I don't really shoot babies...

Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
75,957
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I met up with Ruth (from my first weddings) today for lunch, just to catch up and talk about her friend's wedding who I should be the photographer too next year. I knew she was bring her new born daughter so I bought along my camera to take a few pictures :)

Babies are hard to shoot!

1.
IMG_0992.jpg


2.
IMG_1024.jpg


3.
IMG_1037.jpg


4.
IMG_1043.jpg


5.
IMG_1066.jpg
 
Last edited:
it appears you also indadvertedly photographed the baby's lunch too :D

Seriously, nice shots. Love the bokeh on number 3
 
I think your camera has a front focusing problem.

LOL, on a serious note....

It's not the camera, it's the lens.

I have noticed that lately, I am not sure if it is front focusing, it is ever so slightly off since the last wedding. I could micro adjust it but planning to send it to fixation when i get back from Italy since it is still under warranty.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Thanks for that Raymond , do you use the 35mm a lot in your wedding shots?

I mean just in general with working with babies if you wanted to shoot baby photography as a profession?

I have used it a lot since i got it. 1.4 means I can practically shoot in the dark. I love it.

i don't think you need CRB checks if it is a private client, but you would if you go anywhere near schools.
 
It's this one

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-35mm-f-1.4-l-usm-lens-review.aspx

And no, no licence, I know her lol ! Her mother was there too. Plus, I would pass a CRB check if there ever needs one, I am a member of the law society. :)

Nice lens but as with all fast lenses they usually work better a few stops above the minimum and with an unfussy background.

Better off pushing the ISO than relying on the aperture to draw in the light and losing detail in the dof as a result.

"i don't think you need CRB checks if it is a private client, but you would if you go anywhere near schools. "

I did 2 nurseries and 1 school this year. No CRB check, always CRB compliant. i.e not left alone with kids, always a teacher present.

I agree that babies and kids are difficult to capture. The biggest issue I have is the time allotted and the reaction of the kids to the camera.

Some kids love it and play up - great. Some kids are indifferent and that makes for some great natural environmental portraits.

The biggest problem was the parents if their kids didn't photograph well .. obviously it was my fault, not the overbearing mad harridan of a mother :(
 
Last edited:
I hope this isn't considered hijacking the thread but I've also been around a few babies lately. Friends seem to like the shots and I've been roped into taking more - I'm not sure it's a path I want to go down. Not a huge baby fan...

I think there's a baby boom - all my mates seem to be having them at the moment.

JamieandDad.jpg


JaneandElla.jpg


Ella--Kim2.jpg


Ella--Kim.jpg
 
Nice lens but as with all fast lenses they usually work better a few stops above the minimum and with an unfussy background.

Better off pushing the ISO than relying on the aperture to draw in the light and losing detail in the dof.

That would be true for the kit lens or something cheaper but not for an L, and certainly not for one of the Holy Trinity.

Trust me, when i first got it, it can hit it at 1.4.

It's a £1,000 lens, if I need to shoot it a few stop narrower I would save myself £800 and get the 2.0. That's the point of the L, the ability to shoot wide open and sharp.
 
the ability to shoot wide open and sharp.

.. is a feature of every lens but doesn't always produce the right result in a given situation.

Those shots you posted as an example could be bettered with a nifty fifty if the wall lights in the background were not in the frame, you shot closer to the hyperfocal sweet spot of the lens and went tighter into the subject at f4 to get the whole 4" depth of the subjects face in focus, not just the nose, if you see what I mean ?
 
.. is a feature of every lens but doesn't always produce the right result in a given situation.

Those shots you posted as an example could be bettered with a nifty fifty if the wall lights in the background were not in the frame, you shot closer to the hyperfocal sweet spot of the lens and went tighter into the subject at f4 to get the whole 4" depth of the subjects face in focus, not just the nose, if you see what I mean ?

I would love to argue but thought I just show you some evidence instead.

In particular, the second shot - 1/40th at ISO 640.


IMG_3489.jpg




IMG_3542.jpg


 
Back
Top Bottom