Baby Hannah

[Braeden]

This is my first attempt at any type of portrait so it is probably a good starting point to receive some real c&c

I would like to say be gentle... but then I won't learn - so instead I will say be constructive instead

Actions taken so far:

Slight crop; levels and contrast adjusted; resized and border added; then saved for web to stay under 150kb

 

[dazzajl]

Portraits of very young babies are pretty much always kinda awful. The one you posted earlier and have in your avatar is truley the exception that proves the rule.

Portraits are all about capturing something of the personallity of subject and frankly, new borns don't exactly drip with it, although they do drip with just about everything else.

As for the techy side, it's ok but could be tad sharper and it looks a tiny bit underexposed on my monitor. On the bright side.... you're going to get in loads of practise and will soon be outputting shots that are exactly as you visualised them.

... And of course MASIVE congratulaions to you and mum and welcome to Hannah.

 

[DJW]

Hi

Firstly cute Baby

Had a quick play. Used Unsharp Mask as slightly out of focus. Used "Auto Colour", then played with "Exposure" & "Gamma" until colours looked more subtle. Lastly (& some what contraversial sometimes) ran through Neat Image (Free S/W) to reduce noise & in this example upped a bit more to show how it can smooth skin slightly. This is very subjective & can be taken less or more (like a dolly effect) as required.

 

[SammyC]

Trouble with these noise removers, god send that they can be, is that sometimes they can extract artifacts that aren't really there.

An example is the speckels around the nose.

Braeden, what were the camera settings?

 

[Braeden]

exif:

Focal Length 85mm
Shutter Speed 1/8 sec
F-Stop f/5.6
ISO 400
Pattern Metering

taken in Raw, converted in RSE and levels etc done in CS2

 

[dazzajl]

Shutter Speed 1/8 sec

That would explain why it's a little unsharp. You can (and will) get good sharp images with shutter speeds that low but the odds are not at all in your favour.

It can be well worth trying shots with a slow shutter rather than resorting to using an onboard flash, as when they do work it's usually a much nicer look.

 

[CT]

It's good, but it lacks the clout of your first shot. Very young babies are difficult, because you end up shooting down at them in their cots. When you can sit them up a bit more with their head supported you can get down on their level, but obviously you have to be careful with that head lolling about.

I'd try some more like the first one with the babe supported by someone.

 

[SammyC]

You need to get that 50mm 1.8 prime so you can get the shutter speed and sharpness!

 

[Braeden]

You need to get that 50mm 1.8 prime so you can get the shutter speed and sharpness!

I know

I want one but spending money on photography isn't likely to be high on my wife's list of priorities

Until then I have to use my 17-85

By the way Dazza - the shutter speed was that low because I wasn't using flash - I was trying to avoid harsh light on her face.

Thanks for the comments from all of you, I can guarantee I will be taking more tomorrow

 

[dazzajl]

spending money on photography isn't likely to be high on my wife's list of priorities

You need to work on the idea that clothes last for a few months, cot's, buggies and the like a couple of years perhaps but when little Hannah is all grown up, all that's left are the memories and the pictures.

Nothing worse than going " :doh: I wish we'd spent a bit extra to make sure we had more great pics"

 

[Braeden]

will try that and let you know the outcome

edit: I tried that and she didn't look impressed

Will keep trying though

 

[dazzajl]

edit: I tried that and she didn't look impressed

I'm pretty sure we all know that look. :whistle2:

 

[Matt]

hell yes...

Lovely baby, congratulations once again to you and mrs braeden!

 

[SammyC]

By the way Dazza - the shutter speed was that low because I wasn't using flash - I was trying to avoid harsh light on her face.

I suggest you have a play with manual mode. ISO200, into manual mode and get the shutter/app balanced so that you get a slightly underexposed picture. Then add flash with the power turned right down.

Then take a few shots with increasing shutter speed (but not changing the app) and you'll find the background will get darker but the subject will stay perfectly illuminated.

Takes some experimentation but you'll get it! (Maybe try on an inanimate object first rather than blinding your new child with fourty flash shots lol)

 

[jewel]

Trouble with these noise removers, god send that they can be, is that sometimes they can extract artifacts that aren't really there.

An example is the speckels around the nose.

Braeden, what were the camera settings?

Those speckles around the nose Sammy are probably clogged pores that's all. Many babies are born with them. Takes a week or so to go away. My little one had them.

 

[SammyC]

Well I didn't want to say 'Urrg! Babies!' so I had to find something technical to comment on! lol

 

[Gandhi]

If you need to use the onboard flash at any point, it may be worth considering a home-made diffuser. If you take a paracetamol or vitamin bottle and cut the bottom off so you're left with a white cylinder, and then cut it down one side, you'll be left with a very handy flash diffuser that slots over the built in flash.

Pictures to follow tommozz when I'm sober

 

[Catdaddy]

will try that and let you know the outcome

edit: I tried that and she didn't look impressed

Will keep trying though

In that case, work on the basis that a 50mm 1.8 prime (for a Nikon, anyway) is only about 50 to 60 quid new from some places. I make that 10 bags of nappies. Over the space of a year or two, just think of the potential for good pics. And if wifey whinges about that, inventive use of a cork should help you realise those savings even quicker... :whistling