Baby pics 7 - Bubbles

[Dave Humphries]

I feel this shoot confirms my position as a disorganised twit.
I just hope I have learnt from it - time will tell.
Apologies in advance for the long text and image heavy thread, go get yourself a coffee before attempting to read


The remit from my daughter was to take some shots of Chloe with bubbles and we decided their garden (back yard in US-speak) should be the venue. This is a terraced, turfed affair on the side of a hill, with a tall stand of trees overhanging.

I intended to backlight the bubbles with a flash to improve their visibility, so I set off with what I thought I needed for that; e.g. trigger, flash and light stand - plus all the other usual stuff, or so I thought.
When I got there, I discovered that I had omitted to bring all my umbrellas - I had set the box containing them apart from the light stands at home (weeks ago) *1, so didn't gather them up when packing the car for this shoot!

I wanted soft lit pictures, but had no large light source to use as the key on the subject
It didn't help that I couldn't find my circular 3 foot/90cm 5-in-1 reflector/scrim when packing either, so I had to use the 6 x 4 foot (1.8 x 1.2m) 5-in-1 instead and fire the flash through that to give a soft light source.

I was lucky the wind was very light that day, it only blew the reflector over once, which collided with and knocked over the flash on its stand too of course *2.

I started by determining the ambient exposure, then deliberately dialling that down a stop, so I could add flash key and following that, the bubble light. What I didn't notice, until I had shot way too many frames (using up valuable subject 'attention span' time) was that the bubble/rim light was far too bright and casting light patches and shadows on Chloe's face from camera right *3. I had to 'bin' several shots with reasonable expressions for this

It was also the case that there was a sunlit white conservatory reflecting copious sunlight as fill from that side and I was (or should have been) fighting this with my flash to get the ratio correct, I believe I got there eventually, but note that some aspects of this battle are only now occurring to me as I write this - making it a worthwhile exercise I guess.

Rightly or wrongly *4, I was shooting at fairly wide apertures (e.g. f/2 - f/3.2), because I wanted to blur the background out. Due to the compact nature of the backyard and the need to include the bubbles surrounding Chloe, I chose the 35mm prime (on DX crop = 53mm FFE) over the 18-200mm zoom or 50mm prime.

Flash was controlled manually; I am using two Godox TT685N guns controlled via the X1T (N) on my hot shoe. I shot using HSS (Flash-sync set to Auto-FP "1/250*" in Nikon-speak) to get a shutter speed that allowed use of those wide apertures (and to help freeze bubbles in flight), even at 100 iso.

One camera left is on Group A, intended to be the key and diffused by a scrim, with it's built in wide angle diffuser deployed to spread the light across the surface of the scrim as wide as possible; effectively it's head is 'zoomed' to 14mm.

The bubble flash, camera right and behind the subject and bubbles was on Group B, zoomed initially to 50mm I think, then later 105mm and even snooted and zoomed to 200mm later, to avoid flare.


There was also a specific need for a vertical 7 x 5 shot for a photo frame gift to god parents at her (then) forthcoming christening, hence the first three images being that ratio.

1) So here is the first shot, without bubbles.

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/500s, iso 100, Manual (435-5858)

Note that what was supposed to be the fill from camera right is actually the key, I was still fine tuning the ratios (is my excuse) for the flash camera left being 1/4 and that camera right 1/2 plus the reflected sunlight - no wonder it isn't as I had intended!

Still, she looks cute - and if I hadn't confessed, many might not have realised, from the (fairly decent) result (after some PP), my lack of control when shot.


2) An alternative for the photo frame:

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/500s, iso 100, Manual (435-5862)


3) This was about the only shot with bubbles that lent itself to a 7 x 5 vertical crop.

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5903)

Unfortunately, Chloe's expression isn't great, nor is the lighting - neither flash fired
That's because this was the second in a burst and the first shot (just 1/5 second earlier - and without the bubbles) 'took out' both as they were at 1/2 power by now. So; there's another thing to remember, if shot this close together in burst mode, you won't get two half power flashes in succession, I also expect that HSS doesn't help here, since that also consumes extra energy.
So this is interesting as to what they look like shot by available light only, although I have PP'd to make it match the rest of the series as best I could.


4) OK, in hindsight, this could have been 7 x 5 cropped:

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5908)

Here I finally took control of the bubble flash (Grp.B) power and reduced it to around 1/30 (or "1/16 -2/3" as it says on LCD), which it remained at for the rest of the bubble shots. The Key (Grp.A), was 1/2 power throughout also.

5)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5916)

6)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5933)

7)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5939)

8)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/400s, iso 100, Manual (435-5941)


After lunch, we went up a level on the terrace, hence the different background, this also moved us out of the influence of the conservatory reflection.

9) 'Grandma', no longer blowing bubbles, could now concentrate on getting smiles

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2, 1/800s, iso 100, Manual, Flash groups; A=1/2, B=1/32 [SIZE="1"](435-5972)

10) Didn't always work though

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2, 1/800s, iso 100, Manual, Flash groups; A=1/2, B=1/64 -1/3EV (435-5994)

11) She's not crawling yet, which means she stays put when posed (that's not gonna last much longer!)

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/800s, iso 100, Manual, Flash groups; A=1/2, B=1/64 -1/3EV (435-6006)

12) Chloe can be held up too

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 35mm, f/2.8, 1/500s, iso 100, Manual, Flash groups; A=1/2, B=1/64 -1/3EV (435-6022)

Lessons to learn:

*1 Keep all your kit together (ideally ready to travel), so you don't leave home without crucial parts!

*2 This was predictable and fortunately it survived, but since it happened while we were having lunch, not shooting I really should have made the equipment 'safe' while not using it. Another lesson to be learnt.

*3 Study the first shot (of any new posing arrangement) thoroughly for all lighting ratios on subject and adjust intensities and/or zoom/snoot/grid to deal with any issues arising before continuing with the shoot.

*4 Most of the bubbles are very out of focus as a consequence of the wide apertures used, but I don't think this matters.

*5 Even on a fairly still day, bubbles move fast! Burst mode with flash has severe limitations

From memory, I think I shot about 300 exposures, after deleting the absolute 'no hopers' (and the exposure test shots of toys posed in shooting position), I had around half that left, from which I got the 12 decent ones shown here.

Other comments and observations:
If you give a baby something 'new' to look at, such as bubbles, their expressions may not be as cute and smiley as 'normal'.
Getting a good combination of bubble location, gaze, expression and the flashes firing can be a challenge!
Cloning was used to remove the odd plant label in background we didn't see and deal with while shooting.
The images were processed to be fairly 'bright and airy' with the WB set to achieve a hopefully pleasantly warm look befitting the nice summer's day, even though we were all in shade.

Anyone still reading?
What I would appreciate your views on is:
Did I overdo the brightness of the subject?
Which is best: flash lit bubbles (4 - 8) or not (3), does the colour in the flashed ones distract from the subject?
How did I do with the lighting ratios in 9 - 12?
Any other thoughts?
Smaller threads in future?

If you are still here, thank you for reading and (hopefully) commenting.

All the best and thanks in advance, Dave

[bje07]

Hi Dave,
Continue like this, well documented thread.
Firs answer:
5, 6, 7, 8 seem less sharp in details of the dress, may be you could just adjust the level of bright lights ?
1, 2, 7, 8 seem a little over exposed (just a few)
Second answer:
3 no, no color
better effect on the others. DoF too small on # 5
nicer result on # 6, 7 and 8
my preferred for the pose with bubbles # 4 even some bubbles on her face.
Third answer
better rendering on the last pictures, a remark concerning the wooden fence to be eliminate, too present.
Very cute subject, but I'm sure difficult to manage!!
Excellent results, good job, shoot a maximum to keep the best pictures.
Grand parents and family will be happy with such nice souvenirs
Smaller thread in the future? No, It was pleasant and useful to read.
Jean

[ionian]

Great to see you've posted these up Dave - I can see how your confidence has grown with taking pics of Chloe, and she is just a delight!

I'd like to see the bubbles sharp but I don't think this is a big issue; this would be a lot easier with a longer focal length, say 150mm at 5.6ish. As for lighting them, I think light off to the side may have been most effective but I wouldn't worry so much about this myself.

I think the lighting looks fine; you identified a potential hazard in the reflected light and dealt with it, so well done for that. Your goal here was to produce shots that would make your 'clients' happy, and I think you can certainly be sure of having achieved this - if you want technical perfection, the only way to have complete control is to move to a studio.

Lastly, I wanted to mention some PP thoughts - some show a slight darkening under the eyes which I would smooth out, and then I suggest also working on the eyes themselves. Just a little - lighten, add a small amount of saturation and details, and they will really sing.

Really well done Dave, and it's a delight to see some more of your pictures.

[Mike Buckley]

I didn't take the time to read the thread but it's clear without doing so that you must be having a great time photographing Chloe, not to mention the process of learning how to photograph her. As you critique your photos, keep in mind that your family is very lucky to have even the photos that you wish had been better.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Dave, a lovely baby I prefer the flash lit bubbles , they don't distract me. Lighting looks better in 9-12 .

I will get back to this thread to read all of it. And then I might add some more comments

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jean,

So I don't lose the plot, I copied in my questions as well as your answers

Did I overdo the brightness of the subject?

5, 6, 7, 8 seem less sharp in details of the dress, may be you could just adjust the level of bright lights ?
1, 2, 7, 8 seem a little over exposed (just a few)

Yes, I am still 'feeling my way' in ACR balancing Exposure, Highlights and Whites to get a sensible result in the dress, face and other (darker) areas. On the shots with more foreground; dress or grass, the softness of the narrow DoF doesn't help.

Which is best: flash lit bubbles (4 - 8) or not (3), does the colour in the flashed ones distract from the subject?

3 no, no color
better effect on the others. DoF too small on # 5
nicer result on # 6, 7 and 8
my preferred for the pose with bubbles # 4 even some bubbles on her face.

I think, if I understand correctly, that you generally prefer the shots with coloured bubbles(?).

I agree that in #5, where the bubbles were being blown quite close towards the camera, obviously then suffering from them being too soft.

You'd be surprised how fast those bubbles travel in fractions of a second, so getting a nice grouping around her, within the extended DoF and with a good expression and her looking at something that is inside the frame, was a challenge that only lots of shooting could resolve (on this day).

How did I do with the lighting ratios in 9 - 12?

better rendering on the last pictures, a remark concerning the wooden fence to be eliminate, too present.

Here I think you're suggesting that the little bamboo edging fence is too prominent.
Well, I can't remove it, but I could perhaps have darkened it, that said, due to the tight space involved, it was being lit by the flash as well as ambient. Which suggests I missed the opportunity to 'flag' off (i.e. block the flash from reaching it) somehow - this is a solution that has only just struck me thinking how to avoid it 'next time' - given that over the months and years ahead, I am quite likely to shoot Chloe there again.

Thanks for your reply, it has made me think.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

I'd like to see the bubbles sharp but I don't think this is a big issue; this would be a lot easier with a longer focal length, say 150mm at 5.6ish. As for lighting them, I think light off to the side may have been most effective but I wouldn't worry so much about this myself.

I could probably have used the 50mm, perhaps even the 100mm macro to get a bit more distance, although the terraced nature of the garden only gives a few feet fore-aft movement space without having the back to the conservatory or being two levels down and looking up at the subject. The alternative being to shoot elsewhere, but if a public area, that brings a raft of other issues (perhaps I worry too much).

I think the lighting looks fine; you identified a potential hazard in the reflected light and dealt with it, so well done for that. Your goal here was to produce shots that would make your 'clients' happy, and I think you can certainly be sure of having achieved this - if you want technical perfection, the only way to have complete control is to move to a studio.

Thanks and yes, the "clients" were happy, in fact I think Rebecca is reading my replies here as I post them and Skyping back to me on the other screen with ideas

Lastly, I wanted to mention some PP thoughts - some show a slight darkening under the eyes which I would smooth out, and then I suggest also working on the eyes themselves. Just a little - lighten, add a small amount of saturation and details, and they will really sing.

I did do that (except saturation) to the eyes on several, perhaps not all, I can see it is an issue in a few.

I'm sure you know what its like, by the time you've edited the twelfth in a series, you're more 'in tune' with the possibilities than when you did the first (in my case) several hours earlier, but too weary to go back and redo more than the odd one or two.

Thanks Simon.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

I didn't take the time to read the thread but it's clear without doing so that you must be having a great time photographing Chloe, not to mention the process of learning how to photograph her. As you critique your photos, keep in mind that your family is very lucky to have even the photos that you wish had been better.

Yes and thanks Mike.

Like you, I set myself very high standards (except in my case, I often feel I haven't reached them - I need to shoot more)

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Dave, a lovely baby I prefer the flash lit bubbles , they don't distract me. Lighting looks better in 9-12 .

I will get back to this thread to read all of it. And then I might add some more comments

Thanks for that feedback Binnur,

Yes, it was more in my control 'up there' (on the higher level), a couple of hours later and away from the huge reflector formed by the conservatory 3 feet (1m) behind me.

Any more comments welcome, thanks, Dave

[Shadowman]

I've found that a black background works for bubbles, yet you've done well with your chosen one and the horizontals do add a good touch. Baby is a natural, well done.

[rpcrowe]

Lovely images, Dave!

[rtbaum]

Dave- I won't comment on the quality of these shots...Frankly, I think they are all great. What I find instructive is the detail of the process. It provides insight to the improvement of my own technique, like a suggestion you had made that I try burst mode for birds, very helpful.

Cute baby, by the way

[Manfred M]

Great series Dave. I'm going to have to refer back to this if I ever need to do baby bubble pictures. I have only back-lit smoke, not bubbles (in fact to be honest, I've never had the chance to shoot bubbles). It seems to me that you need to be in a shooting situation where there is no wind to speak of.

[wilgk]

Well done Dave!
These shoots always sound a lot easier than they are.
All I can say is she is absolutely divine & gorgeous & clearly brings your family great joy.
That is all that matters for me.
The bonus of your pictures made with love.

[Dave Humphries]

I've found that a black background works for bubbles, yet you've done well with your chosen one and the horizontals do add a good touch. Baby is a natural, well done.

Thanks John,

I figured that anything fairly uniform in texture (when oof) and dark would suffice as a reasonable background to show lit bubbles against - and this was available.

Yes, if you get the timing right - and Mum & Grandma keep her amused, she does take a nice picture.

Thanks again, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Lovely images, Dave!

Thanks Richard

[Dave Humphries]

Dave- I won't comment on the quality of these shots...Frankly, I think they are all great. What I find instructive is the detail of the process. It provides insight to the improvement of my own technique, like a suggestion you had made that I try burst mode for birds, very helpful.

Cute baby, by the way

Yes Randy, I'd recommend it for birds (when you'll probably not have the issue of flash recycling).

Glad you like the detail, allowing others to learn from my mistakes was partly my intent, but as mentioned, the whole process of self-critique and writing that out led to an extra level of realisation, then that was improved by some of the feedback received.

Thanks, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Manfred,

Great series Dave. I'm going to have to refer back to this if I ever need to do baby bubble pictures. I have only back-lit smoke, not bubbles (in fact to be honest, I've never had the chance to shoot bubbles). It seems to me that you need to be in a shooting situation where there is no wind to speak of.

Yes, it was a fairly calm day and the location can be quite sheltered, but they still whipped around quickly.

Here are the SOOC thumbnails for the two shots showing the movement of bubbles (and lack of flash in second shot) in 1/5 second; 5902 shot at 11:55:46.00 and 5903 at 11:55:46.20.



You can also judge by her arm movement when clapping - her latest 'cute skill'

The sharp eyed may also spot a shower of drips from one that had just burst above her in 5902.

Analysing again, I observe that although I'm blaming the wind, much of the bubble movement here is really just gravity, but we were still having issues with them blowing one way for one shot and opposite for the next and different again for a third blow of bubbles.

Thanks, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Well done Dave!
These shoots always sound a lot easier than they are.
All I can say is she is absolutely divine & gorgeous & clearly brings your family great joy.
That is all that matters for me.
The bonus of your pictures made with love.

Thanks Kay,

You're pretty darn good at loving family pictures yourself as I recall.

Cheers, Dave

[Stagecoach]

No 4 is a cracker with the direct eye contact to the sharp bubble Dave.