Siblings ~ From a session last week

Lacey Anne · Mar 24, 2008

C&C always welcome!

#1

#2 (my favorite of the bunch)

#3 (my fave of the boy)

#4

#5 (The girl is a little out focus. My apeture wasn't open enough. I corrected, but I still like this shot because it's the only one where her foot doesn't completely cover his face for this pose.)

These children are my children's best friends. The boy is right in between our three boys age wise and the girl is a month younger than my daughter. I had a hard time getting a nice face from the boy because he kept making these weird faces with his mouth stretched funny.:lmao:

Lacey Anne · Mar 24, 2008

Again, photobucket really messed with the crispness. These are VERY crisp on the originals.

You can see them at my flickr account too:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24985428@N06/

LaFoto · Mar 24, 2008

Well, the fourth photo here cannot have been very crisp ever. It has too clear signs of camera shake. It will never be totally sharp and has never been totally sharp.

That said, I think you did really well here, they are adorable chlidren and you got some nice expressions out of them. Pity the girl is having this irritable skin ... my son was the same when he was little (and still is the same today, for that matter).

Lacey Anne · Mar 24, 2008

LaFoto said:
Well, the fourth photo here cannot have been very crisp ever. It has too clear signs of camera shake. It will never be totally sharp and has never been totally sharp.

That said, I think you did really well here, they are adorable chlidren and you got some nice expressions out of them. Pity the girl is having this irritable skin ... my son was the same when he was little (and still is the same today, for that matter).

Thank you. It is too bad about her skin.

It's so rough. I feel badly for her.

elsaspet · Mar 25, 2008

Hi Lacey, I think all it really is, is a white balance issue. Seems you have two separate kinds of light in the photo. One looks very tungsten (in the front), and very floresent (in the back).
Could you explain how you set up the shot? What kind of light were you using?
It's nothing that can't be fixed though.

Lacey Anne · Mar 25, 2008

elsaspet said:
Hi Lacey, I think all it really is, is a white balance issue. Seems you have two separate kinds of light in the photo. One looks very tungsten (in the front), and very floresent (in the back).
Could you explain how you set up the shot? What kind of light were you using?
It's nothing that can't be fixed though.

I'm using natural light from a window, a reflector and a bounced, diffused flash.

elsaspet · Mar 25, 2008

Hmm, weird. And no other light sources? Did you gel your flash?

Would it be ok it I tried to work with one of the photos?

Big Mike · Mar 25, 2008

Yes, there is certainly something weird going on with the color/white balance. Some of them look quite off...but as a group, they are all over the map.

I think part of the problem is that cloudy daylight isn't the same color temp as flash (flash is balanced for sunny daylight). There might be other causes...but it's hard to tell.

Lacey Anne · Mar 25, 2008

elsaspet said:
Hmm, weird. And no other light sources? Did you gel your flash?

Would it be ok it I tried to work with one of the photos?

No, no other light source. You are more than welcome to work with the photos. In fact, after seeing YOUR work, I would be HONORED.

Lacey Anne · Mar 25, 2008

Big Mike said:
Yes, there is certainly something weird going on with the color/white balance. Some of them look quite off...but as a group, they are all over the map.

I think part of the problem is that cloudy daylight isn't the same color temp as flash (flash is balanced for sunny daylight). There might be other causes...but it's hard to tell.

They are and I don't know why. I'm going to have to play around today and see if I can't figure it out. My children will have to be my victims again.

elsaspet · Mar 25, 2008

Hey Mike, I didn't think about that, but I think you have to be right.

Lacey, my 'puter is running an export at the moment, but as soon as it finishes, I'll work on that first photo and tell you what I've done.
From the looks of it, I'm going to have to do two exposures/wb and merge them.

Lacey Anne · Mar 25, 2008

elsaspet said:
Hey Mike, I didn't think about that, but I think you have to be right.

Lacey, my 'puter is running an export at the moment, but as soon as it finishes, I'll work on that first photo and tell you what I've done.
From the looks of it, I'm going to have to do two exposures/wb and merge them.

Thanks!

elsaspet · Mar 25, 2008

Hi Lacey,
No. Now it's really yellow with a green tint. Do you calibrate? I've seen your other work, and it doesn't have these problems. I think Mike is right about the light issue.

Lacey Anne · Mar 25, 2008

elsaspet said:
Hi Lacey,
No. Now it's really yellow with a green tint. Do you calibrate? I've seen your other work, and it doesn't have these problems. I think Mike is right about the light issue.

lol, I saw that as soon as I posted it so I deleted it! I'm going in April to buy studio lighting so I *shouldn't* have to worry about the weather affecting my light anymore. Still... How should I have calibrated for this? Should I change it every time a cloud moves?? :blushing:

elsaspet · Mar 25, 2008

No. Hehe. I meant calibration for your monitor.

What Mike said is totally right. Your lights need to be more powerful than the sunlight. That way, the sun, or lack of it, doesn't factor into the equation.
I love natural light, but it's a tricky little bear.