Lydia

[klpurkett]

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.

Thanks Binnur! I chose a very tight frame in order to exclude the busy/distracting background, and because I wanted the focus to be on her face rather than the surroundings.

[klpurkett]

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.

Thanks Mike. It's so helpful to hear different perspectives, and I think that's one of the best things about CiC: everyone seems to appreciate, respect and learn from each other, while still offering unique perspectives! Thanks for taking the time to demonstrate what some sharpening can do... Looks a lot better! I am quite the beginner in Photoshop, but I will work on learning how to effectively use that tool.

[klpurkett]

William, thanks for so much helpful information! I will be able to post the original frame and answer (as best as I can) your questions soon... Just wanted to thank you for your time and expertise!

[William W]

. . . I will be able to post the original frame and answer (as best as I can) your questions soon... Just wanted to thank you for your time and expertise!

OK. Thank you and you are welcome.

I have a job all this weekend, beginning 1500 today (my time is Friday morning now), I might not be online until Tuesday.

I look forward to continuing the conversation when I can.

WW

[Mike Buckley]

I am quite the beginner in Photoshop, but I will work on learning how to effectively use that tool.

Take a look at the sharpening tutorial here at CiC. It's oriented toward Photoshop users and will be a terrific starting point for you. It will also be an excellent ending point for most styles of photography.

[Manfred M]

Kristy - Bill gives excellent advice and his analysis is spot on. I'd like to build a bit on some of the things he has said and add a bit of my experience (which is not nearly as extensive as Bill's).

As Bill has already pointed out, the amount of crop that you have done would be of interest, Without seeing the straight out of the camera size, there will be a lot of guessing. I tend to shoot more or less so that I crop very little in the final image. That being said, I do try to shoot so that I can crop to the final print or display size, so most of my shots have a bit of space on the long dimension.

I do like the lighting, it's soft and diffuse, and compliments the young skin. The downside of where you shot is that we see all kinds of interesting reflections in the eyes. It looks like you shot outdoors, so that is simply a reality shooting in that setting. It does add life into the eyes, so long as we stand far enough away, we are not really going to get too distracted by the reflections.

I think you have made an interesting choice of focal length. A 200mm focal length on your APS-C sensor camera is like a 300mm full-frame camera equivalent. Because of the way longer lenses compress, this will tend to give you a very flattering look. That being said, you certainly could have gotten away with a shorter focal length. A longer lens will tend to exaggerate movement and be more susceptible to motion blur. On your camera, I would probably shoot somewhere between 70mm and 140mm. I tend to shoot in the mid-range f-stops; perhaps f/8 or more likely f/11; your f/13 is certainly in the range.

I'm not quite sure why you chose to shoot on manual. You've paid for features like shutter and aperture priority; why not use them (for this type of shot, I'd go aperture priority). I also tend to shoot at as low an ISO value as I can; image quality is highest at the camera's base ISO setting. I wouldn't say I'm a slave to shooting at the base value, but I generally shoot as low an ISO setting as I can.

I probably would have shot from a slightly higher position. It could be just me, but I don't particularly like my shots looking up people's noses. There's often something lurking up there that I don't want in my images, and while it can be corrected in post-production, avoiding it is so much easier.

The other choice you made that you might want to think about is the shooting format. This image is in a horizontal format (a.k.a landscape format). Think about turning your camera 90 degress and shooting in vertical or portrait format. I often find that portraits look better in that orientation.

[NorthernFocus]

Based on the camera that was used at ISO1600 my guess is that the softness of the photo is due to noise and/or in camera noise reduction. This seems somewhat supported by the evident noise in the sharpened version that Mike Posted. Shutter speed was slightly low for 200mm on a cropped sensor body but as already pointed out by others it really doesn't look like camera shake. There you go. My input to further confuse the subject...

[klpurkett]

Here is the original file. (I now know I should have been shooting in RAW...) To answer William's questions:

- Yes, Nikon D3100
- Spot Metering: I believe I was aiming for the eye, since that's what I typically try to do. (To be 100% honest, this was NOT a shot I took any time to set up. I was taking pictures of my other kids on the playground, turned around and saw her in Daddy's arms, gazing off into the distance... I basically did a "point and click" that happened to turn out okay. She didn't stay content for long, so I didn't have a chance to really try to "work the scene" at all.)
- I don't believe I made any exposure adjustments... this was taken a few weeks ago, so I could be remembering wrong, though. Took a while to get the guts to post this, but next time I'll try to post right away so I don't forget things like this!
- Lens: AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G ED (Is this the right information? Sorry, I'm so new at this I'm not even sure what's what sometimes! ) It's the lens that came with the camera. I did not use a hood or a filter.
- I believe all I did in Photoshop was: cropped some off the right, then used the "adjust for skin tones" from the Enhance menu, and adjusted the levels a bit. I will work on learning how to sharpen and use my clone tool.



Thanks again for everyone's help here!!! I'm learning SO MUCH from you all!

[klpurkett]

Thanks Manfred. You have a good point about shooting in manual. Being very new to the world of DSLRs, I guess I am mostly trying to learn and understand what affect different settings have on the images I'm taking. Typically, I will take many shots of the same subject, making one adjustment at a time for each frame, so I can look at the results and see what is different. In other words, I am doing a lot of experimenting and only a very small percentage of my shots end up being "keepers." I will try balancing that type of practice with using aperture priority and see if I have a little better luck. I am sure there is much to learn by shooting in different modes! Yes, a higher vantage point would have been better... I am what I like to call "vertically challenged" at 5'2" , and my husband (who was holding the baby) was standing slightly uphill from me. But that is something to keep in mind! Thanks again for your input!

[klpurkett]

Thanks Dan. Yes, I think I should be using a lower ISO and faster shutter speed. I'll try that next time I'm out with my camera.

[klpurkett]

Thanks Mike... will do!

[rpcrowe]

I would venture to guess that many of the images posted that look slightly unsharp could be greatly improved by well done sharpening. I am not necessarily talking about an image that is unsharp because of camera shake or poor focus.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Kristy,

Firstly, a great shot considering all and as a non portrait shooter (other than bugs and critters) I have followed it closely and found it informative.

In an aim to learn I have had a 'go' at the original you posted in post 28 and produced the below interpretation. I include an explanation of what I did;

1. In ACR set the WB (White Balance) using the whites of the eyes. I do not have a clue what colour this babies skin should be or if this is a method which is totally wrong
2. In PS applied minor sharpening to just the eyes/lashes and teeth my theory being babies are supposed to be soft and cute so do not need to be 'crisped' up globally.
3. Applied a very faint vignette.
4. Blurred the hood/coat to help focus on the face.
5. Set the white point using levels, very minor adjustment.
6. Cloned/blurred a few messy bits on the face.
7. I did not feel that cropping helped the image.

[klpurkett]

[QUOTE=Stagecoach;493354]Hi Kristy,

Firstly, a great shot considering all and as a non portrait shooter (other than bugs and critters) I have followed it closely and found it informative.

In an aim to learn I have had a 'go' at the original you posted in post 28 and produced the below interpretation. I include an explanation of what I did;

Thanks Grahame! I appreciate your sharing what you did as far as pp... I think it looks great! It's interesting to see different people's take on the image, and I'm learning a lot from it. Thanks for taking the time to explain what you did.

[truonda]

Love the shot, Kristy! I personally think you should use a strong vignetting effect to really bring out the face of your daughter. Cheers.

[klpurkett]

Love the shot, Kristy! I personally think you should use a strong vignetting effect to really bring out the face of your daughter. Cheers.

Thanks Daniel. I just might play around with a vignette and see what happens.

[William W]

Here is the original file. . .To answer William's questions: . . . etc

Thanks for the detailed response.

As promised I shall respond. I got a tad immersed and somewhat passionate about the topic raised and I have set out my original response into parts.

You had me won when you told me you wanted to take (better) pictures of your kids so, if only in that quest I hope that the following is useful to you.

*

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

Spot Metering: I believe I was aiming for the eye, since that's what I typically try to do. (To be 100% honest, this was NOT a shot I took any time to set up. I was taking pictures of my other kids on the playground, turned around and saw her in Daddy's arms, gazing off into the distance... I basically did a "point and click" that happened to turn out okay. She didn't stay content for long, so I didn't have a chance to really try to "work the scene" at all.) [I used Manual Mode and] I don't believe I made any exposure adjustments. . . I was taking pictures of my other kids on the playground, turned around and saw her in Daddy's arms, gazing off into the distance. . .

You asked - How could I improve this shot if I had it over again:

In many ways you could not - in so far as it was an ‘Opportunity Shot’.
That is to say you ‘saw the shot and you took it’ there was not much time to think about preparation – there wasn’t much time to THINK at all.

However, I do believe that you will be better prepared for any opportunity shots; also more and more of your Opportunity Shots will “happen to turn out OK”; and you will learn more quickly, if you have a Preparation Protocol before going into each shooting scenario that is predicted on your Defined Output.

Defined Outputs are your pictures – defining what you want get as an “output” is important. In this case a broad definition would be ‘nice crisp expressive available light shots of my kids playing in the playground’ is more than sufficient a definition of the OUTPUTS that you desire to achieve.

Preparation Protocol for each new shooting scenario– means that you firstly ALWAYS have a protocol of preparing each time you change your OUTPUT and secondly you ALWAYS have a protocol RE-Prepare each time the shooting scenario changes.

A Shooting Scenario is the place and the conditions (especially the LIGHTING) in which you are shooting. For example, if the kids moved inside then that would be a new shooting scenario, even though your output might remain ‘nice crisp expressive available light shots of my kids playing’.

I also think it is easier to learn how to get better pictures if you are getting more ‘good pictures’ to begin with. I think how beginners can get more (technically) good pictures to being with is to let the camera do a lot of the technical work at the start.

I also think that one must have a very good, if not water tight REASON that will stand up to the stiffest scrutiny and interrogation before making any CHOICES. (well I am kidding a bit), but you must have a reason for every CHOICE that you make because taking the route of haphazard jumping jacks to change your CHOICES, reaps little gain and you learn very little too and way too slowly.

“Choices” are what YOU do in YOUR Preparation for each new shooting scenario.

Sound difficult to do? NOPE – it is as easy as falling of a log.
Sounds like I am passionate about this stuff – yes I am. I know it works.
Why don’t more Photographers do it? Because unlike those who are usually good at: (as examples) spelling; mathematics; swimming; playing the piano; pole vaulting - very few people who take up Photography ever perform assiduous dedicated PRACTICE and fewer ever learn the BASIC TECHNIQUES.

As a very simple example: if a novice buys a $3000 camera and lenses then (in most cases) it is deemed that one ‘automatically knows’ how to stand, hold it, and what finger to use to release – and also has knowledge of a lot of the other physical and technical basics, without any one to one instruction in those techniques.

If a novice spends $3000 on a set of Golf Clubs – about 70% of those purchasers (based on a small sample group of 400 customers from a local golf shop near where I live) – additionally buy at least 3 golf lessons with a pro at their golf club or at the driving range - many buy more than three one on one lessons.

WW

[William W]

A Commentary on Preparation and Choices based upon your Shooting Scenario with the ultimate result being your ‘Opportunity Shot’ of your daughter and sample comparison ‘Opportunity Shot’ under like conditions.

Part 1

A brief description of your Shooting Scenario and what you would know about it:
You wanted to take pictures of kids running around the playground. Kids move all over the place. Certainly you knew both those elements when you picked up the camera as that was the job at hand when you entered this new SHOOTING SCENARIO. That was the beginning part of your VISION. You would also know the general lighting conditions, for example the sun might be bright or it might be overcast; the play area might have no shade or there might be some shade in some areas or it might be fully shaded, etc.

On the ‘choice’ of Spot Metering:
If it were me wanting to capture candid photos of kids playing I would nearly always choose MATRIX METERING MODE if I had a Nikon Camera. The REASON is MATRIX Mode is very clever, it is not perfect but it is very cleaver even for many backlit shooting scenarios. I expect that my choice of MATRIX MODE would give me at least an 80% (I’d reckon more) success rate apropos getting a GOOD enough EXPOSURE to produce a very good final print. Spot Metering is a specialized and useful tool, I don’t wish to digress to that topic more than to say Spot Metering is both specialized and useful and not the most suitable choice for your Shooting Scenario.

Concerning MY PROTOCOLS - The METERING MODE is (usually) the FIRST CHOICE that I make when entering any new SHOOTING SCENARIO.

WW

[William W]

Part 2

On the ‘choice’ of MANUAL CAMERA MODE:
Probably, you chose manual camera mode so you could learn how to better use manual camera mode. If you did that then I commend you. In any case, let’s assume that was at least one reason for your choice of Manual Mode. I expect, however, that you are not really lightning fast at changing the Aperture and the Shutter Speed to suit any changes of LIGHTING on the kids as they run around the playground.

So, logically if your OUTPUTS were really to get nice crisp photos of your kids playing, then you would be lessening your chances of attaining that if you are spending too much time fiddling with the Aperture and the Shutter Speed – you would be missing to many ‘moments’ or if capturing the ‘moment’ then, an avoidable number will likely be improperly exposed.

If on the other hand your OUTPUT was really ‘to practice using manual mode’ – then it would be better to choose a shooting scenario in which you can do practice to get very quick at changing the Aperture and the Shutter Speed to suit the lighting changes without worrying about aspects like the Subject; the Composition; and Timing the shot to catch the ‘moment’. (yes that’s like setting time aside to practice piano scales; chords and the Hanon Exercises)

So if I were a novice in that shooting scenario I would prepare the camera by using either Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority or Program mode – but I would NOT make that choice until I made the choice of ISO.

Concerning MY PROTOCOLS - The ISO is (usually) the SECOND CHOICE that I make when entering any new SHOOTING SCENARIO.

WW

[William W]

Part 3

On the choice of ISO1600
As mentioned, one must have a reason for each choice. In your sample shot the baby is in “Open Shade”. The reflections in the eyes indicate that there is direct sunlight somewhere, probably in some parts of the playground. The sample shot appears a little bit underexposed about ½ or a third Stop.
(take this next bit slowly the maths are NOT difficult).

You pulled the shot at F/13 @ 1/400s @ ISO1600

Let’s say I am correct and it about half/third a stop underexposed, so the ‘correct’ exposure would be about: F/11 @ 1/400s @ ISO1600 – or – F/5.6 @ 1/400s @ ISO400. Both are the same EXPOSURE (Remember this second one is as our assumed ‘correct’ exposure your camera’s Light Meter would have provided at ISO400 for that shaded area, if you HAD used MATRIX METERING and selected ISO400)

It is a reasonable assumption that this “Open Shade” is the darkest location that any of your kids can get within your shooting scenario. And the brightest area will be in direct, front lit sunlight.
In ‘direct front lit sunlight’ the exposure will be (research the ‘f/16 rule’):
F/16 @ 1/1600s @ ISO1600 - or - F/16 @ 1/800s @ ISO800 – or – F/16 @ 1/400s @ ISO400 etc.

OK – now let’s consider the SHUTTER SPEED that you need. We usually always need to consider the SLOWEST SHUTTER SPEED that we need, so we can set an appropriate ISO to allow that shutter speed for all the areas of the Shooting Scenario.

Let’s assume that 1/400s is OK as the slowest shutter speed for these kids playing and the 200mm lens being used (the lens is NOT the “VR” version therefore we also have to consider more carefully any camera shake).

Now we have to consider the APERTURES that we have available and that we want to use. The lens has a VARYING maximum aperture: F/4~F/5.6. Let’s assume we want to use F/8 as the LARGEST aperture for any shot.

OK – now to the choice of the ISO . . .

Firstly we can note from learning the F/16 rule (and therefore will now always remember) that we can easily get a shutter of 1/400s or faster and an aperture of at least F/8 at ISO400 if the Subject is in Direct Front Lit Sunlight – so half of this choosing stuff is already done – all we need to do is think about the OPEN SHADE area like where the child was situated for the sample photo – so as we get out of the car we point the camera at the shaded area under the tree and (using MATRIX METERING MODE which we have already selected AT HOME before we left because we KNEW we were going to the playground and we KNEW we our OUTPUT was taking photos of kids playing) we take a meter reading using our preliminary guess of ISO400 and the camera’s meter will indicate:
F/5.6 @ 1/400s @ ISO400

So now you have the following DATA upon which you can make a choice of ISO:

> You are happy with 1/400s as the slowest shutter speed to arrest Camera Shake at 200mm and freeze the kids playing (you might need to adjust this if you get blurry images – but lets assume arriving at the playground the other day you are happy with 1/400s being suitable.

> You want to use stop down to at least F/8 for your shots, maybe because that lens works better and crisper around the Apertures of F/8 to F/11 (I truly suspect that it does).

> You know that you can easily get faster than 1/400s using F/8 in sunlight if the ISO is set at ISO400 (and you will never now forget that as a fact). And you know the exposure that is required for the DARKEST area of you Shooting Scenario, because the very first thing you did when you got out of the car was to rush over and point your camera at the shaded area of grass under the tree and all the people in the playground were thinking “this person is nuts taking photos of the grass” (it happens to me all the time)

> You know (I suspect) that it is usually always best to use the LOWEST ISO that you can

So, therefore the only practical CHOICE you now have to make is really simple: “I choose ISO400 and if the kids get into the darkest open shaded area I will need F/5.6 if I want 1/400s Shutter – OR – I choose ISO800 and I will always have at least F/8 and also at least 1/400s Shutter.

You choose what you think would have been better for your shooting scenario – but the point I make is - it is most probable that ISO1600 was not the best choice for you to have made.

WW