Portrait photography

[madge]

I just read the thread on the large group picture, hoping to find my answer.. but I didn't

I've been working on trying to get a Christmas card picture/portrait of my children. We've had 2 sessions, neither went particularly well. Here's the stumbling blocks I have:

3 kids. 'nuff said
Seriously, 3 kids of widely varying ages and sizes. My kids are 18, 12, and 6. There is 18-20 inches height difference between my oldest and youngest.

My middle son has a chubby round face, and is prone to blinking.

The oldest wears glasses, so I need to be mindful of the glare.

Here's two of the better shots I've gotten so far:

suggestions? comments?

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

I like the second one, on the first one, their faces are too dark. I would also try dressing them all in the same or similar colors, put the boys in something that matches your daughters dress, then their heights will not be so obvious. I realize her dress has blue and beige, but not a lot of it.

 

[madge]

I like the second one, on the first one, their faces are too dark. I would also try dressing them all in the same or similar colors, put the boys in something that matches your daughters dress, then their heights will not be so obvious. I realize her dress has blue and beige, but not a lot of it.

I was having serious exposure issues in the first picture - it was relatively cloudy when we started, which was about an hour later than it should have been. Bad, bad, bad... LOL.

I'll have to dig through the closets and see what I've got that matches. LOL.

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[Disney*Dreamer]

I really think they are great though, and I would probably use the second one rather than shooting again. You did a wonderful job!

 

[madge]

I really think they are great though, and I would probably use the second one rather than shooting again. You did a wonderful job!

really? I like that it has a rugged, yet preppy feel to it ... but, it doesn't scream Christmas. I'm such a perfectionist, and it's still November, so I'll probably try once more, if only because I feel like I can't be done with the card picture this early. LOLOL.

we'll be back at my inlaws farm next week, so we may try once more using matching solids or something.

 

[Gdad]

Those look good to me but if you decide to reshoot I would suggest positioning the oldest in the back of the group to offset the size. Putting him in front of the middle child makes the size difference more apparent rather than less. Also- using the flash will fill in the dark shadows when shooting against harsh lighting or bright backgrounds.

 

[madge]

Those look good to me but if you decide to reshoot I would suggest positioning the oldest in the back of the group to offset the size. Putting him in front of the middle child makes the size difference more apparent rather than less. Also- using the flash will fill in the dark shadows when shooting against harsh lighting or bright backgrounds.

do you think that having them sitting vs. standing might be better?

 

[Gdad]

do you think that having them sitting vs. standing might be better?

I would take some both ways and see what you like best- the beauty of digital cameras is you can snap off a few hundred pictures and keep one or two.

 

[madge]

I would take some both ways and see what you like best- the beauty of digital cameras is you can snap off a few hundred pictures and keep one or two.

very true!

there's a great old barn on the property, and I'd like to get something with it the background. It would make a meaningful grandparent's gift.

It's frustrating taking pictures of my own kids. Ad I haven't gotten far enough into my photography classes to feel like I've really gotten a handle on using my S3 to its fullest potential.

 

[mikamah]

I really like the second one too. You got great smiles on all of them in both pics. Nice job.

 

[SharonLowe]

I think the 2nd one is really nice but if you reshoot here are some suggestions. As someone else said, put the oldest in the back - hides the bright shirt a bit and makes it seem the other 2 aren't so much smaller. Have your daughter take her hands out of her pockets - clasp them in front of her. The kids look like they are looking into the sun - find a nice open shady spot for them but if under a tree that is still green be mindful that it might create a green color cast you will have to fix. Say "pizza" rather than cheese - makes for a nice smile. Try to get the younger son to hold his head up and "stand tall" - will make his face look less chubby.

I would be very happy to get 3 kids to look as nice as they do in the 2nd one - I've done way too many "head swaps" with groups of kids so you should be very happy with your results.

 

[madge]

I think the 2nd one is really nice but if you reshoot here are some suggestions. As someone else said, put the oldest in the back - hides the bright shirt a bit and makes it seem the other 2 aren't so much smaller. Have your daughter take her hands out of her pockets - clasp them in front of her. The kids look like they are looking into the sun - find a nice open shady spot for them but if under a tree that is still green be mindful that it might create a green color cast you will have to fix. Say "pizza" rather than cheese - makes for a nice smile. Try to get the younger son to hold his head up and "stand tall" - will make his face look less chubby.

I would be very happy to get 3 kids to look as nice as they do in the 2nd one - I've done way too many "head swaps" with groups of kids so you should be very happy with your results.

Thanks so much for the tips, I really appreciate it!

I spoke to someone last night who does portrait work on the side (she's a product photographer) and she gave me some similar tips. She also gave me some ideas for some more relaxed, fun poses - those ideas, coupled with the ones here will really help me

My kids will be SO happy with me on Saturday, when we try again. LOL.

 

[carolrie]

I have been reading all the posts I can get my little mouse on about lenses, cameras, etc. on this board and they have been fabulous! What I'd like to know is if there is anyone out there who is a professional or semi-professional who does portrait work with natural light? I am starting to do some of that and just bought a Fuji S5 from a friend who has a photography business. Most Nikon lenses fit it. She suggested I get the Nikon 28-70 2.8 and maybe a 50mm 1.8 prime to start out. I just looked at the Nikon prices and

I am willing to spend the money if it is something I really need. I'd rather spend it now on one purchase instead of buying someting that doesn't measure up and then buying a replacement thus spending more money later on. So here is my question for those of you who do this type of work professionally or just for fun

Is this the best lens to start out with? Is there something better? Is there a less expensive alternative that is still a Nikon? My friend seemed to think that buying a Nikon instead of another brand is best and you get a better picture with it. Is that true? What would you choose for your main all purpose lens?

Is there anything else I need that I am overlooking? Thanks!!!

 

[Gdad]

The 28-70/2.8 is a fine lens- lots of people swear by it. And even more so the newer 24-70/2.8 which is even more expensive. I had the 28-70 for a while but sold it because it is just such a monster to lug around all day.

I really like the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 for outdoor natural light portraits. You usually have room to back away from your subject a bit and make them more at ease without a camera in their face. At that focal length f2.8 just melts away the background. It is not so expensive- plenty of used ones around in the $400 range. And very small- excellent for candids. It is the one lens that I always come away from using impressed.

 

[Furgus]

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Wonderful lens. A lot cheaper then the Nikkor, and some say they can't tell the difference. IMHO buying a Nikkor lens in most cases probably are better then 3rd party, but not with this one. I would love to have all Nikkor lens, but I can't afford them, and if I get great pictures with 3rd party lenses, then I don't care.

( I know I missed the focal point of this photo, but this was just to show you how good to bokeh is. You try telling a 6 year old to stay still for more then 5 sec )

 

[Gdad]

Love the ladybug pic Furgus- looks like you nailed the focus to me.

OP- Since you asked about the Nikkor 28-70 I will share some of those as well- although not my favorite.

 

[YEKCIM]

I don't use it nearly enough, but here are a couple made with the 50mm f/1.8:

Very good low-light lens for the money.

~Ed

 

[Steve's Girl]

I'm with Furgus on this one. I also have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens. It is a very nice lens especially for the $.

Here are some cousins photos I recently took for my parents' 40th anniversary:

Although these are not natural light, I also used it for my daughters' dance pictures. (I used natural for fill and one flash off camera)

The Nikon version is no doubt a spectacular lens. But, for less than a fourth of the price, the Tamron delivers a pretty good value!

 

[thomas998]

For natural light portraits, the faster the better. I personally like using an old Nikon manual focus 50mm 1:1.2... it allows me to truly melt the background much more than a 2.8 lens. However I doubt your Fuji has a split screen and trying to manual focus without one is a little hit or miss in lower light settings... you might consider a Nikon 50mm 1.4... I've seen them used for less than $100 and they would solve the focus issue and still give you a shallower depth of field than the 2.8.... if your just starting out... I would suggest you just get a fast prime lens... any type of zoom just adds one more variable you'll find yourself tweaking.

 

[Furgus]

For natural light portraits, the faster the better. I personally like using an old Nikon manual focus 50mm 1:1.2... it allows me to truly melt the background much more than a 2.8 lens. However I doubt your Fuji has a split screen and trying to manual focus without one is a little hit or miss in lower light settings... you might consider a Nikon 50mm 1.4... I've seen them used for less than $100 and they would solve the focus issue and still give you a shallower depth of field than the 2.8.... if your just starting out... I would suggest you just get a fast prime lens... any type of zoom just adds one more variable you'll find yourself tweaking.

I think you ment the 50 mm f/1.8, the 1.4 is around $300 I have the 1.8 version as well, and don't use is nearly as much as I should.