# Cannot get a crisp photo indoors



## ja20 (Nov 30, 2013)

Hi, 

I have been taking photos of my baby for about 6 months. I have a canon t5i with a 50mm 1.4 lens. I typically shoot in Av mode, but in order to get the shutter speed that I need to stop the motion of his flailing limbs, I have to shoot in the 1.4-1.8 range. Despite my best attempts, I cannot get his eyes into focus. I try not to take the ISO above 800 because it gets too grainy. Is this a skill limitation or is it just not possible. I cannot be certain that it is a DOF problem, it could be a motion blur problem. Usually at 1.4 the shutter speed is 1/125. That has always been the slowest I will let it go, but it might be too slow. What do you all think? I just want some really crisp eyes.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 30, 2013)

1.4 to 1.8 is a ridiculously shallow depth of field.  So the tip of his nose may be sharp and his eyes will be fuzzy.

Stop it down to 5.6 or so. Use an external flash bounced off ceiling or turn up ISO to compensate.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 30, 2013)

As BunnyWabbit said, get an external flash.  Since you don't like the results of a higher ISO it sounds like you have reached the "limitation" of your setup/config for the situation.  

FYI - You need more light, maybe bring another lamp in the room or something and try some more photos.  one of those bright halogen floor lamps that bounces off the ceiling might do wonders.  A work light .... something


----------



## amolitor (Nov 30, 2013)

Oh, you can do babies with available light. It just takes practice and effort.

I would stop down a bit, to 2.2 or 2.8. Adjust ISO to fit. Then use single-point focus, and move that focus point to the point closest to the eye you want in focus. Then focus/lock/shoot over and over and over. If you get one in a dozen that's not just a blurry mess, you're doing well. If you get a good picture one time out of a hundred, you're doing fine. Experiment with focusing on one eye, and then the other. Take a LOT of pictures. It's digital, it costs nothing. Go crazy.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 30, 2013)

I think you're focusing too much of stopping the motion of the baby's limbs...and as a result that wife aperture in the f/1.4 to f/1.8 range is seriously impairing your success. If you want to shoot by available light, I think you will need to stop the lens down to at least f/2.8 to f/3.5, and allow the shutter to drop down in speed. A baby is not always moving...there are many,many times when you can get a perfectly good shot at a slowish speed, like 1/15 second, by shooting during periods when the baby is not "wildly flailing". THis is digital...just keep shooting...don't worry about the blurrier shots, unless they happen to look especially cool. You need some decent depth of field, much more so than sheer shutter speed. Keep the camera as steady as you can, by using found support, or shooting from a seated position, or propping your arm or elbows on surfaces, but definitely move AWAY from the wide-open f/1.4 and 1/125 type exposure range...that's just a loser.


----------



## ja20 (Nov 30, 2013)

I may ask for an external flash for christmas from my husband - any recommendations? 
I do feel that light is a limiting factor in our house, we live under very mature trees. Before I get an external flash - is there a specific lightbulb I can put in a lamp that will mimic daylight so that I am not dealing with the white balance dilemma of sunlight from a window mixed with a tungsten bulb? Would a daylight bulb be best?
And, thank you amoliter - I do end up with at least one keeper out of about 20 or so even at my shallow dof, maybe I'm not as bad as I think. Are those really crisp eyes I see online that obviously have a really shallow DOF a product of photoshop/sharpening? Like this - http://photographyspark.com/images/photo-contest-depth-of-field.jpg
And to continue my random list of questions and comments, does more light always mean a better picture. For example if I can get the exposure I need at ISO 100, 1/400 and f/3.5, will more light make that picture better?


----------



## amolitor (Nov 30, 2013)

Often people will sharpen the eyes specifically, which while it doesn't actually make the picture "sharper" _per se_ definitely creates that feeling that the eyes are going to pop right off the screen. You do need to start with a really sharply focused eye, though.

Keep in mind that babies will rarely arrange to place both eyes exactly the same distance from the lens for you, like a model (even a toddler) might, by looking straight at the camera. This means that, usually, one eye sis going to be at a different distance than the other - in "real" shooting. I think the recommended procedure is to focus on the inner corner of the eye. I think there's a recommendation for whether to use the nearer one of the farther one. I think the nearer one. Anyways. In real life you are going to need more depth of field than those hyper-stylized "shallow DoF with super-popped eyes" photos, unless you get really lucky, hence the various recommendations all of which come out to "stop down at least a bit!"


----------



## raventepes (Nov 30, 2013)

I'd go for a Yongnuo 568EX for a flash. Relatively inexpensive, and great output.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 30, 2013)

Post a few pictures for us to inspect further maybe?


----------



## keethjon (Dec 4, 2013)

I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash. In any case, if you must use available light, set your camera to a focusing mode that will concentrate directly on the area of the baby's eyes. Also, try taking the picture on a bright day with the light coming through the window falling on the baby. You should be able to use aperture f4-f5.6 and still use a decent shutter speed like 1/125. I agree with the previous statement that babies don't move every second so patience also comes into play.

Keith
Easy Basic Photography


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 4, 2013)

keethjon said:


> I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.



Well in theory I guess that's possible - only thing I've noticed is that I don't see a whole lot of pictures taken with the built in flash that were very good, I'm guessing that's probably why so many others are suggesting an external.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2013)

keethjon said:


> I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.



Using on camera flash means that there is little of the micro-texture that makes a baby's skin look 'velvety' because all the light is straight on and no shadows are thrown, except under the skin.

Additionally there is often so little color in a baby's skin that the flash just blows it all away.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 4, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> keethjon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why you cant use the cameras built in flash.
> ...



This, I've been playing around with my built in flash and my new Speedlight shooting our son. My built in flash is nice for misc items such as furniture but I get much better people results bouncing the light off a wall or ceiling using my Speedlight.


----------



## cynicaster (Dec 5, 2013)

Personally, I wouldn't even consider using a pop-up flash for anything other than maybe to take a photo of a refrigerator in my garage that I want to post in the online classifieds.  Even then, it would probably make me a little bit itchy.  

Get a half decent external flash unit and watch your results improve by leaps and bounds as you learn how to use it.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 5, 2013)




----------



## table1349 (Dec 5, 2013)

Gee....Do they make a pop up  flash for a 1  Dx?


----------



## Ream (Jan 24, 2014)

I have great results when I position the light directly behind the camera (butterfly lighting).


----------



## JoeW (Jan 28, 2014)

Agreed with most of the comments about a popup flash.  It's great as "fill" when you're shooting a backlit figure or you're a bit further away.  But for shooting a 6 m.o. you're just going to blowout all the color and detail.  And you want off-camera lighting anyway for good portraits.  

Get the YongNuo--it's cheap and reliable.  Next option (if you can't shoot someplace with more ambient light) is to upgrade the light.  Since speed lights and studio lights are new to you, you can go to someplace like Cowboy Studio and buy a cheap light, stand, umbrella with a continuous light source (like a day-light rated CFL).  The thing about shooting babies is that they won't pose for you.  So the nature of your subject plus your inexperience with speed lights, a continuous light source is the way to go for you.  You'll get a higher percentage of "keepers".


----------



## KmH (Jan 28, 2014)

Yongnuo - 1.Flash-YONGNUO, photographic equipment, camera accessories, flash light, camera remote control, speedlite, photo equipment, LED photo light, flash trigger, camera wireless remote control, TTL cord


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm going to say something radical... hopefully nobody flips out on me.

Have you considered moving the baby to a location with MORE available light?

When I shot weddings... I would say it was fairly rare that I would walk into a room and NOT re-arrange the furniture.  Literally I would think "this chair looks good, that sofa is nice, I think I'll take this plant... and move them ALL OVER HERE to the window."  I was basically a photographer and furniture mover.  You don't have to accept the scene the way it is -- make it the way you want.

Keep in mind I was shooting with a film camera so we couldn't just crank up the ISO (we'd have to change the film and high ISO film was VERY grainy.)

Control the lighting.  Get a reflector if you want.   They are very inexpensive... see:  Amazon.com: Impact Collapsible Circular Reflector Disc - Silver/White - 32": Camera & Photo
That's a 32", but they come in many sizes.  I do recommend the white/silver and avoid the gold.  Gold works well if you want to enhance the look of a suntan when you shoot swimsuit models.

Get a flash... bounce it off your (hopefully white) ceiling.  The Canon 430EX II is very nice and capable.

Always remember there is *often* something you can do to control the light... you don't necessarily have to take it as it is.

Lastly... if you'd like, post one of these ISO 800 images that you think are too grainy and we'll see what we can't do with it.


----------



## sk66 (Jan 28, 2014)

You can use the popup...if that's what you have it may be better than nothing. If it's your primary light source, it's going to be harsh. I'd recommend setting a -1 FEC or so to help.

If you have to use a wide aperture and need more DOF, back up and shoot looser. Crop in post. When working at shorter distances small changes in distance can make a big difference... A 50% increase in distance will double the DOF, the same as stopping down two stops. That could be nothing more than taking a step or two back...
Or switch to a wider lens, it has the same effect.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 29, 2014)

I was going to suggest a faster shutter speed. Shoot in Manuala and try ISO 600-800 @ F3.5-4.5 and shutter about 8o to 125 . I can usually get pretty good photos with these settings in low light.


----------



## IaR17 (Jan 31, 2014)

You can use an umbrella, a flash (the yongnuo 565 is perfect) and the trigger. It's too easy. If you would like to save, you can buy the flash no e-ttl and use this off-camera in manual mode. For example the YN 560 III and with this flash one trigger (not two).
This's the result can you do with the flash off-camera :
View attachment 65667

Good light


----------



## smr238 (Jan 31, 2014)

Set the aperture to 2.8. Frame the subject, then use the arrow keys to move your focus point to the eye, then focus and shoot. Try not to focus then recompose the shot.


----------



## Bossy (Jan 31, 2014)

ja20 said:


> I may ask for an external flash for christmas from my husband - any recommendations?
> I do feel that light is a limiting factor in our house, we live under very mature trees. Before I get an external flash - is there a specific lightbulb I can put in a lamp that will mimic daylight so that I am not dealing with the white balance dilemma of sunlight from a window mixed with a tungsten bulb? Would a daylight bulb be best?
> And, thank you amoliter - I do end up with at least one keeper out of about 20 or so even at my shallow dof, maybe I'm not as bad as I think. Are those really crisp eyes I see online that obviously have a really shallow DOF a product of photoshop/sharpening? Like this - http://photographyspark.com/images/photo-contest-depth-of-field.jpg
> And to continue my random list of questions and comments, does more light always mean a better picture. For example if I can get the exposure I need at ISO 100, 1/400 and f/3.5, will more light make that picture better?




I have an external flash that I bounce off the ceiling if light is too low, works like a charm. 


Think about something, re:ambient light vs flash light. With a flash, your SS will be like. 200-250. If you take an image without the flash, same aperture and at 200-250, what does it look like? Dark. Or even black. No ambient light color cast to be seen right? So why would you have ambient light competing all of the sudden if you use a flash?


----------



## KmH (Feb 1, 2014)

This might be helpful:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/dragging-the-shutter/


----------

