Question A Day: Baseline DSLR

Q: countryfair asked:

I have always loved photography but haven’t really gotten into it since high school. Now that I have a little girl, I’ve been taking pictures like crazy. I want to upgrade my camera to a dslr. I am familiar with Canon’s so will go with them, but do think their baseline Rebel XS is a good camera, or should I splurge on the Rebel T1i? I am planning on learning how to really use the camera, but imagine I will mostly use the auto settings.

Thanks for your help. I love both your websites!

A: Thanks! And thank you for the question!

Here’s the thing: the Canon Rebel line is a great line, but there are shortcomings of the XS in particular that I feel are valuable to consider.

The Canon XS is currently retailing for about $580 CAD with a kit lens. The XS came out in 2008 and, as such, doesn’t have any movie capabilities. The T1i, its big brother, does have a movie capability and a higher megapixel count at around 15MP vs. 10MP.

The T1i is currently retailing for around $800 CAD. For that extra few hundred, you’re getting a remarkably better camera that you could most definitely grow into, but if you don’t think you need those extra oomph-factor features, it’s definitely not going to be money well spent.

I know you said you’re familiar with Canon, but maybe consider looking into this other option as well: the Pentax K-x which retails for about $620 with a kit lens, making it just a smidge higher in price than the XS. The thing I like about this camera vs. the Canon XS is that it’s low noise for a high ISO, 12MP, movie capabilities and an image stabilizer mechanism that is quite, quite popular.

Automatic modes are incredibly handy, and if you’re looking for a camera that will take great pics while it does the majority of the math on the settings, this might be a great option for you. Even if you have a separate movie recording device, I know from personal experience it can be really handy having it all in one so maybe consider the Pentax just to see? I just think it might give your pics that extra edge with the increased MP count, image stabilization (never hurts with little ones!) and so on.

That said, I truly believe you buy the best equipment you can afford and you make it work with attention to detail as the user. Trust me: a $10,000 camera is just as capable of taking a bad photo as a $100 one is. After all, my first DSLR is still capable of snapping a great pic if all the settings are in place properly! It’s about practice making perfect just as much as it is about the equipment.

Enjoy, and I hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

4 November 6 Permalink

Question A Day: Canon’s 55-250mm

Q: Hello, I was wondering if you could offer any insight into this lens: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens. I am looking for a ‘zoom’ lens for landscapes and events and my price point is pretty pathetic ($300-$400). I would like something of decent quality and no fuss but I realize my bank account may make me work a little harder. Thank you. ~Liz

A: While we’re talking about lenses this week, this is a good question too.

In a landscape lens, you’re looking for something that offers a true-to-eye perspective with sharpness in every corner. Because of this, an aperture wider (lower) than f/4 isn’t really necessary. This lens does a great job capturing mountains and mole hills, that’s for sure.

For events, however, you want something that can focus quickly and adjust well at any length it is zoomed, and I bring this up for a reason. I’ve had the recent opportunity to compare this lens to others in its range and it definitely lags ever so slightly when focusing on a moving subject. It’s not horrendous, it’s not catastrophic, and it’s a good lens with good mechanics at a good price point for its capability. But there is just that ever so slight delay which could mean the difference of nailing the shot of Grandma June on the dance floor and, well… not.

Your $300-$400 price range is hardly pathetic! But if you’re going to spend a penny over $5 for a lens, you should really know what you’re investing in. I’m a big believer you buy the best equipment you can afford and, as I said yesterday, the nice part about glass is they hold their value and are easily traded in/sold for upgrades.

That said, I definitely think you should go into your local camera store with 30 minutes to spare. Compare the 55-250mm ($230USD) with the 70-300mm ($530USD). The 70-300 has a much better reputation for autofocus accuracy and speed, as well as sharpness for the <$700 price point, although it is much heavier than the 55-250 admittedly. Also, there’s definitely a financial spread between the two, but I feel it’s worth you exploring hands on to see which is right lens for your needs and if the $300 difference unlocks a new level of image opportunities for you. 

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

6 October 3 Permalink

Question A Day: Sigma Lenses

Q: nosmokewithoutpryor asked:

Hi Tamara!

Question. Do you know anything about the Sigma HSM lenses? I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lens, and I also bought a “prime” lens (because I heard those are great at giving me that fuzzy, bokeh effect). I do like the prime, but it’s a manual focus lens, which I’m finding to be a big pain in the toosh.

I was reading about these HSM lenses by Sigma - there is one that’s an F/2.8 18-50mm for only $199, which seems really cheap for a lens! Do you know anything about them? Are they any good? For someone who is just an amateur photographer taking pictures of her baby for the most part, would that suffice just as well as the $400-500+ versions?

Thanks!

Henna

A: Hi Henna! Thanks for the question!

Let’s see… The prime you purchased, I’m guessing is the 50mm manual focus? I can understand the frustration of that, considering you’re dealing with a mobile subject and you want to snap fast.

I personally haven’t used any Sigma lenses but a friend of mine has and he says they can pack a beneficial punch to your bottom line, you just have to know what you’re getting into.

Essentially, third party lenses are going to generally be less money, but they’re going to lack a certain finesse that you would get with a lens from the same manufacturer as the body by default. That said, lenses are one area in photography where you really do get what you pay for, so buy the best lens you can afford. The nice part is that lenses don’t really lose their value if you treat them well, and so you can always sell or trade them in for an upgrade as your budget allows.

The reason prime lenses have such a great reputation for their depth of field and bokeh blur is that, by design, they can achieve a much wider aperture than their multi-length counterparts. The beauty of this 18-50mm is that you’ve got a nice wide aperture at any of those focal lengths, whereas other zoom lenses in that range tend to offer a spread (as in, you can get f/2.8 at 18mm but only say f/3.5 or smaller at 70mm, etc.)

The reason the HSM 18-50mm is less than other lenses is that it is specifically formatted for crop sensor cameras (such as yours) and won’t work well with full frame  professional cameras. Because of this, the lens can be designed slightly differently.

Because I’ve yet to play with this lens hands on, I can’t offer a guaranteed review. Based on specs alone, I think if you’re taking personal photos of your little jam face, this lens should most definitely work. The nice wide aperture allowance is going to allow you flexibility with lighting and depth of field, and there is some room for play on your focal length. Just be mindful that the 18mm is going to funkify faces just a bit, heading into the fish eye/slight distortion realm, so be sure to know what distance from your subject you’re most pleased with the results by.

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

5 October 3 Permalink

FAQ: Sometimes it just doesn’t work. And that’s okay!

I’ve received a few questions relating to whether or not you can fix a photo later with editing. The answer is abstractly and overall ‘yes’ but my recommendation is to try and avoid it.

It takes a lot of work to process a photo, let alone a “bad” one. Take for example these… I’m still not done, and don’t know if I will ever be. But like I said here, while these may not be smooth from a photographic perspective, they certainly satisfy my motherly requirements in a photo and that, my friends, is what truly matters and what we’re after here, right? 

Manual | f/4.5 @ 1/1000, ISO 100 | SOOC

Many factors working against us here:

The background: I had to place her here to get the rocks and the ocean in, as well as to avoid the swell of tourists milling around the lighthouse (not pictured). 

The weather: It was cold and windy, which meant we didn’t have much time to get a few of these snaps before she got fed up. It’s a fine line between “stage mum”-esque behaviour and doing what is best for the subject!

The sun: Sometimes you just can’t control when you arrive someplace. In our case here in Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia, it was a stop during a day trip and hard to schedule. We happened to get there during a high sun around lunch time. If I placed Isla with the sun behind me/facing her, it was so harsh she squinted. If I placed her in front of the sun, my exposure settings meant I lost much of the background detail I wanted. There was minimal open shade, and where there was, it was too dangerous to carry this quick session out. I cut my losses and opted for half/half, favouring the needs of the background. This meant, unfortunately, strong shadows cast on her face. 

Time: She wanted to crawl and explore. Fair enough! I had 30 seconds to experiment with my settings before getting this shot. With a little more time, I might have sorted a different equation. With a lot more equipment, I would have had a diffuser for the light/shadows, a light meter to guarantee the settings, a tripod to free up my hands, and maybe a really big sale at the souvenir shop to distract the visitors off the cliff temporarily ;) 

Settings same as above. 

This photo was quickly edited in Photoshop, but I plan to have at it again when I get home. I bumped up the exposure on her face and deepened the colours with the soft light overlay, but there is more I could do, such as fix the strong yellow hues.

The point remains again yes, a photo can be ‘fixed’ but it’s better if it’s just ‘enhanced.’ Well, it’s a lot less work, anyway! Editing is fun, and we’ve only just touched on a few quick tips, but mastering the full functions of your camera will take you leaps and bounds towards securing the best shots. Not every shot is going to be perfect, and that’s okay. But if it still makes you happy to look at, who cares if it needs fixed or not?!

xo, Tamara

27 September 8 Permalink

Tutorial & DIY: High Contrast Colour Pop (Photoshop)

Today’s tutorial is yet another one about photo editing. It seems that’s all I’ve been thinking about this month, so next week we’ll be back on cameras, swearsies!

In the meantime, this is for Photoshop users to apply with layers. Again, I’ll reiterate in Photoshop there are a million different ways to arrive at the same result. I received a few emails asking why I did *this* and not *that* - there are no right or wrong ways to do something so long as you get the effect you’re looking for. I’m just showing a few tricks from my Mary Poppins-esque bag that I use, and it wasn’t meant to cause doubt on what techniques others use.

This trick in particular has been my go-to for quick (and I mean quick) and easy colour pops since I first started working on layout and designs at a magazine ten years ago. I still turn to it because a) I’m a creature of habit and b) have I mentioned it’s easy? And quick?

Av (Aperture Priority Mode) | f/3.2 @ 1/200, ISO 400, 17-55mm lens @ 35mm

This is a portion of the original image as opened up in Photoshop. I’ve had a few questions about what version of PS I use; I’m on CS5 but previous versions will definitely do the same work we’re about to examine here. As for light, it was a bright sunny day and the windows and back door were all open and behind me.

So, you’re going to go to the window that shows your layers and right click on ‘Background’ to reveal this menu. Select ‘Duplicate Layer…’

Je suis lazy bones and I don’t rename the layer, and so mine is called ‘Background copy’. Anywhoodles, you’re then going to click on the dropdown menu that is just under that ‘LAYERS’ tab. At the get-go, it should say ‘Normal’ but you’re going to ultimately select ‘Soft Light.’

Then, flatten the layers together and it should look a little something like this. All of those layer merging methods are worth playing around with, as well. This one just happens to be my default.

And, of course, it’s a method not without it’s faults. The skin tones can get oversaturated and need adjusting, and the colours may need fiddled with. But it’s a great starting point and an instant eye catcher.

Have fun!

xo, Tamara

If you’d like to see more examples, there’s a whole post devoted to this series on my baby blog here.

14 September 7 Permalink

Question A Day: Early Evening Hours

This mama takes absolutely lovely photos on her blog As The Forest[e] Grows. But I did see this Q on her site yesterday, so here’s my take on things. But first, isn’t her little girl an absolute darling?! Let’s gush, shall we?!

Mrs. F wrote: “Photography question:  Anyone have any advice on taking photos outdoors in the evening?  Not when it’s completely dark outside, but getting there?  Do I have to use a flash?  What settings do you use?  Am I totally sounding like an idiot, etc?  :)  Thanks!”

A: My answer right now would have to be to keep the ISO higher than you would think for outdoors, as in 400 to 800, for those dusky hours. From there, it’s a fine balance in manual mode between having the aperture open enough to catch enough light but closed enough to get all the necessary detail of the scene (maybe an f/4 as a starting point and the shutter speed low enough that your little G isn’t caught all in a blur. Another thing I like to do in the late afternoon is bump the exposure bracket up a notch or two to help compensate.

I would stick to manual mode or program, as shutter and aperture priority are going to tell you it’s too dark and shift their numbers out of proportion of what you want. Better to stay in the driver’s seat on this one.

Hope that helps but, if you’re already snapping pics like the one below, you’re definitely on the best track!

xo, Tamara

Both photos from As The Forest[e] Grows

10 September 2 Permalink

Tutorial & DIY: High Contrast Black & White (Photoshop)

Howdy! Let’s keep playing with our pictures! One of my favourite ways to finish a photo is in a strong black and white with a lot of contrast, depth and a dash of sepia toning. And I get a lot of questions on how to do it, too. So, here we go!

This tutorial is for Photoshop users at this time.

Some colleagues and I were joking recently that, if there’s something you want to do in Photoshop, there are no fewer than 600 ways to get there. Yes, we’re a witty, fun and insatiable bunch! No ‘nerd alert’ required here, eh?!

But it’s true, and arriving at a nice black and white photo conversion is no exclusion. This is my preferred way for my personal photos; I find it fast, easy to remember and extremely visual and hands on, which is perfect for finessing the final details before saving.

We’re going to go from this (left) to this (right). Er.. I hope you don’t fall asleep like Isla did.

We’re going to work in Fill / Adjustment Layers, which is the ying/yang looking circle at the bottom of your layers window. It also looks like an Oreo dipped and milk and makes me hungry every time.

Click on that (yummy, delicious double stuffed-I-bet) Oreo and that menu will pop up. My easy faves to hang out in are in the second and third section down. Start by clicking ‘Black & White’ to get the above. I leave the settings as they are, but sometimes I play. Every photo is different. If you wanted to play, you would adjust those sliders under ‘ADJUSTMENTS’.

Next, click Brightness/Contrast.

It is here where I reveal myself to have OCD; I typically adjust to base increments of five, and I typically double my contrast as a rule of thumb to whatever my brightness was at. I’m also mentally capable of adjusting this practice should the photo need it. Swearsies.

The point is to adjust the sliders to increase or decrease the light and contrast as you see fit.

Next you’re going to want to play with curves. I typically make a little ‘S’ with my curve bar. Rather than start in the middle, I pick two points on either end and gently adjust them up or down. Here’s where the depth starts to fold into the batterrrrrr… (Clearly, I have baked goods on the brain. My apologies.)

You could stop here, and that would be just dandy. But if you’d like a little colour wash to your image, click Photo Filter and get playing with the various tones available. I’ve selected Sepia and changed it to a 30% opacity. Just enough to warm the walls and heart alike.

The finishing touch is to flatten your layers and touch up your lines. Before you flatten (see Layer>Flatten Image), you can always go back through to make further adjustments.

Ta-da!

Now, please excuse me while my heart explodes and/or I go find a snack…

xo, Tamara

31 August 16 Permalink

Question a Day | Lens hood? Or not?

Q: I just bought a Nikon D3000 and opted for a few extra accessories: mostly filters from Polaroid (UV, Polarizer, Fluorescent as well as a set of Macro Filters), a larger & higher speed memory card as well as a remote. I’m looking at buying a lens hood and am wondering what the best option is and what are the noticeable differences between Bayonet, Tulip, Hard & Soft, etc. OR are there other accesories I should consider BEFOREa lens hood? I’m either thinking about an off camera flash or saving up for another lens.

— Esther, estherandcasey.blogspot.com

A: Congrats on your purchases! You’re definitely off to a well thought out start in terms of accessories. 

My super-fast and totally personal opinion answer: don’t bother with a lens hood, or just get the cheapie rubber collapsable one, saving money towards future investments in yes, an off-camera flash and/or another lens (or two! or three!)

Long answer would be…

Lens hoods are used for both an obvious reason and a not so obvious one: a) to block stray light from entering the field of view and b) to protect the lens from (reasonable) bangs and bumps. 

The differences between the various lens hoods and their shapes are all about how they filter and block light. You can leave them on all of the time, not just for high sun situations, and only need to truly mind the results of them in low light scenarios or if you’re using a camera’s built-in flash. A visit to your local camera store should help you pick the exact one that fits your creative needs, and they should let you test each one out by the window or door to see its effect, and if you like it. 

Here is my messy closet, from a little series I took yesterday for this blog. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

This photo, aside from telling you all this week I am cleaning out my closet, shows a few things. Additional details include:

1. Rubber lens hood was folded back: I usually have it this way. Personally, I find I don’t use my lens hood as often as I thought I might, which is why I’m pleased I only spent $12 on the soft one rather than more for the hard one. Why do I keep it attached? It’s like a rubber guard for protection when I set the camera down. 
2. Focal length of 17mm (wide angle effect): Since the focal length of the lens was all the way back to 17mm, a dark vignette feature shows up in the corners. Those dark edges are from the lens hood, and only show up when the lens is completely zoomed out. They’re easy enough to crop or digitally remove, if I don’t like them, so I never worry too much. But it’s something to consider. 
3. Linear polarizer filter used on lens: The polarizing lens filter was a worthy investment as it naturally punches up colour saturation and contrast. Further, it protects the glass of your lens; ie. it’s easier to replace a $100 filter than it is a $1,200 lens. 

Here’s one of Isla leaning on a toy with the light coming through the window at about a 45 degree angle. Focal length is 35mm (to show there are no dark corners) and the lens hood was not popped open. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

Here’s another one of Isla crawling away from the toy, now parallel with the window. Focal length is 35mm again, but the lens hood was popped open. You can see it’s a touch darker but not enough to cry over. The white of her onesie looks better, and the colours are more even. It goes to show it’s a personal choice as to what your desired results are!

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

Further, you can always create a quickie DIY ‘lens hood’ from a sheet of paper taped around the lens if you’re in a pinch. There are lots of ways to control the light (diffusers, reflectors, etc.) so just experiment, double check on return policies if you don’t like the results from the product, and most importantly…

Have fun! 

23 July 3 Permalink

Question a Day | Raw to JPEG to Shooting Double

Q: I have been reading your blog some, and found the question about the RAW vs. JPEG images. Would you suggest double shooting? Ny Nikon has the option of RAW or JPEG or both. What would be the advantage of shooting both over one or the other? I have shot countless pictures in my life, but just recently decided to take it to the next level, and open a business. I still have SO much to learn about the technical aspect of photography. Thanks for your time, and willingness to share your talent!

A: Hi there! Thanks for the question!

The advantage of shooting both is just that: you’d have one of each so it’s almost almost like having the instant print (JPEG, doesn’t need converted) and then negative (RAW file) is stored away for safe keeping. It seems like an ideal situation at first.

The problem is your memory card in the camera; you’re going to need more storage because you’re taking double the images. Some photographers will shoot RAW and a small JPEG so they can quickly scoot those over to the client before they’ve been retouched and post-processed. This is common for commercial shoots. 

In my personal life and my business, I’m not necessarily showing those instant shots so it’s not worth it to me to sacrifice space while shooting: I would drop from being able to grab, say, 250 images down to 130, per card. 

If you’re shooting for around-the-house personal use, you’re good with a high quality JPEG, but could go RAW if you’re enthusiastic. For professional use, I would definitely recommend RAW, retouching in RAW and then converting out to a JPEG for final retouching before delivery to the client. And if you’re doing this, having shot both a RAW and JPEG file is redundant since you’d a) have to edit both exactly the same or b) since you have more control with the RAW file, you’re going to be converting it out to JPEG anyway so - double work? Why bother! 

But that’s just my opinion, and you have to set up the workflow as best for you. Try it out for a week and see if you like it. The worst case scenario? You have double the pics, and have lost nothing in the experiment :)

Have fun!

22 July Permalink

Question a Day | What about backdrops?

Q: Hi! I love your blog, and I can’t wait to see your updates! My question is: what color makes the best backdrop? Should it be textured? I would like to take a series of my son from ages one through five, and I’d like the photos to be consistent. 

Thanks in advance,

Shelley

A: Hi Shelley! Thanks and thanks! Those updates are well in the works; I think you’ll like them. 

This is a great question. Colours for backdrops can all work, in theory. Much like we look better in some colours, rather than others, the same could be said for backdrops so be mindful of skin tone, lighting and what just plain looks good. 

That said, here are some specifics:

• I personally find neutrals to be the most flexible for backdrops. Think: white, beige, black, brown, grey, etc.  
• That said, vibrant colours can really add punch to your photos, as can graphic prints. To avoid them overwhelming your subject (as well as shadows), be sure to place some distance between your subject and the background. 
• You can use anything as a background: take a picture down for a few minutes to have use of a blank wall, drape a blanket over the backs of two chairs and have your subject sit on the floor, have your subject lie on the floor while you shoot (safely!) from a chair overlooking him… 

The list can go on and on… You can use the brick of a wall, the tiles in the shower, the front door or even your favourite window in the house. To maintain consistency, just make sure you use something that is portable or can be recreated should you ever move. 

Have fun!

19 July Permalink

Question a Day | How to Shoot Fireworks!

Q: thethimehascome asked:

My husband and I are headed to the Montreal fireworks competition at the end of the month and I was hoping to take some decent pictures. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on settings etc? I have a Nikon D60 and am relatively new at playing with the settings.

P.S. Sorry this isn’t about taking pictures of children! :)

A: Ha! That’s perfectly dandy with me! I find them quite similar, oftentimes myself! 

My advice would be to first and foremost, use a tripod or some sort of makeshift tripod. You want the camera to be as steady as can be. Also, if you can, use a cable release or remote control and set yourself up in an area where you have a good view but won’t be knocked or trampled by other people, thus blurring your images. 

For your settings, ISO is fine at 100. 

Set your aperture at the beginning around f/6.3 to f/16 and see what you like. You can always adjust quickly from either side.

If you want your pictures to look like there were multiple, fantastical bursts all at once, switch over to B or Bulb mode (check your manual). What happens is that you press the shutter button down and the “film” will only draw on it where there is light, such as multiple fireworks bursts. You then release the button. Do this a few times with various lengths of time pressing the shutter button, and you’ll soon find what works and what doesn’t for you. Ah, the glory of digital. 

If that seems too risque for your first time out, you’ll want a slow shutter speed. Like 4 or 8. 

Also, turn off auto focus and switch to infinity mode (again with that manual for specific step-by-steps) for optimum results. 

Those will be stunning; Montreal puts on a great show, so have fun!

16 July 5 Permalink

Question a Day | Raw to JPEG to Photoshop

Q: Anonymous asked:

ok, i take my pictures in RAW, then upload them to iphoto in order to sort through and delete, and then when i open in photoshop they’re all jpeg…what am i doing wrong, how do i maintain RAW, can you walk me through your process?

A: I’m going to enter this is the caveat that I only really know what I do, and somewhat was others do. I realize that is limited and… er, unhelpful here, so if there is another way around this, please someone let us know so I can pass it along!

In my experience, you’ll need this plug-in which will allow you to open RAW files in Photoshop rather than elsewhere (iPhoto, etc.) and have them automatically converted into JPEGs. You would convert them yourself, eventually, to print them or post on the web. It’s my opinion, though, to do the majority of your handiwork to the JPEG files and leave RAW be so that you always have the original ‘negative’ preserved as a back-up. 

I went a’hunting for a workflow technique that may help you more specifically, but all I found was a tutorial using snake photos as examples and… I won’t lie. I hadz the skeevies willie nillie creepy crawlies, so I bailed. 

Personally, I upload into Lightroom for cataloguing and selection, and then export to Photoshop as JPEGs. But finding the right workflow for you depends on your style, time, equipment and desired technique. In a lot of ways, the plug-in intrigues me… I’m always up for a workflow shake up in the name of efficiency. If you try it, let us know how it goes!

15 July 1 Permalink

Weekly DIY | 7 Tips for Quick Pics with Elders

For those of us blessed to have a network of grandparents, great grandparents, aunts, uncles and close family friends, we can never forget how important it is to include them in photos with our children. True, we could snap pics of our little jam faces defining every facet of cuteness all day, every day, but these memories… they’re not going to make themselves! Legacy photos will forever be images that encourage us to stop for a moment and take us back: to the person, to the time and to the love.

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

Those photos of everyone gathered and smiling at the camera are fine n’ dandy. But why not take it a step further, and document all those little times in between when everyone gathered to enjoy together, and not just for that one obligatory group shot. 

*Notes on photos below: All are SOOC in a room featuring a full-wall of windows, taken at about 4:30pm, with no external flash. I have edited versions of these photos for my own personal use, which can be seen here on Isla’s baby blog. 

1. Let them be. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

When we first arrived, Isla’s Gran was on the phone securing some appointments. Even though Isla is very comfortable and loves being around her Gran, I plopped her on the floor with some toys anyway, letting her get used to the room and us all being there. This is especially key with children who “play strange” or adults who are easily flustered by the whirlwind activity of toddlers. If you want photos of them together, a casual, stress-free warm-up period can go a long way than an instant “shove in your face” smooch session. 

2. Catch the action. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

If you wait too long for that so-called perfect shot, babe(s) on Gran’s knee, everyone looking at the camera smiling, you could find yourself out of luck. While it’s not impossible, there are so many other opportunities you could have missed along the way. Keep shooting. Worst case scenario? You can delete bad ones later. 

3. Don’t say “CHEESE” *every* time

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

You know what your child looks like. You know what your grandmother looks like. So get pictures of what they look like when they’re together. And I don’t mean side by side, smiling for you. I mean interacting, engaging and enjoying each other’s company. 

4. Keep moving. Quietly. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

They may not be side by side, but they’re both in the frame, without question. By moving from one side of the room to another, a new perspective was found without distracting from their playing. 

5. Still think like a Mamarazzi

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

Mind your backgrounds and details. Here I saw her hospital bed and cords were hanging about. If you want the environment of the room to add context, that’s one thing, but don’t be afraid to zoom in tighter (see below) or crop in post-production. 

6. Keep everyone comfortable. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

Kids can be overwhelming energy zappers. One thing hard for elders to accommodate is the busy nature of children, especially if there are lots to go around. Our own matriarch on my husband’s side is the proud great grandmother of six, soon to be seven little ones under the age of six. But they’re an active bunch and, while she’s tough and ready for them every time, many in her position are not. 

If this had been a photo a few months ago after Gran had surgery on her wrist, we would have propped Isla up beside her, or had someone hold her close. Respect everyone’s limitations and you’ll go far in lengthening the shoot, rather than cutting it off abruptly and not getting those pictures you want for your frames.

7. Don’t fret the small stuff. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/5.6, ISO 400

This photo may be blurry, but it’s a keeper nonetheless. A bad photo taken yesterday is better than none taken at all. If you don’t snap what you’d like to this time around, what a great excuse to get together again soon. 

Have a question for me? Send it to Ask Mamarazzi here!

13 July 6 Permalink