Lydia

[klpurkett]

My youngest daughter... the subject of many practice sessions.

Any thoughts on how to improve this shot (if I were to try to do it over again)? Any PP advice or thoughts? I'm trying to work in Manual and feel like I need to read more on exposure so I can better understand the how's and why's. Up until this point I've been just getting familiar with how to operate my camera, so it's been pure trial and error. Here's what my settings were:
f/13
1/400 sec
ISO 1600
200 mm
It was an overcast day outside, and this was taken mid-afternoon. My other question is how others handle the weird catch lights occurring in people's eyes when using natural light outdoors? I'm not crazy about the reflections in her eyes, but don't really want to try to photoshop them out.
Thanks,
Kristy

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured, all the books on children photography suggest going for a softer look, perhaps f/13 might be a bit too narrow, however there does seem to be some visual softness in this image which may be the result of either camera shakr or infant movement.

Regarding the reflections in the eyes, looks like an outdoor shot and if so you are just too close to the light source, either place a diffuser between the baby and the light source or change the baby's position.

[Chri5]

Hi, Yes I like the composition here but there does appear to be some shake. I know its hard to keep young children from moving around.

I agree with Shadowman, F13 is too narrow, what type of lens do you use? I took a shot of my daughter (my avatar photo) not to dissimilar to your shot. I used an aperture of F1.8 and I focused on her eyes. So her eyes where razor sharp but there was a very nice soft effect on her face. It really worked well you should try that. I would suggest that with all portraits try to get the eyes really sharp although you probably already know that.

[vaez]

nice photo she is very very beautiful and lovely i will wish god help she

[klpurkett]

Thanks John, Chris, and Vaez! I really appreciate your feedback. You're right, I should definitely have used a wider aperture. All I have is a kit lense, and it only goes down to f/4, but even that would have been better than f/13. Camera and/or subject movement seems to be a major problem for me in the majority of my attempts... Hmmm... If it's not one it's the other. I guess I kind of assumed that being outside would provide enough light for a clear shot, but perhaps not. I'm guessing a better lense for portraits and an off camera flash are going to be next on my wish list.

[Chri5]

Camera and/or subject movement seems to be a major problem for me in the majority of my attempts... Hmmm... If it's not one it's the other.

I wouldn't worry about it to much, I used a kit lens for close to ten years before I upgraded to 35mm prime and 10-20mm wide. A good lens would help but just work with what you have for now. concentrate on F stops,ISO and the likes for now. Once you get a better understanding of the technical aspects then think about upgrading your lenses. this way when you finally get your lenses you will be a better photographer and you will know how to get the best out of your new glass.

Remember having the best equipment will not make you a better photographer! This is a common misconception. Trial and error is the only way. It gets frustrating I know. we spend hours trying to master our images only to find out that they are soft or blurred or underexposed. I spent years binning shot after shot but eventually it all started to come together. Just keep shooting.

[Mike Buckley]

Such a beautiful child and a photo that can be of such high quality that your family will always treasure it!

Children move around a lot and in this case your subject is looking to the left, perhaps only at the last second. If you had pulled back a bit you could have allowed for the child to look either right or left. If you had done that, you could have then cropped so the gaze is toward the negative space, unlike here where there is no negative space for the child to "look into."

I completely disagree that the aperture of f/13 is too small. It's only too small if your goal was a smaller depth of field. The depth of field here is just fine, very attractive.

You were shooting at 1/400 second, so that stopped your child's action as I believe you'll see in my version of your image shown below. Even so, I always try to use 1/500 for young children. The speed you chose is also fast enough with regard for hand holding your focal length. Using a larger aperture wouldn't have helped with regard to shutter speed because it is already fast enough.

For me, your only issue regarding the softness of the photo is your sharpening technique during post-processing. I applied more sharpening to all areas of the image, applying it more to some areas than to other areas. I added the sharpening very quickly, which explains why I added some unwanted artifacts to parts of the child's right eye. Click either image in the Lytebox and then toggle back and forth between the two versions to compare them.

[William W]

My youngest daughter...

Cute Child. Nice shot.

*

Any thoughts on how to improve this shot (if I were to try to do it over again)?

Can’t adequately make any useful comment until you post the original frame, straight out of the camera.

The image posted appears to have been both cropped and also post produced in Adobe Photoshop Elements thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, to make a considered comment on how to improve the shot, if one were to re-shoot it.

*

. . . I'm trying to work in Manual and feel like I need to read more on exposure so I can better understand the how's and why's. . . so it's been pure trial and error. Here's what my settings were: f/13 @ 1/400 sec @ ISO 1600; FL =200 mm

Answers to these following questions will assist greatly in formulating quality advice.

EXIF reveals Nikon D3100 and SPOT METERING used in MANUAL CAMERA MODE.

Questions:

1. On what did you SPOT METER?

2. After metering, did you use the exposure settings that were suggested by the Camera’s TTL (Through the lens) Light Meter or did you manually adjust the exposure settings?

3. If you manually adjusted the exposure settings – what was the adjustment?

*

Any PP advice or thoughts? . . . It was an overcast day outside, and this was taken mid-afternoon. My other question is how others handle the weird catch lights occurring in people's eyes when using natural light outdoors? I'm not crazy about the reflections in her eyes, but don't really want to try to photoshop them out.

The image is soft.

There appears no obvious indication of Camera Shake and there appears no obvious indication of Subject Movement.

My primary guess is the lens is a bit soft and/or the focus was not nabbed on the eyes.

MORE QUESTIONS:

1. What lens (specifically)?

2. Used a filter on the lens?

3. Have a lens hood on?

4. (As requested) - Load original file (to establish degree of cropping and to establish plane of sharp focus)

*

Re: The reflection of the landscape scene and the house in the eyes: Just the same technique as you would use when shooting into a mirror –

a. Change camera viewpoint

b. Change Subject Pose (head position)

c. Both of the above

It is not too difficult to remove the reflections using the clone tool. Sure - you might mess it up a few times, but you won't get better at it, without trying it.

Below is 3 minutes work.

I also:

- sharpened;

- removed small amount of blue cast (common in shots made in OPEN SHADE – it is to do with the subtleties of the colour temperature of OPEN SHADE – I’ll leave that as another topic for the moment);

- dodged and burned to give a bit more MODELLING on the face (i.e. the illusion of DEPTH), because the subject is in DIFFUSE OPEN SHADE the light is SOFT and that can make for a FLAT image.

The original is on the top, for comparison and contrast:



WW


Addendum: Bigger one to better see the rebuild of the eyes:



Also - Mike's example and his concentration on the Sharpening Aspect of your Post Production is very good advice and example.

[Donald]

Cute Child. Nice shot.

................

Wow, you'd pay a fortune for a tutorial like that if you went out to try and buy it. And here on CiC, you get it for free!

[William W]

. . . there does appear to be some shake. I know its hard to keep young children from moving around.

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?

I up-sized the image and interrogated the image at 200% and I could not find any leading edge blur on key points:

the eye lashes
the nose
the mouth
the teeth

WW

[William W]

. . . I completely disagree that the aperture of f/13 is too small. It's only too small if your goal was a smaller depth of field. The depth of field here is just fine, very attractive.

I concur.

Moreover, it is poor technique and also limits the creative process to automatically attribute any aperture by definition to any particular type of shot.

As mentioned the aperture chosen must take into consideration many aspects, one of which is Depth of Field.

BUT - Depth of Field is also dependent upon FRAMING - and that is why I asked for the original frame to be posted.

Also the Aperture chosen must take into account the lens which is being used - for example F/13 might have been be used because it was considered it would make for a very sharp image.

There are many other considerations also.

*

You were shooting at 1/400 second, so that stopped your child's action . . .

I concur - pending my previous question requesting any evidence that I may have missed that would lead to the conclusion that there is Camera Blur and/or Subject Movement

*

your only issue regarding the softness of the photo is your sharpening technique during post-processing.

I tend to agree. Post Production Sharpening is an issue - I concur.

I still want to establish the position of Plane of Sharp Focus before I concur that it is the only issue.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

the rebuild of the eyes

Well done, William! Far more attractive!

[Mike Buckley]

BUT - Depth of Field is also dependent upon FRAMING

How so? I ask because I've never given any thought to that and might be able to pick up a tip or two from you.

[William W]

How so? I ask because I've never given any thought to that and might be able to pick up a tip or two from you.

Axiom of DoF:

For most shots (Portraits and the like) Provided the FRAMING and the CAMERA FORMAT and the APERTURE remain the SAME - then the DoF will be the same no matter what Focal Length Lens is used.

***

I made the reference to FRAMING in this thread, because I requested the OP to post the original image (for one reason), so the CROPPING could be interrogated.

You see, if there is not much cropping and the image that was posted was only trimmed at the edges, then the DoF will be about 6"~7" (about 160mm~170mm) using F/13 and that's not very much.

Using F/5.6 there would be about 3" (70mm) - that's awfully slim

Using F/1.8 there would be only be about 1" (23mm) and that is razor thin, especially for a front on Face . . .


On the other hand - IF the frame was extensively cropped, then there would be much more DoF.

WW

... there's a recent thread about it I think it was Grahame who built a spreadsheet predicated on my cheat sheets . . . looking for it . . .

[Mike Buckley]

You see, if there is not much cropping and the image that was posted was only trimmed at the edges, then the DoF will be about 6"~7" (about 160mm~170mm) using F/13 and that's not very much...
On the other hand - IF the frame was extensively cropped, then there would be much more DoF.

Got it. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kristy. I'm not experienced in portrait shooting , but I have to tell you that you have a lovely daughter. Although other members commented to improve the image technically( this is what you needed anyway), I think your daughter improves the image emotionally a lot with her looks . I also like how you framed the shot, may be the image wouldn't look so powerful if you inclueded all of her head in the frame.

[Chri5]

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?WW

At first glance it does to my eyes appear to be soft or blurred also I have a 4 year old daughter who I have repeatedly tried to take photos of and it is quite hard to get her to stop moving about. Kids are very active.

I took a photo of my daughter at f1.8 and it turned out to be a good photo as the eyes where sharp but the rest of her face was softer. I just offered an an opinion that's all

[Chri5]

On what evidence do you base that conclusion?WW

At first glance it does to my eyes appear to be soft or blurred also I have a 4 year old daughter who I have repeatedly tried to take photos of and it is quite hard to get her to stop moving about. Kids are very active.

I took a photo of my daughter at f1.8 and it turned out to be a good photo as the eyes where sharp but the rest of her face was softer. I just offered an an opinion that's all

[William W]

Thanks for answering in such a detailed manner.

At first glance it does to my eyes appear to be soft or blurred also I have a 4 year old daughter who I have repeatedly tried to take photos of and it is quite hard to get her to stop moving about. Kids are very active.

I concur on both points:

1. > The image appears soft and/or blurred.

2. > Kids are difficult to keep still.

***

To arrest the Subject Motion Blur for Child Portraiture when shooting in AVAILABLE LIGHT, one should employ a suitably fast SHUTTER SPEED. In the absence of evidence that there was Subject Motion captured I concur with Mike Buckley, that 1/400s was adequately fast enough to arrest any Subject Motion in the sample image. I also concur with the opinion that 1/500s would be safer - even bumping to 1/640s is necessary for some active 2 to 3 year-olds.

***

I just offered an an opinion that's all

For clarity: my question was not emotive. I was simply asking a question, nothing more nothing less.

I have the experience of having worked in Forensic Analysis of Photographs: I simply asked the question from that predicate having zero knowledge of the reasons for your comment.

WW

[William W]

Well done . . . Far more attractive!

ta.