Cute images. The memories are a thousand times more important than the photography here but here are my suggestions for next time:
- All images appear to be somewhat underexposed, particularly #2. Canon speedlights seem to have a tendency to underexpose, particularly if there is anything white in the frame (like the tray here). You can either adjust in post or use some Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) with the flash. Shooting raw would help give you some room on the bright end if you over-do the FEC.
- The sequence in #1 might have been a little stronger if the child was slightly higher in the frame and all shots were framed the same (including the reverse-focused one).
- The slightly off-center framing in #2 is not ideal but kids aren't exactly still-life and as I said at the beginning, the recording of the memory trumps the technicalities.
What exactly was he eating? It sort of looks like a twinkie with chocolate icing.
Eyeball wrote:
Cute images. The memories are a thousand times more important than the photography here but here are my suggestions for next time:
- All images appear to be somewhat underexposed, particularly #2. Canon speedlights seem to have a tendency to underexpose, particularly if there is anything white in the frame (like the tray here). You can either adjust in post or use some Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) with the flash. Shooting raw would help give you some room on the bright end if you over-do the FEC.
I am working on an uncalibrated laptop, do the pictures seem dark to others?
The EXIF data is intact. I didn't use flash, ISO 3200 @ f2.
- The sequence in #1 might have been a little stronger if the child was slightly higher in the frame and all shots were framed the same (including the reverse-focused one).
I was thinking the same thing.
- The slightly off-center framing in #2 is not ideal but kids aren't exactly still-life and as I said at the beginning, the recording of the memory trumps the technicalities.
The off center was on purpose. What makes it not ideal?
What exactly was he eating? It sort of looks like a twinkie with chocolate icing.
Jody Melanson wrote:
I am working on an uncalibrated laptop, do the pictures seem dark to others?
The EXIF data is intact. I didn't use flash, ISO 3200 @ f2.
I thought it looked like you maybe had used bounce flash given the look of the light and the catchlights in the eyes but I was wrong.
#2 is the worst of the 3 in terms of underexposure but it is still a usable image. Here is what the histogram looks like:
Given that you were already at the widest aperture, ISO 3200, and a reasonable shutter speed for a moving child it was probably a decent trade-off under the circumstances. You might just want to consider pulling it up a bit in post for a print or formal web display.
Jody Melanson wrote:
The off center was on purpose. What makes it not ideal?
If the crop was not so tight, then there certainly would be nothing wrong necessarily to offset the subject - to place him in a rule-of-thirds spot, for example. With a tight crop like this though, I think it tends to come off more as an aiming error rather than a conscious decision on composition. Again, here it's not a big deal. He has a great expression.
Jody, nice set. I agree with the slight criticisms that can be adjusted in post. Yes, a bit under-exposed. Still great images of this happy 1-y-o. The last image is the start of the fall in blood sugar after the sugar high. Always amazes me, happens within 5-10 minutes of eating handfuls of cake.
Jody, I was going through the "best of 2009 nature" thread and came across your entry. One of the comments was about so many photogs that have seen to have left the FM fold. Curious, I searched for your posts and came across this one and a "best of 2012" post you made with your comment about being busy. It all makes sense now!!! Congrats on the grandson, we are still working with just a granddog.
When I got into nature photography you were one of the first photographers that amazed me with your bird photos. I hope to see more (and enjoy your grandson's first!).