# "When I grow up."  photo shoot of my girls playind dress up.  CC?? Color version



## AMOMENT (Aug 4, 2012)

Here's another go....What do you guys/gals think?

!.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




5.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




6.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




7.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 4, 2012)

I live them, the poses, the framing and the post-processing.

Logo is weak but pix are great.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 4, 2012)

Thank you so much...lol, I barely was able to get that logo..I really have to work on my watermark.  Thanks, again!!  =)


----------



## MTVision (Aug 4, 2012)

AMOMENT said:
			
		

> Thank you so much...lol, I barely was able to get that logo..I really have to work on my watermark.  Thanks, again!!  =)



I'm on my phone so I'm not the best judge but they look really noisy to me. Were you using a really high ISO or was it done in post??


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 4, 2012)

Many of these look soft to me.. missed focus?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 4, 2012)

Most of them are out of focus. I suspect your shutter speed was too slow. They are very grainy as if they were underexposed and brought up considerably. You have a great idea here, but you have so  much going on that it's just a cluttered up mess. Having the trunk and the dress up things would work had you backed out more and given it enough space. 
Shoot again. Back up. Limit distractions. Don't tilt your camera and focus slowly and deliberately.


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 4, 2012)

I'm on my phone but these look pretty grainy. What was the Exif? You should try exposing to the right. Works good.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 4, 2012)

Why are your images copyrighted to a George McCullough?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Why are your images copyrighted to a George McCullough?




Lol!!! Just noticed that!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 4, 2012)

Here is why you are grainy. You boosted exposure by +1 and brightness by +50 to begin with. You were shooting with an f/2.8 lens set at f/4. Why wouldn't you drop down your f/ to get proper exposure instead of risking the noise problems? Or why didn't you use your flash instead of shooting at ISO 6400? 
You can't put a bandaid on a screw up and make it work. You have to master the camera. Your editing program has really impeded your growth in actual skill and ability with the camera.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Aug 4, 2012)

These are really noisy and several are quite blurry.  The background is cluttered and distracts from the subjects.  If I were looking at these as a series, I would wonder why the older child's eyes are icy blue in #5 and a different color in all the rest.  And, the logo is really distracting.

As MLeeK suggested, the technical aspects need work.


----------



## PinkDoor (Aug 4, 2012)

I adore you, I think you are so sweet, and I love that your photos capture such sweet moments.   I, however, dislike your new watermark. . . the size? the odd weird first letter font? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not flattering to your photos. . . :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 5, 2012)

Of all the controllable factors in photography ... focus is one of the main ones.
With portrait photography, the most important thing is to get the person in focus ... as they are the focus point of the image.

For now you should ignore everything else and work on achieving sharp focus on the subject.

Or you should start your all posts with "yeah, I know it is out of focus ..."


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Here is why you are grainy. You boosted exposure by +1 and brightness by +50 to begin with. You were shooting with an f/2.8 lens set at f/4. Why wouldn't you drop down your f/ to get proper exposure instead of risking the noise problems? Or why didn't you use your flash instead of shooting at ISO 6400?
> You can't put a bandaid on a screw up and make it work. You have to master the camera. Your editing program has really impeded your growth in actual skill and ability with the camera.
> View attachment 15802



Omg, I don't know why these are copywrited as that.  It is very wierd but when I upload any of my photos to facebook, this comes up and I always erase it.  Any idea?  

Also, I didn't use a flash because everyone insisted that I not introduce any other eqipment and to just raise my ISO.....if I stopped dow for greater dof, I would have been vastly underexposed?


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

PinkDoor said:


> I adore you, I think you are so sweet, and I love that your photos capture such sweet moments.   I, however, dislike your new watermark. . . the size? the odd weird first letter font? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not flattering to your photos. . . :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:




Thanks =)*  I know it's ATROCIOUS...lol...I have to really work on one.    lol...I don't really know how to make one and havent come close to spending enough time on it.  _I mainly came up with a watermark because of that whole "Geoprge Muchol.." thing coming up ad wanted to protect the images.  A friend of my husbands is looking into it; he works with computeras and thinks there might have been some hacking...._


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Omg, I don't know why these are copywrited as that.  It is very wierd but when I upload any of my photos to facebook, this comes up and I always erase it.  Any idea?



The previous owner probably put that in there.  I do the same for photos.  It's under Menu, SETUP MENU, Copyright information.

My post in the other thread.... people suggested large aperture for you to get more light in, not larger f-stop number.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

PinkDoor said:


> I adore you, I think you are so sweet, and I love that your photos capture such sweet moments.   I, however, dislike your new watermark. . . the size? the odd weird first letter font? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not flattering to your photos. . . :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:




I think you are sweet too


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

OH....okay..thank you!


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> Of all the controllable factors in photography ... focus is one of the main ones.
> With portrait photography, the most important thing is to get the person in focus ... as they are the focus point of the image.
> 
> For now you should ignore everything else and work on achieving sharp focus on the subject.
> ...



Honestly I feel cursed with focus LOL.  It frustrates me beyond belief!  I've tried larger f-stops, auto focus, center focus point recompose, aF-C, fast shutter speeds.  I know it's the right combination but I swear if someone picks up my camera on the same settings, it's clearer...=(


----------



## Vtec44 (Aug 5, 2012)

Also check the other thread to turn on audible focus confirmation and focus priority in both AFS and AFC.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

Not shutter priority...


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

As I said, I take so many shoots that it is hard to remember.  I know I shot lots during this past month on shutter priority.  Where do you get the software to tell you what you shot in?  I think it would be helpful......there's no way I can remember everything


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

IMG_**** > Properties > Advanced


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:
			
		

> As I said, I take so many shoots that it is hard to remember.  I know I shot lots during this past month on shutter priority.  Where do you get the software to tell you what you shot in?  I think it would be helpful......there's no way I can remember everything



You can also shoot at lower iso. You don't need to be at 1/400s and f7 unless you want greater DOF.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

In Bridge I am looking at the file info. 
I believe rexbobcat is talking windows explorer. It's in the details tab and if it isn't there you need to just change settings so it shows.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> Also check the other thread to turn on audible focus confirmation and focus priority in both AFS and AFC.


I do think the audible beep for focus lock may help you. And shoot SLOW. Very SLOW and deliberate. Look thru the viewfinder, lock focus. Look HARD-if it is RIGHT fire. If not keep trying.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the controllable factors in photography ... focus is one of the main ones.
> ...



Are you actually looking through the viewfinder to verify focus, or are you relying on your camera the whole time to get it?
Does the subject look sharp in the viewfinder ?? 
Pay very close attention to the image in the viewfinder before completing the shot to make sure the camera is focusing on what you think it is focusing on ... otherwise don't bother.


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

It may sound funny but is your diopter focused?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> PinkDoor said:
> 
> 
> > I adore you, I think you are so sweet, and I love that your photos capture such sweet moments.   I, however, dislike your new watermark. . . the size? the odd weird first letter font? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not flattering to your photos. . . :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
> ...



Did you buy this software? Or was it an illegal internet Warez download?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> PinkDoor said:
> 
> 
> > I adore you, I think you are so sweet, and I love that your photos capture such sweet moments.   I, however, dislike your new watermark. . . the size? the odd weird first letter font? I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not flattering to your photos. . . :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
> ...


It's not your computer, you haven't been hacked. Unless you are maybe using pirated software or something. I am guessing that you bought your camera used. It's in the camera settings. I have no idea what menu it is in Nikon, but if you read your manual it will tell you how to fix it.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

What is a diopter?  

I look throguh the viewfinder, have my camera set on focus release, and also wait for the focus lock sound.  Not that it matter because it won't allow me to take the photo anyway unless it has acheved focus.  I posted these photos, which look a lot worse on this site, because I liked the theme.  I had taken them inside and bumped up my iso really high so I could use a faster shutter speed.  (That was suggested)  I also didn't use a flash because everyone said don't even bother introducing other light sources/eqipment til' you master what you have.  I had no choice but to bump the ISO up that high, to have that fast of a shutter speed.  I could have also closed down my aperture a bit to allow for greater DOF, but again, I was barely getting enough light with an f-stop of f-4, needed fast shutter speed of 1/200, and ISO of 6400.  Furthermore, this really was a spontanteous shoot.  My girls were playing together and I thought it was precious.  Mt daughter, the older one, put her fancy dress on because my husband and I had just explained what it meant to get married and showed her our wedding pics =)  She was mimicing me and it was endearing.  We were in a bedroom and there wasn't much space I could put between us.  Can you tell me what you wuld have done differently?

Shot with my 18-55mm f/2.8 lens..

Bumped ISO up to 6400 so I didn't have to use a flash and could use a fast shutter speed of 1/200

My aperture of about f4 would create for a narrow DOF but, I was having trouble getting enough light, using a fast shutter speed, and not using a flash?  

I distanced myself from them as much as I could in a bedroom.  

I also wanted to blur out the baseboards behind them so I didn't want too deep of a DOF.  I spot metered because, behind them was a window and had I matricx metered, they would have been underexposed.  I metered off of their skin to expose right for it.


----------



## AMOMENT (Aug 5, 2012)

How would you compensate for lack of light without using a flash or exgternal light source?  How would you do this while still remaining at such a fast shutter speed?  I just don't see how it is possible..please help =)


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

Sometimes you can't. If you've maxed out your ISO and aperture then you've gotta work with whatever shutter speed you can get.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> What is a diopter?
> 
> I look throguh the viewfinder, have my camera set on focus release, and also wait for the focus lock sound.  Not that it matter because it won't allow me to take the photo anyway unless it has acheved focus.  I posted these photos, which look a lot worse on this site, because I liked the theme.  I had taken them inside and bumped up my iso really high so I could use a faster shutter speed.  (That was suggested)  I also didn't use a flash because everyone said don't even bother introducing other light sources/eqipment til' you master what you have.  I had no choice but to bump the ISO up that high, to have that fast of a shutter speed.  I could have also closed down my aperture a bit to allow for greater DOF, but again, I was barely getting enough light with an f-stop of f-4, needed fast shutter speed of 1/200, and ISO of 6400.  Furthermore, this really was a spontanteous shoot.  My girls were playing together and I thought it was precious.  Mt daughter, the older one, put her fancy dress on because my husband and I had just explained what it meant to get married and showed her our wedding pics =)  She was mimicing me and it was endearing.  We were in a bedroom and there wasn't much space I could put between us.  Can you tell me what you wuld have done differently?
> 
> ...



Reduce your aperture. 
At some point you just can't shoot without adding light.


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> What is a diopter?



The focus through the viewfinder can be adjusted, this is called the diopter, if it should be slightly out of focus then the camera may indicate a focused shot and you may believe its not and/or you think it's focused and it's not. This is based off eyesight and may need to be adjusted occasionally especially if you wear glasses/contacts.

It's has been mentioned to shoot objects outdoors so you have ample lighting, your images outdoors on you website are much stronger than those indoors. Might be a clue to where to begin.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 5, 2012)

Yes, as Forrest would say ... "sometimes there just aren't enough rocks".

You just have to know to read light levels and anticipate that.
A wider aperture lens like a f/1.8 would give you an advantage ... but it appears the issue with these images is getting the focus correct.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 5, 2012)

vtf said:


> AMOMENT said:
> 
> 
> > What is a diopter?
> ...



Specifically, you turn the dial till the focus points are clear and sharp to your eye. This matters for manual focus, but I don't believe it matters one lick for auto focus, since it is not based at all on the viewfinder.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 5, 2012)

i would have opened up my aperture loooooong before bumping my iso that high. You've got a fast zoom there. open it up to 2.8 and see if that doesnt let you bring your iso down to a manageable level. OR, for those indoor shots grab a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 and you need even less ISO. a little wider DOF is better than all that ISO noise.


----------



## BlackSheep (Aug 5, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> I look throguh the viewfinder, have my camera set on focus release, and also wait for the focus lock sound.  Not that it matter because it won't allow me to take the photo anyway unless it has acheved focus.



When you are doing this, are you able to see what the camera is focusing on exactly? If it focus locks on (for example) the floor in front of your subject, then the end result will be an out-of-focus photo. 

For what it's worth, I saw your earlier thread with non-mobile subjects http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...till-life-advice-taken-what-do-you-think.html . On those shots, you did a much better job with the focusing. I think you just need to keep practicing with focus - no messing around with aperatures/shutter speeds/etc. to fix your focus...just plain old practice. We all take OOF photos, even after 20 years of shooting. (But most of us don't post the OOF ones for C&C  )


----------



## vtf (Aug 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> > AMOMENT said:
> ...


 
 It had me cussing up the lens all day, then I realized I accidentally turned the dial earlier in the day, duh!
On my Canon it actually brings the viewfinder focus in and out, not the focus points.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

There is no such thing as an 18-55 f/2.8.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 5, 2012)

Well, I've stayed out of this latest round because I'm tired.  I don't think I have any further advice to give.  It seems like every time you stabilize one problem you find another one to forget.  We had you focusing properly a month ago and that has obviously gone down the tubes once again.

Two recommendations and I'm going to move on to others:

First, when you post an image and state that it was shot with specific criteria, make certain that it truly was.  Your last round of shots a few weeks ago you swore up and down that they were shot in aperture priority or shutter priority (I don't remember which) and at ISO 640 when the EXIF data clearly showed they were shot in manual mode at ISO 6400.  You lose a lot of credibility when you can't even keep things straight.  The CD That came with your camera has Nikon ViewNX2 on it and it will display the EXIF data of any photograph (if you don't have the CD it can be downloaded from Here.  There are many other EXIF Readers available.  I personally prefer EXIFTool GUI in combination with EXIFTool.  Both can be downloaded from [utl=http://freeweb.siol.net/hrastni3/foto/exif/exiftoolgui.htm]This Site[/url].

Second, after thinking about your focus issues I think you may be stabbing the shutter release.  I think you press it halfway to get an autofocus lock and then stab it the rest of the way causing the camera to move.  I'm pretty sure you'll deny this but it is my opinion based on the fact that EVERYTHING else has been eliminated.  Your camera and lens focus properly based on the focus tests that you ran.  If you have it set so that it will not shoot without a focus lock then the only thing left is that you are causing camera movement or that you are not paying attention to what it is focusing on.  Either way it's something you have to handle.

OK, I'm done.  Best of luck with your photography.  I hope you find some answers to your issues, and I'll keep an eye on your posts in the hope that they improve.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> There is no such thing as an 18-55 f/2.8.


Her exif says 18-50 f/2.8


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Her exif says 18-50 f/2.8



Her post said 18-55/2.8.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Her exif says 18-50 f/2.8



Doesn't Sigma make one of those


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 5, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the only one I know of.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



yea, we have the Tamron version and its 17-50 f/2.8
good lens though, for the money.


----------

