Baby pics 4 - Easter Bunny

[Dave Humphries]

Chloe was about 6 weeks old on the day I shot these.
She wasn't so co-operative this time, so she's sleeping in most, which was preferable to the crying times between.

In this session, I tried to be more 'in control' of the lighting, so I set a fixed lowish ISO of 200 and used a shutter speed of 1/200s. I was still bouncing the flash off the ceiling, but also had the small secondary flash tube on my Metz 45 CL4 gun at half power, so this provided some frontal fill and (hopefully) catch lights in eyes (if open!).

I was shooting with the Nikon 18-200mm lens this time, since I knew I wouldn't need fast apertures, I thought the versatility of a zoom may benefit - and it did, PP cropping was minimal.


1. The Bunny play mat

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-200mm lens at 18mm and f/11, 1/200s, iso 200, Manual mode with bounced Flash (413-12988)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 950px × 950px (recommended)

I don't think I succeeded very well here; the head of the bunny play mat is barely recognisable (even when you know what it is), I should have shot more 'straight down'. That would also have helped avoid the 'large legs' problem (because I was too close to that end of Chloe shooting at 18mm - rookie mistake - I still make 'em


2. Asleep on the Bunny play mat

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-200mm lens at 32mm and f/16, 1/200s, iso 200, Manual mode with bounced Flash (413-12997)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1,425px × 950px (recommended)


3. Asleep with pink bunny

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-200mm lens at 34mm and f/16, 1/200s, iso 200, Manual mode with bounced Flash (413-13006)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1,425px × 950px (recommended)


4. Asleep with brown bunny

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-200mm lens at 35mm and f/16, 1/200s, iso 200, Manual mode with bounced Flash (413-13014)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1,425px × 950px (recommended)


5. Bunny tail

Nikon D7100 + Nikon 18-200mm lens at 27mm and f/16, 1/200s, iso 200, Manual mode with bounced Flash (413-13029)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 1600px × 753px (recommended)

Hey, finally we get to see the catch lights provided by the small direct flash that stays facing forward when the main flash is angled upwards.


I can't remember the flash (manual) power setting (either 1/2 or 1/4), but I probably should have brought it down a stop and shot at f/11 instead of f/16 for most of these.

I was pleasantly surprised at the sharpness of the 18-200mm, I thought I might notice a difference compared to the primes used previously while post processing. Not that we'd expect to see any difference here though, after downsize and output sharpening.

What I did struggle with was the combination of the fixed bracket mounted flash gun, plus having to re-adjust the head to point 'up' when I changed shooting orientation. Also my zoom creeps, so I needed a hand on the zoom control permanently, which meant that to support the (not inconsiderable) weight of the flash, it had to rest on my wrist, quite painful.


Last time, I said I should have shot the Whi-Bal card, so this time, I did.
Note the slight shadow (behind and right) from the direct flash 'bulb' (at half power).



What I discovered when I tried to use it in PP for WB was:

a) all but the bit at the bottom picked up a load of brown reflection from the coffee table
b) the bit at the bottom gave almost exactly the same values of Kelvin and Tint as ACR's preset for "Flash" (5500, 0), so I used that again.
c) I had the camera set to its Flash preset (seen in ACR as "As Shot"), which bizarrely was 6300K and didn't look right - so was over-ruled.
Perhaps I have accidentally dialled in a WB offset (in camera) and have never noticed.

Comments and critique will be gratefully received.


Lesson to self for next time -

Be sensible where the Whi-Bal card is shot, although to be honest, in such controlled lighting and room set up, I already know the 'correct' WB answer.

Get a flash that can be used wirelessly off-camera to bounce off the ceiling - the rooms in the house are just not big enough to contemplate anything more elaborate on the lighting front without serious inconvenience to moving about - and I don't have the kit either!

Put a stiff rubber band (half) on that darn zoom ring to stop the creep when camera is pointed up or down.


For anyone interested - The story so far:
Baby pics 1 - a learning experience begins, Baby pics 2 - the learning continues and Baby pics 3 - manual bounced flash.

For anyone really interested, there are some extra shots from this session in the album on PBase, starting from D71-12969 (the Whi-Bal card).

Thanks for looking, Dave (and Rebecca)

[Shadowman]

Nice series, lit very well.

[Sergio M.]

Seems like you got the whole Easter Bunny thing going on, Dave, and Chloe is precious. I know next to nothing about this kind of photography, so I'm learning by watching you take all the risks.

Happy Easter!

Sergio

[NorthernFocus]

The bunnies are awfully cute but I'll go with the eye contact nearly every time. Nicely done. All of you explanation of technique have convinced me that wildlife is still my calling

[wilgk]

They are indeed very cute!
I think the lighting is spot on, the composition and framing is not as easy as it looks on Pinterest!
I do though prefer the realistic, what we might see in 'real life' bubba positions, compared to some very strange permutations, that they must have created from composits.
Having said that, in the last, maybe tucking her legs up, positioning yourself behind her and then adopting a very low shooing angle & narrow aperture, would have made for a nice bunny bottom in focus, the rest OOF type composition to add to the set.

[IzzieK]

My message disappeared. I stayed away too long from my computer to help cut up some vegetables and CiC automatically shut me off. Ok, whinging over..

As I had already said, I like #1 because of Chloe's baby smooth skin on her legs. Very evident that Rebecca cannot fatten her up more than that. I am such a sucker for baby skin...Very nice lighting. You handled that pretty well. Looking at these series again, I still prefer #1 best of all.

BTW you said

Put a stiff rubber band (half) on that darn zoom ring to stop the creep when camera is pointed up or down.

Easier said than done...my brain just cannot perhaps grasps which part of the zoom ring I should put the rubber band as after putting two rubber bands on the lens, I shook the darn camera and the lens just went creeping just a little bit. Can you please take a shot for me where you put your rubber band? Thanks.

[rudi]

Again good series Dave, all too cute. And very good lighting to my idea.

2 & 3 are my favourits.

But, again, allow me to be nitpicking...
Nr 2, I would be tempted to get rid off the grey patch in the RHC or to crop a little tighter.
Nr 2 & 3: Chloe's cute hat is maybe a little bit too close to the eyes ??
Nr 4: shooting from a lower angle would have been better ??
Nr 5: Her legs spread out like that looks like an odd bunny ...

I deal with likewise 'problems'. Iff one can call that 'problems' at all!! I am sure mam and dad don't care very much abt these minor 'issues'.
Keep them coming.

[Dave Humphries]

John, Sergio, Dan,

Thank you all for the kind words.

I fear that in a few years this may classify as 'wildlife', Dan

[Dave Humphries]

Having said that, in the last, maybe tucking her legs up, positioning yourself behind her and then adopting a very low shooing angle & narrow aperture, would have made for a nice bunny bottom in focus, the rest OOF type composition to add to the set.

Yeah, we did try that pose Kay, but she kept slumping half flat and that looked worse

Perhaps without a nappy would have been more successful, but given where we were shooting, that wasn't a risk her Mum was prepared to take, having been 'caught' already that day

Now; I remember when ....

Thanks, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

As I had already said, I like #1 because of Chloe's baby smooth skin on her legs. Very evident that Rebecca cannot fatten her up more than that. I am such a sucker for baby skin...Very nice lighting. You handled that pretty well. Looking at these series again, I still prefer #1 best of all.

Thanks Izzie.

BTW you said Easier said than done...my brain just cannot perhaps grasps which part of the zoom ring I should put the rubber band as after putting two rubber bands on the lens, I shook the darn camera and the lens just went creeping just a little bit. Can you please take a shot for me where you put your rubber band?

When I suggested it, I hadn't actually tried it myself yet, so your request for a shot caught me on the hop

When I did try, I found that one was insufficient, it needed two, one across each gap where the zoom ring and lens body are next to each other, although possibly - a wide and/or stiffer/smaller band might have done the trick. I think someone even sells suitable bands for the job - on e-Bay I assume.

Anyway; here's the requested shot (SOOC from my phone).



How effective (or annoying) they'll be in real use is yet to be confirmed.

Cheers, Dave

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Rudi,

Again good series Dave, all too cute. And very good lighting to my idea.

2 & 3 are my favourites.

But, again, allow me to be nitpicking...
Nr 2, I would be tempted to get rid of the grey patch in the RHC or to crop a little tighter.
Nr 2 & 3: Chloe's cute hat is maybe a little bit too close to the eyes ??
Nr 4: shooting from a lower angle would have been better ??
Nr 5: Her legs spread out like that looks like an odd bunny ...

I deal with likewise 'problems'. If one can call that 'problems' at all!! I am sure mam and dad don't care very much abt these minor 'issues'.
Keep them coming.

Thanks for the nit-picking, I do it to others, so someone should return the favour

#2 - yes I considered removing the gery bit in PP and decided against; a combination of laziness and a misplaced desire to be 'realistic' to the room and location of shooting.

About the hat and eyes, you could be right there too, it was closer still on one side and we moved it up a bit.

#4 and the lower angle idea: yes, that's kinda what #3 is, but I wanted to show the face of the play mat when I shot #4 - in hindsight, I suppose we could have moved the whole shebang so the 'face' was angled more and hence visible from a lower angle.

#5 - yes, as explained to Kay above; we did try but as she was awake she kept pushing them out straighter than made the pose work.

Yes, Mum (Rebecca) is pleased with them, as I'm sure Tom is too.

Cheers, Dave

[IzzieK]

Thanks for the shot. I recently found out the hard way before you sent that shot. I will see whether your technique is better.

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks for the shot. I recently found out the hard way before you sent that shot. I will see whether your technique is better.

I shot Baby pics 5 with the bands on yesterday, they held it OK, although they made it somewhat stiff to zoom (when I needed to) and prone to a bit of backlash when letting go of zoom ring after getting the desired framing - still much better than without them though.

[IzzieK]

I agree...

I shot Baby pics 5 with the bands on yesterday, they held it OK, although they made it somewhat stiff to zoom (when I needed to) and prone to a bit of backlash when letting go of zoom ring after getting the desired framing - still much better than without them though.