...on your Flickr page gallery, I looked at it large; the corners, by the fence, and the left corner...UGLY...poor corner lens performance at f/2.8 at the long end; It __is__ a multi,multi-element zoom; the 85/1.8 AF-S G is SUPER-sharp; the 50/1.8 AF-S G is amply sharp, much sharper than any zoom I can think of at 50mm.

I thbnk the thing you think of as camera shake is actually not camera shake, but a slightly nervous, "jiggly" out of focus background rendering...I SEE what you mean, but I think it is not shake, but the way the lens is drawing the scene. Shot #2, well, it has the feeling of motion blurring in the corner/peripheral areas, yes.

 

[adamhiram]

I used to work at a studio where we photographed a MacBeth color checker and a gray card at the start and end of every,single 100-foot of long-roll film, and at day's start/day's end...My guess is what we were always instructed to avoid: GLARE on the gray card can significantly skew the results...in the warm shot...card is held skyward...in the shot of the wife, card looks non-glared...the surface of a gray card may, or may not, create a diffuse highlight (that soft, DULL 'glow')...depends on what is lighting said card!

Thank you for the great info! Let me ask a rather basic follow-up question - what is the correct way to take reference photos with a gray card for setting white balance in post? In Lastolite's low-budget "school of photography" video, they make it seem as simple as including it in the photo, perpendicular to the camera, and illuminated by the same light, which is what I did for the most part. I've had issues with this in a controlled studio environment too, which I've posted about previously.

Looking at my other test shots:

1. 3 test shots: 2 had the gray card perpendicular to camera and gave the wrong white balance, 1 was angled down and seemed unusable, but was actually the only one that gave the correct white balance.
2. 2 test shots: both slightly angled up, both gave wrong white balance.
3. 2 test shots: 1 perpendicular, 1 angled up, both gave wrong white balance

Is there any easy technique I can use to make this time-saving tool actually be useful and save time? Is this product just too reflective, or do I need to learn how to use it better? Again, it's not like setting white balance manually is all that difficult most of the time, but it would be nice to finally figure out if it's worth including a gray card in my workflow.

 

[Derrel]

We had to follow a SUPER-strict, exacting, specific slate shot procedure, which included having the card being perfectly perpendicular to the camera, at a SPECIFIC height for both card, and camera, and at a specific focal length, at a specific distance, and with our "base" full studio lighting with main, fill, hairlight, and backdrop light, on the #1 (blue,painted canvas) background. There was a total admonition that ZERO glare was to be allowed on the gray card!!! ALL of this was necessary because the color printing was done at a far-away location, and we shot on film, and we HAD to have a strict, well-regulated reference point for perfect color, every time, with no mistakes, with no excuses, while maintaining a highly efficient workflow from multiple shooters.

As your own experience might tend to show, simply plopping the gray card into the scene is not the simple process that it might seem to be; again, the results we achieved were based on a super-rigorous, exacting,specific routine that was never, ever allowed to be varied or modified. Our management was ADAMANT that angling the gray card, and thus allowing a slight, diffuse glare to be created, would screw up our final color rendering. As you can see...angled down but with NO GLARE, gave good white balance. Huh....maybe they knew what they were talking about back in the 1980's!

My advice...keep working on this, and keep in mind that a soft, diffuse highlight from the broad expanse of the sky might skew your results, and with that in mind, see if there's a wrinkle or two that you can use to make this tool work correctly for you, on a consistent basis.

 

[adamhiram]

As your own experience might tend to show, simply plopping the gray card into the scene is not the simple process that it might seem to be

Thanks Derrel, this was very helpful, and I always appreciate your insight!

On another note, I really wanted to figure out how I could have improved the overall quality of shot #2 from a technical perspective, so I did what any of us would have done - I bought a new lens (50mm f/1.8) and dragged my family out for a reshoot. The framing and lighting was slightly different and it was 36 degrees out so I only had a few minutes to get some test shots in, but wow, what a difference a fast prime makes. The center is much sharper, even when shot at f/2, and the out of focus areas are much more pleasing. Thank you for all the great feedback!

20171111-DSC_4745a by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Hey---cool, a new 50mm! Yes, it looks sharper, more crisp. Good shot! And yeah, the out of focus areas around the perimeter of the frame-a very different "look" to the defocused areas as compared against the way the 24-70mm zoom rendered that part of the other shots. Always glad to help out a fellow shooter.

 

[Designer]

The framing and lighting was slightly different ..

My impression of this shot is that the backlight from the sun is quite a lot, maybe too much. When your rim light (the sunlight) is obviously stronger than the light on front, then it (the light) becomes the main thing.

I wonder what you might have gotten by using a reflector or turned more toward the sun? This sunlight is very strong, so you might even need to find some open shade on a day like that.

Good poses, good frame.