lighting equipment for baby photo

Hello, I'm a beginner in photography. I have a canon rebel xt w/ 50mm f/1.8

lens. also I have 430ex speedlite. I want to purchase a light kit to take

those professional, bright and soft picture of my baby but I don't know which

light to buy. Do I need to purchase the umbrella too? Anyways what is the

cheapest option. Thank you so much in advance.

I told someone earlier to buy a JTL light kit for $140. It includes a pretty decent starter light, a light stand, and an umbrella. I checked on eBay right afterwards and they're are a bunch of places selling this kit for $130, just search for "J-160" and you'll see them. I have a pair of these that I use in my home studio, they don't take up a lot of room, they're light and easy to stow away when I need to, and they are easy to use. I love them.

Hi Alice,

I'm also an amateur and mother of a 6-month old. If you really want a "cheap" option. I would just go with natural lighting. Depending on the available space you have (distance of your camera to baby and distance of baby to backdrop), you can take very "professional" pictures without any other light source.

 

See attached or go to this link (below) and see recent pics that I took of my baby with just one window light at 9:30 in the morning. The window is in my bedroom (facing east) and my baby is sitting on my bed.

 

http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=f_es0ncd8p&attid=0.1&disp=inline&view=att&th=10da3712fcac847b

 

I'm not completely excited about the result, because I know that I could've adjusted the aperture a little differently to get even better contrast, but nevertheless, I feel it's still very good/professional-looking results.

 

Hope this helps. Best of luck with your options.<div></div>

p.s. i should also mentioned that another cheap way is to use a white sheet as a reflector, such as the white bedsheet my baby was sitting on. If you look at the last picture in the third row (far right), you might notice how the sunlight hit the bedsheet, which then bounced off light onto my baby's face.

Alice- Your decision on which light or lights to buy would depend on what you intend on doing the them in the future. If you do not intend on using them for continued photography, then why even buy professional lights. Why not just buy some "hot" lights. These are ones that don't flash but are continuously on. This is a nice way to start learning lighting. It can be a little warm for the subject, but babies like the warmth, especially if you are shooting them in various states of undress, like Samantha's images. By the way, really cute images Samantha.

 

You can go to Wal-Mart (not my favorite place) or Lowes & buy a large "work" light & a couple of clip-on work lights. Total cost is less than 100.00. I started this way. Remember to adjust your camera's white balance setting to incandescent light. Unless you want the really warm, yellow casting. Fun to experiment. The good thing about "hot" lights is "what you see is what you get" (wysiwyg).

 

Backgrounds are almost as important as the lighting. Emily Koch (a PN member worth checking out) has devised a lot of inexpensive changeable backgrounds. She uses flooring, baseboards etc. She has some really creative ideas :)

 

And as Samantha has stated, using natural lighting with babies & small children creates favorable results. But...... if the light is not sufficient for a shutter 1/125 setting & they move, you will consistently get unsharp images. You may think it's just your camera, but actually it is movement. Adding even incandescent (the work lights) to natural lighting helps to allow increasing your shutter speed to 1/125. 1/125 is without a doubt the slowest speed you can use with children, unless they are asleep :)

 

Have fun! If you plan on using these lights for years, I'd spend a little more now. Try AlienBees. A little more expensive, but high quality for the buck. Good luck.

Jayme,

thanks for your advice about incandescent lights in conjunction with natural light. I never thought to do anything like that. so now i will definitely try it out.

The soft quality of light comes from having a light source that's big, even, and close to the subject. A flash bounced into a large umbrella, a studio strobe in a softbox, a big blue sky shown through a nearby large north-facing window, or a hardware store lamp shot through a sheer curtain on a frame of PVC piping can all provide this kind of big, soft lighting. These different solutions have widely varying levels of convenience, portability, light quantity (important for getting an exposure time and aperture combo that will provide sharpness with a moving subject), color consistency, and price.

<p>

A small on-camera flash pointed straight at the subject will NOT provide this kind of soft lighting, no matter how expensive, sophisticated, or poweful the flash is. Sometimes an on-camera flash in skilled hands can produce beautiful soft results, but the key is to point the flash toward a big white object (wall or ceiling, usually), and let the subject be illuminated by the reflection of the flash on the big white thing, rather than by the direct undiffused flash itself.

<p>

So if you want nice soft results, think about how to get a big, diffuse light source. The most convenient solution is probably a studio monolight with a large softbox, and it has very good light output and color consistency, but that's far from the cheapest.

<p>

The cheapest solution would be something like window light, open shade, or garage with its door open facing a vast empty blue sky (though you'll have to do something about the background). These natural solutions don't have a lot of flexibility, and don't have a huge abundance of light, but can produce very nice results.

<p>

Intermediate solutions are things like small strobes in umbrellas, or hardware store halogen lamps with homemade diffusers. If you're toying between flash or continuous light, I'd strongly recommend flash for shots of moving things like people. It's a lot cheaper for a given amount of light.

<p>

Whatever you do, just don't mount a flash on your camera and point it straight at the subject!

A large window source and a reflector for fill is also an otpion. Personally I don't like flashing infants.

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2449551-md.jpg"></center>

<p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3611876-md.jpg"></center>

 

<center>simple window light</center>

Ian, you're correct. It's not really so much a "personal" preference, but actually not advisable, nor safe to use flash on infants.

<i>not advisable, nor safe to use flash on infants</i><br/>

 

Since when? On what authority do you offer this information?

 

Thanks.

Alice,

if you want a nice, SOFT look..you can also use a soft lens filter. There are many brands out there with just the right amount of "blur" (the lowest level) that will give you that soft, yet still very crisp/sharp look. Basically, lens that aren't too soft where pictures look very "foggy"/70s-80s style).

 

In addition, White Styrofoam boards found at Arts & Craft stores like Michaels can make great reflectors too or Black ones to produce shadows and contrast. Even use them as backdrops if they're big enough. They're great for the budget.

Hi Michael,

I'm a mom of a 6-month old. And I've read several books on babies, i.e. concerning Baby's First Year. During the early stages when children's eyes are still developing, their newly formed eyes are very sensitive to light. It is actually not safe to flash directly at a baby's eyes. I'm not trying to offend any photographer, just something it is written. But to each its own.

I am a dad to a 15 month old.. I think I have two pictures of her in my portfolio on pnet.. Anyway, why would you put a flash directly at the baby? You'd probably want to bounce the light off the cieling or a wall.

 

This picture. was take with a 420ex flash bounced off the wall. I want to buy lights too.. An I totally know what you mean.. I was actually looking at the Alien Bees beginner bee set. But I am going to have to wait for Christmas...<div></div>

<<And I've read several books on babies, i.e. concerning Baby's First Year. During the early stages when children's eyes are still developing, their newly formed eyes are very sensitive to light. It is actually not safe to flash directly at a baby's eyes. >>

 

Absolute nonsense. There are a lot of really really bad "Baby's First Year" books out there and it looks like you've read a good number of them.

 

No harm will be done to a normally developed infants eyes with flash photography.

Rob,

The fact of the matter is�who really knows? But like Ian said, bouncing light is probably a better idea. It really depends on how you use the flash. Again, to each its own.

Nevertheless, this is what photographers from a different forum have commented on this subject.

 

 

 

From fabricator4/Chris (3,800) This user is a Premium Member Send mail to this user on August 25, 2006 10:03:28 PM EDT

 

There's no documented evidence that flash will cause any physiological problems however...

 

The fovia in the babies eyes is still developing. The Fovia are the little folds in the retina where the sensors are. In physics it's been demonstrated that light has mass. I know that I can also permanently scar black plastic with my Metz 45 at point blank range.

 

Regardless of who tells me that camera flash is OK for newborns I would never use it.

 

Reply

 

From swanda/John (1,009) Send mail to this user on August 25, 2006 10:43:06 PM EDT

 

Does anyone think a bounced flash would hurt the baby? The light would be better anyway.

 

Reply

From nookster/Robert (211) Send mail to this user on September 14, 2006 6:30:58 AM EDT This item is new

 

For what it's worth the manual for my Canon S2 IS says not to bring the flash closer than one meter from an infant. It says that it CAN result in eye damage. Keep in mind that xenon strobe flashes produce a significant amount of UV light, and the lenses of young people are transparent to UV allowing it to be focused on the retina. Your eye lens becomes progressively less transparent to UV as you age.

<<Rob, The fact of the matter is?who really knows?>>

 

Doctors know. My opthamologist knows, my sons pediatrician knows, my family doctor knows. My parents family doctor knows, my parents opthamologist knows.

 

A flash is 1/1000th of a second and has less intensity than, for example, the sun. Yet people have no problem bringing their babies outside into (oh the horror!) the bright light of daytime for far longer than 1/1000th of a second.

Samantha, I was not attacking you above; hope you didn't take it that way. My thinking on this is not directed at you personally but at this mindset of timid, emotion-based hyper-avoidance of all risk, no matter how minute or even fictitious.

 

Rob has made the point better than I. Agreed, you should avoid direct on-camera flash in photographing anyone, including infants, because it's crappy light, not because it damages eyes. Strikes me as irrational to state "There's no documented evidence that flash will cause any physiological problems..." and follow that with "Regardless of who tells me that camera flash is OK for newborns I would never use it". You're certainly entitled to your preference, but it represents opinion rather than scientific fact.

 

As for UV light, think it through: daylight is a powerful UV source--much more so than electronic flash--which over time can lead to eye problems such as cataracts. This takes a very long time, with repeated prolonged exposure over years to do its damage. It takes all day at the beach in full sunlight to get that scratchy feeling that represents corneal "sunburn"; how many pops from an electronic flash are equivalent to that amount of UV exposure? A LOT!

 

I guess I'm making a plea for reason to prevail over emotionalism, in this as in so many other areas of modern life. There are enough real risks kids face without imagining dangers to avoid.

<p>On the subject of the danger of flash exposure to an infant subject, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FsfZ">here's a link</a> to a thread on the subject.

Hi Alice! I am compelled to tell you about my mistake in the hope of saving you the same trouble. If you're still reading...

 

I, too, am a beginner with a desire to take better "portrait-like" pictures of my babies. I started with natural light from a very large window in my all-white living room. But the room was still dim and my babies are very wiggly (= blurry pictures). I wanted studio-like umbrellas and flashes, so I purchased a cheap kit from ebay. The flashes are triggered by slaves (they fire when their sensors detect the flash from my camera) or by sync cords connected to my camera. The equipment works as it should, but I do not know how to set my camera for proper exposeure when I use these flashes. I don't know if my camera exposes based on the flashes it sees as it takes the picture or if it exposes based on the metering it does before it takes the picture. I don't think these flashes are connected to the camera's "computer brain" and I know my pictures are not pleasing.

 

Also, I now have questions about guide numbers, watts per second (ws), and flash output. I had never heard of any of this when I was shopping for flashes. My flashes do not have adjustable power outputs, so I sometimes try covering them with handkerchiefs or tissue paper, but I have yet to take a properly exposed picture -- yet alone one with the pleasing light I thought I was going to create.

 

My thoughts at this point are that if I am going to continue trying to use my not-so-sophisticated studio umbrella flashes, I may have to invest more $$ in a flash meter and more tissue paper. And I'm not sure I'll be able to make it work then, either. Maybe I should have searched for a more sophisticated kit instead of the cheapest, even though I'm very much a beginner.

 

I hope my story can help you make a decision about what equipment to purchase, if you are still undecided. And I'll glady take suggestions from other readers out there!

 

 

TO SAMANTHA:

Your pictures are wonderful! Can you tell me about the aperture and shutter speed and focal length and film speed you used? Also, are you able to achieve such crisp, contrasty pictures in natural window light with color film?

 

Thanks to all!

Hi, A single flash, with stand/brolly and a small radio trigger, will serve you very well. Get

something with a reasonable amount of power - 250 and upwards. There are plenty of

starter

kits around. Just buy one of the popular makes and get shooting.

A reflector, homemade or Lastolite type, will also be required. The 'softness' of the light

will depend on the size of the brolly. Professional lights are easy

to

use

with a huge system base, should you want to

expand later on. Don't worry about a flash meter just yet - use your screen.

 

Your 50mm is ok, but is the minimum you should go for a baby. Good luck.

Carmen, It sounds like your problem of not getting a 'pleasing' look is with the positioning of

the lights. I'd find out what's going wrong first before buying further lighting. Reading up on

the subject and plenty of experimenting is advisable. Good luck.