JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

first go at baby portrait and external lighting

baby


baby2

RacerDan Loc: Virden Illinois

get the whole head in the picture and I would say they are under exposed. now let us see what the big guys say,

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

Top if the head would be good and a little less light.

Sarge69

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Top of the head / no top of the head - your choice. Both work.

I love 'em. These are great examples of high-key lighting and a subject properly dressed for it. A blown out white background, and a properly exposed subject. I think maybe the subject could be just a bit overexposed, but not much - maybe half a stop - easily adjusted if you shot raw.

It is tough to tell when we have to dumb-down the files for posting, but the key here is if there is detail in the whites (on the clothing) that appear blown out here. If the detail is there, then I would take these down just a hair. If the detail is not there, then they are - in fact - over exposed.

Just remember that this type of lighting should just be one option - do not make it your only style as darker, low-key lighting also works really well for babies.

As I always do, I am going to stress the need for a flash meter for this stuff. I find that one to one and a half stops difference between background and subject works pretty well. So if you can get the background to meter f11, then around f8 on the subject should be pretty good.

These are really cool!

JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

Thanks RacerDan I was trying to think out the box quirky probably works for some and not for others.... Rough rule of thirds on the crop using the eyes for top third getting drawn to?? dont no wether that works in this case

JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

Will try out thanks Sarge69

JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

Thanks CaptainC I have shot in Raw and they came straight out without any pre tweaks before PS, I'll try reducing exposure and reposting at the weekend as a before / take advice -- after shot... Thanks again really good info for me to work on here. :thumbup: :thumbup:

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Absolutely love #2. Agree with Captain C. One of the most important tools you can have doing studio portrait work especially, is a light meter. Doesn't have to be super expensive, used from KEH about $60 (ish)would do fine.

Since you used RAW, you should be able to recover pretty much anything in #2 that looks fairly blown out. It doesn't look too far gone. I bet Mom just loves the shots.

JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

Thanks Bkyser
Yes she loves them... I have recently bought a light meter and am just experimenting with it now so with the valuable info I'm picking up here I should be getting some good shots soon. Still a long way to go to get to your very high standards though.. but enjoying the journey

JoboX Loc: Liverpool UK

Have included whole image pre crop and reduced exposure as suggested and very lightly sharpened eyes and nose... this was shot at the babys house with a white backdrop and cheap 540w lighting system kit (I'm an amatuer only used manual settings for the past 18 months took photos in auto with fingers crossed before that :oops: ).I asked the dad to put his face against the backdrop then worked on the camera settings lights settings with about 6 shots..shoot change,,,shoot change. have now got a light meter... :lol:

Will be having a go at the dark stuff shortly... Keep you posted on the outcome

lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

My greatest thought, beyond what everyone has said, is the stuffed animal. A nice idea, perhaps. The trouble is that there can be so much expression in the mouth and the relationship of the mouth and the nose. I say that it hides too much of the face and becomes a major, and distracting part of the image - not just a cute prop. It would be fine if it drew you into the picture, but it hides the the child's face.

By the way, is the child's outfit supposed to be blue or white? I find the detail relatively lacking and I would vote for over exposed, not high key.