# Taking pictures of a toddler in front of Christmas tree. Help??



## MissK (Dec 5, 2012)

Hey everyone. I am hoping someone can tell me what settings to use on my Sony a65 to take GREAT pictures of my toddler in front of our Christmas Tree to use for Christmas cards. I have had the camera for a year. I can take pretty good pictures in manual mode outside, but indoors is a different story. PLEASE HELP!!! Also, I am still learning photography lingo so please dumb down responses


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 5, 2012)

There are no magic "settings" which is why you have no replies.  Settings you would use are all light dependent and objective dependent.  Only you can assess your light and desires onsite, we can't.  We have no clue about your lighting arrangements, setup, flash, no flash.  Etc etc etc.  

My advice would be to practice beforehand and see what each settings do and learn why.  When shoot time comes, you will know what to use based on your needs.


----------



## Mully (Dec 5, 2012)

Light the room and have fun with it then you are not tripped up with your lighting


----------



## Tony S (Dec 5, 2012)

Unless you have lighting to add to the scene, get light on the toddler's face somehow so it about 1-2 stops brighter than the lighted tree.  If you light the toddler and the tree equally, the lights and the tree get washed out.  Having the exposure properly set on the toddler and a little underexposed for the tree will highlight the subject, but leave the background intact for the setting.

  Otherwise , go AV mode to control your dof and bracket exposures looking for something that works out.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 5, 2012)

Mess with you aperature, ISO and shutterspeed. Find what YOU like.


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2012)

To get the child and the Christmas tree in focus you will need to use a small enough lens aperture that gives you sufficient depth of field. How small the aperture needs to be will depend on the point of focus distance.

For example, if you want the entire child/Christmas in the shot your point of focus will be further from the camera than if the child and only the lower part of the tree is in the shot.

By using a small enough aperture to get sufficient DoF, your problem is likely going to be that there is not enough light to allow your shutter speed to be fast enough to prevent camera shake or motion blur.

You can compensate for a slow shutter speed by cranking up the ISO setting. A noisy photo is better than a blurry photo.

The ideal solution is to use strobed light (flash). But using strobed light adds a level of complexity which also means a learning curve for you. Of course you could just use your camera's built in flash, and by trial and error likely produce an acceptable strobed light shot.


----------



## JackandSally (Dec 6, 2012)

I don't know about you, but my toddler has no desire to sit in front of the Christmas tree so I can take photos.  As much as I want those "magical" shots that everyone seems to be putting out there.... I will wait until my toddler is a little older.  

With that said, search this forum about various topics.  There's tons of information on exposure, even indoors.  I actually just searched "Christmas tree lighting" the other day and it brought up a TON of topics that helped me to nail down getting the best Christmas tree shot.  One day, when I get them without a toddlers foot, a dogs tail or an infants fingers coming through the frame, I'll actually post them.


----------



## pbladh (Dec 6, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Unless you have lighting to add to the scene, get light on the toddler's face somehow so it about 1-2 stops brighter than the lighted tree.



How do you measure that?


----------



## KmH (Dec 6, 2012)

With a handheld incident/flash light meter, or the camera's built-in reflected light meter if a constant light is used.


----------



## pbladh (Dec 6, 2012)

KmH said:


> With a handheld incident/flash light meter, or the camera's built-in reflected light meter if a constant light is used.



I've got "focal length index" on the display of my Sony nex-5n, which varies between -2.0 and 2.0. Seems like it's happy (not flashing) when that value is zero, which usually can be accomplished by either manipulating shutter speed or aperture. Does "focal length index" relate to the f/stops in a useful way (ie can I use that instead)?

Thanks


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 6, 2012)

I'd use a large aperture, and rather than put the child immediately in front of the tree, I'd put quite a distance between the child and the tree.  (as a general guideline, I almost never put a subject immediately in front of any background... I want a LOT of space.  I make exceptions to this, but more often I find a background looks better if it's "in the background" and not immediately behind the subject.

Here's an example:




Holiday Bokeh by Tim Campbell1, on Flickr

Ok, it's not a child (but that shouldn't matter).  This shot was taken with a 70mm focal length at f/2.8 and there's at least 10' (probably closer to 15') between my subject and the tree.  

Deliberately de-focused holiday lights create beautiful orbs of soft light.  You need a low focal ratio (preferably at least f/4 or lower) and a long-ish focal ratio (this works at 70mm... at 50mm it'd still be pretty good.  But if we dropped to, say, 18mm then we would lose most of this effect.)

The result is a sharp subject, but the tree gets soft holiday light bokeh.  Not only is it not necessary for the Christmas tree to be sharply focused, being out of focus gives it even more beauty.  It's clear to everyone that the background is a Christmas tree.  

I also toyed with the white balance and while this is FAR from being correctly white balanced, I decided the "warm" look of tungsten light helped create a warmer holiday look.  (I don't always want "accurate" white balance.)


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 7, 2012)

Make sure the toddler hasn't had too much sugar prior to taking the pictures.  Otherwise, it will require a parent to hold them in one place!


----------



## Buckster (Dec 7, 2012)

1. Shoot the Christmas tree / lights you want to use for the background.
2. Shoot the toddler shot you want to use against a solid background (I used black)
3. Composite them.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 7, 2012)

Without supplemental lighting, Buckster's method is probably going to produce the best results, but make sure you consider light angles and shadows in both shots, in other words: Don't have full face light on the child and shadows going image left in the tree shot.  People may not know what is wrong when they look at it, but they will know something is wrong.


----------



## Rocketman1978 (Dec 7, 2012)

I am really new at photography but did some research online about taking  pictures of a tree to see what worked for others.  In the attached photo I was going for clarity and sharpness to detail the beautiful job my wife did on the tree this year, however with a subject in front I would want the tree to have some amount of bokeh.  That's just my taste but I've also seen photos where both subjects were in focus and it turned out amazing, see "lil blue boo" photo LINK below (not mine, just for example of what I was trying to recreate but without the subjects in front).

http://www.lilblueboo.com/wp-conten...e-photos-of-your-christmas-tree-at-night-.jpg

I shot the following  attached picture with my 50mm on a tripod (ISO 6400, f/2.5, 1/50), room/outside was  fully dark- only lights were the tree, adjusted white balance and sharpness in PP.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 7, 2012)

Buckster said:


> 1. Shoot the Christmas tree / lights you want to use for the background.
> 2. Shoot the toddler shot you want to use against a solid background (I used black)
> 3. Composite them.





Once again, Buckster FTW!  :hail:


----------



## jwbryson1 (Dec 7, 2012)

Put the camera on a good, sturdy tripod, set up the baby so it doesn't fall over and shoot in rear curtain sync.


----------



## mrpink (Dec 7, 2012)

Set up shots and toddlers do not mix well (unless you follow Bucksters advice). Put the kid down. Let them play. Take photos. You get what you get. I am sure your family will love the cards even if they are not award winning photographs. 





p!nK


----------



## Rocketman1978 (Dec 7, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> I'd use a large aperture, and rather than put the child immediately in front of the tree, I'd put quite a distance between the child and the tree.  (as a general guideline, I almost never put a subject immediately in front of any background... I want a LOT of space.  I make exceptions to this, but more often I find a background looks better if it's "in the background" and not immediately behind the subject.
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> ...


Not to take over the thread but thanks for posting this, I've been researching all week about subject positioning for holiday bokeh as I want to do it tomorrow w/family.  Upon getting a new rig and learning about photography it seems family comes out of the woodwork wanting pictures done.  While I'm still learning and they know this, I feel it is a good opportunity for me.  I have a ton of notes, plan to try a bunch and see what result I'm leave with afterward, hopefully a few good shots they'll be happy with.


----------



## JodieM (Dec 11, 2012)

Try shooting in the night portrait mode. ( Person with star icon). Put a little space between your child and the tree.  Perhaps sit them in a chair with a few books to entertain them for 3 seconds.  Stand back, zoom a bit to compose your frame and shoot. Hold still for about 3 seconds after the flash so the exposure can capture the ambient light in the background.  Adjust the flash compensation + or - if need be.  This may be the quickest method with a toddler.


----------



## johnrichard (Dec 12, 2012)

manipulating shutter speed and handheld incident/flash light meter


----------



## Tony S (Dec 12, 2012)

Buckster..... a little work with the liquify tool on his ears and you have an elf.  lol


----------



## owlxxx (Dec 14, 2012)

I used a warm video light, high ISO and a pretty open aperture(2.0-1.8 or something) with my 50mm and they came out pretty good considering it was done on the fly while my daughter was stealing ornaments off the tree.


----------



## Mully (Dec 14, 2012)

I like this new one .... just brighten it up a little.  I like her eyes looking up and the big Christmas ball, nice job!


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 14, 2012)

Rocketman1978 said:


> I am really new at photography but did some research online about taking  pictures of a tree to see what worked for others.  In the attached photo (at the bottom) I was going for clarity and sharpness to detail the beautiful job my wife did on the tree this year, however with a subject in front I would want the tree to have some amount of bokeh.  That's just my taste but I've also seen photos where both subjects were in focus and it turned out amazing, see "lil blue boo" photo immediately below (not mine, just borrowed for example of what I was trying to recreate but without the subjects in front).
> I shot the following  attached picture with my 50mm on a tripod (ISO 6400, f/2.5, 1/50), room/outside was  fully dark- only lights were the tree, adjusted white balance and sharpness in PP.



Based on title of the post... the toddler is probably more important than the tree! And your shots are toddler-less.... how is that going to help? (oh.. and the first shot you posted is badly in need of fill on the foreground subjects - bad example)! Shooting a just a tree is much simpler than exposing for a foreground subject, and the tree also...


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 14, 2012)

johnrichard said:


> manipulating shutter speed and handheld incident/flash light meter!



Thats informative... NOT! Care to elucidate verbosely?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> johnrichard said:
> 
> 
> > manipulating shutter speed and handheld incident/flash light meter!
> ...


Let me guess Charlie, Alphabits for breakfast again?


----------



## Rocketman1978 (Dec 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Rocketman1978 said:
> 
> 
> > I am really new at photography but did some research online about taking  pictures of a tree to see what worked for others.  In the attached photo (at the bottom) I was going for clarity and sharpness to detail the beautiful job my wife did on the tree this year, however with a subject in front I would want the tree to have some amount of bokeh.  That's just my taste but I've also seen photos where both subjects were in focus and it turned out amazing, see "lil blue boo" photo immediately below (not mine, just borrowed for example of what I was trying to recreate but without the subjects in front).
> ...


Relax forum police, I did post a picture of a child in front of a tree, albeit not a toddler nor did I take it but I did follow her suggestions and then posted my resulting photo. Tim posted a photo of an adult in front of a tree yet you chose to jump on my case?  No disrespect but responses such as yours cause beginners like me to be reluctant to post, I don't see that as beneficial to TPF, are you trying to help or hinder??  Both of your posts help the OP in no way whatsoever, I would venture to guess my post was more of a help than your 2.  We're not all professionals, this was posted in the "beginners" forum so if you don't like something posted by a beginner please ignore it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 15, 2012)

Rocketman1978 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rocketman1978 said:
> ...



lol! yea.. you posted a bad photo of kids (that were underexposed) in front of a tree. You did not take the photo. You did not say that it was bad.. you intimated that it was good. You did not explain how to even achieve that bad photo... or how to improve on the bad photo. How does that help the OP? You also posted an image of a tree (and only a tree) that you did shoot... and gave your settings for that shot. Those settings would only be helpful if the OP was shooting only a tree... and also only a tree that had approximately the same lighting as your tree. If the OP's tree is much brighter, or much dimmer... your settings wont work! So how did you help the OP? Especially when your settings wont work with a child in front of the tree... (except it might give results similar to the bad photo you posted)!

I was trying to help you... (since the OP had already received adequate and competent suggestions on how to shoot what she asked for, which was a tree with a child in front of it). But I probably won't make that mistake again!


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 15, 2012)

tirediron said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > johnrichard said:
> ...



Oops.. sorry! I will try to stick to monosyllabic words in the future! :hug::


----------



## sashbar (Dec 15, 2012)

To me a sharply focused Christmas tree is a must simply because we naturally associate it with sharp thorns. That is why sharp close up of a Xmas tree branches look so much better than the whole tree. Softening it contradicts our tactile memory and to me it always looks like a photographer's mistake rather than a deliberate composition. It is always difficult with toddlers but I would try to have them close to the tree and have just a face plus part shoulder and one or two tree branches with just one or two accentuated decoration, and some air should be there as well. It gives you a feeling that Xmas is near , it is here and with you,  as opposed to a distanced and blurry celebrations. Just my 2pence.


----------



## Rocketman1978 (Dec 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Rocketman1978 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


Thank you ever so much, friend, so insightful.  Hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas!


----------



## terri (Dec 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


How about sticking to _fewer_ words when you find fault with people, as you so often do?  :sun:


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 15, 2012)

terri said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Do you disagree with what I said? That is the important question!


----------



## terri (Dec 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


No it isn't.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 15, 2012)

terri said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...



So being "NICE" and not hurting feelings should be more important than being truthful? How is that going to help anyone learn?


----------



## terri (Dec 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...


  Interesting that you chose to go there, though that particular string of words seems to be your shield of choice.   Are you so sure you interpreted me correctly?    Fine, lets go there: did you even answer the OP directly, or did you disparage someone else within the thread and then pounce on a one-liner from another poster?   Posting here is voluntary, and Im sure you appreciate what is meant by volunteering  _nobody asked you_.   In that regard, yes, it actually is better to take a few extra moments to craft your words to total strangers in order not to be harsh.  If youre really sincere in your desire to help, you should be able to accomplish this.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 15, 2012)

terri said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > terri said:
> ...



Terri.. it is interesting to me that while I supposed have extremely high reading comprehension skills.... your post here makes very little sense to me.  I guess maybe I do have trouble "interpreting" you!

I didn't find it necessary to to answer the OP directly.. they had already been answered competently as I mentioned previously! 

I spoke strictly to the poster I responded to... and I have no idea what "one-liner" you are referring to!

Posting here is voluntary... and there are MANY posts that don't address the OP or even the original topic the OP posted about, and people interject opinions often, as I did! It is a way of life on forums. Are you going to implement a rule forbidding it? Good luck!

As far as my desire to help... posts like yours make that less likely! As far as my delivery method? Oh, well.. I prefer to not sugar coat things. Sorry!

You never did answer my question about my my post.... as to whether you disagreed with what I said. You mainly seem to be making a point of disagreeing with the delivery method!


----------



## terri (Dec 15, 2012)

> You mainly seem to be making a point of disagreeing with the delivery method!


Bingo!   See there?  You don't really have any trouble interpreting me at all.  :sillysmi:   Especially since it's something we've touched on before and we continue to monitor.    No need to worry about implementing new rules about butting into threads to express an opinion; rest easy, Charlie!   I enforce this rule: 





> *TPF prides itself on encouraging friendly and open discourse regarding  photography.    Personal attacks on any members as well as TPF Staff  will not be tolerated, and these posts will be deleted and the  instigators possibly banned.


All you need to think about is being friendly!   See how easy we make it?      If you have trouble interpreting the word "friendly" and how much it differs from "sugar-coating", well then, here is where your stated "extremely high reading comprehension skills" will come in handy.  Look them up.

As for the one-liner, gracious me, you zip 'em off so fast I guess you lose track, since it's what I originally replied to.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 15, 2012)

*I think the OP has got all he is going to out of this thread!*


----------



## tirediron (Dec 16, 2012)

*Apologies to all concerned; I locked this thread in a moment of inattention.  *


----------

