jessica_thomason Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Thank you so much Peter! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>I like the baby photo, and it's proof you don't need to spend a ton of money to get great photos. For you, something like a D3s etc. plus pro lense would be a very poor fit. They just aren't good cameras for what you want to do. Try this experiment. Add up the weight of a D800, Nikon 24-70mm lens, Nikon SB-700 flash, plus maybe a couple of other small lenses like a 50mm. Get a big cloth bag and fill it with that much weight of sand. Carry that bag around with you for just half a day (not even all day) on your next family outing. Also, pretend that bag is worth $6,000 so you can worry about it getting stolen, broken. You will quickly see what we are talking about. The "best" camera and "best" lens depends entirely on what you are doing with them. You pick the gear to fit the task. Your task is to photo fast moving, unpredictible objects (kids) in a variety of field settings. This is something I have about 20 years of experience with (I'm a dad.) I took my family to Disneyworld/FL last summer, and also St. Augustine etc. I have thousands, thousands, thousands of dollars of pro Nikon equipment plus some pretty exotic large format (4x5) stuff. What did I take for this family trip? I took my old Nikon D80 with kit lenses 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR, x2 Nikon SB-800 flashes, plus a Canon G9 point & shoot camera. The little Canon was the only camera I took inside Disneyworld except for one night. For this kind of photography, a very compact camera with zoom lenses and a compact flash is exactly the right choice. Over the years I've learned a very important lesson: DON'T LET CAMERAS GET IN THE WAY OF FAMILY FUN. You don't want to be the mom that the only memories your kids have is of you with a huge camera stuck to your face. Either a Nikon D5100 or D7000 plus a pair of SB-700 flash and a compact Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens that has their version of VR will do every bit of what you want. These have the lightness you are looking for coupled with a bit more performance at higher ISO. With an f2.8 lens instead of your current f5.6 kit lenses, you won't have to shoot really high ISO very often anyway. I agree with the others that you would really benefit by buying and reading a solid text book on photography so you have the fundamentals down pat. An expensive camera is not a substitute for this. I also suggest you also buy a book on portraits and using flash. It is this knowledge that will give you the most satisfaction to get the kinds of photos you are wanting. We aren't being "mean" to you; we're honestly trying to help you achieve what you want. We've all started somewhere, just like you. If you start with more knowledge, not only will you be taking better images, you will also be saving yourself thousands and thousands of dollars that would be much better spent on something else.<br> Note:<br> You mentioned you hope to avoid using flash, but if you look in the bag of ANY full time pro photographer what you'll find is two, maybe even three very nice flash units. If they weren't highly useful, they wouldn't be in the bag. Yes, there is a learning curve to knowing how to use them. Yes, it is worth the effort.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Kent is fully right, good advice (even though it may stop the prospect of a new camera to play with!).</p> <p>A problem with many indoors natural light photos is not that its low light, but that the light is diffuse and low. The diffuseness causes there is little contrast and generally causes very noisy looking pictures. Adding a bit of flash can just add that bit of contrast you need to 'sharpen up' the photo. Not all flash needs to look washed out like the little pop-up flash, a SB700 can work miracles.<br> Note that in difficult natural light like this, a D4 or D3s aren't going to save you either. They'll do probably a bit better, but the essential problem isn't solved: the light just isn't very good.</p> <p>Your D90 can look better at ISO1100 as the example shows, but it's a really nice photo. Print it, and you will find the noise is actually not that big a problem at all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_thomason Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Thank you Kent :) I'm not taking anything personally so no worries! I definitely agree I could benefit from a few great books on the subject but sometimes I'm overwhelmed by where to start. Especially because with a young baby I feel like I need to get this right, right NOW because every time I turn around it's like she's bigger and just... changing so fast! I feel like by the time I finish learning everything I need to know she'll be in kindergarten! Hahaha :)<br> But seriously, I would love book recommendations. <br> I see your point on lugging heavy equipment around. I already carry my D90 less than I should because I use my phone so much and for the most part it gets the job done so to speak. I just know that I can never order a 20x30 gallery wrap of my cell phone pictures and I'd like to be able to capture images that are worthy of wall art in my home. <br> I'm probably obsessing a little more than I should. I get her pictures taken professionally on a regular basis. Twice in as many months so far. And when I get the images back I love the clarity and detail and the exposure is perfect etc. (Not just studio shots but outdoors with no flash) And I just want to be able to do something like that at home everyday if I want to. Because no one is going to be able to capture candid moments that are frame worthy like me - I'm with her 24/7! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_thomason Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>With all the SB700 recommendations I think that might be my first purchase! Maybe I can try to master the flash and see where I stand after that. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_thomas9 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>My suggestion would be is to stay with your current system (D90) and purchase a noise reduction software such as Noiseware, Neat Image, Noise Ninja, etc....Noise reduction softwares can yield one to two-stop improvement in effective image quality, while preserving important image detail. In addition, it can produce cleaner, smoother enlargements from low-ISO images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihai_ciuca Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Jessica, if you use Iphone so much to take pictures, just because of convenience, I seriously consider that you need to consider a different path, especially since the budget is not a problem for you.</p> <p>Sony NEX 7 + Zeiss 24/1.8 + Sony 50/1.8 + flash</p> <p>This is a very compact system, of high performance, state of the art quality and great video. You can carry it everywhere and inside the little box is a beast.</p> <p>Definitely I will go for D800 but for travel, family and street I am seriously considering a NEX-7 setup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>When I was a baby and a child, my mother documented my entire childhood with nothing more than a Nikon EM (Nikon's cheapest SLR), a 50/1.8 lens (Nikon's cheapest lens), an SB-E flash (Nikon's cheapest flash), and ISO 100 film (the cheapest film available). The photos came out beautifully. Don't be afraid of flash; it's not that big a deal and it's not going to make your baby go blind or anything like that. Don't worry too much about noise. For the noisiest shots, try converting them to black & white -- it'll look like B&W film and everyone will think you're an artist. ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Jessica, after reading your responses, I don't mean any offense here but you don't have a sufficient technical understanding to get the most out of your equipment. With what you have you can do a great job with that baby photo if you improve your understanding of exposure and shoot raw and learn to use Lightroom well. My advice is to spend no money at all on equipment now, except maybe for a flash - and even there, since you care about size, the SB-400 instead of one of the more expensive ones. Instead, spend your time and money on taking some classes. Btw, if you don't want to have to carry a flash around, imagine carrying a substantially larger camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_johnston Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>If you have Lightroom, if not, try the Demo of V4... At the bottom in the "Develop" menu is a noise correction. Instead of having to replace your lenses to use full frame, it would cost a lot less to use Nikon Correction for lenses in Lightroom and the Noise filter.<br /><br />You might find it satisfies your need to eliminate noise. Even with the D200, as a Professional, it satisfies my needs. Then, personally am using Lightroom, with my personal preset to import all RAW files, so only very minor corrections have to be made.<br /><br />One thing in my preset, is locking WB to as shot, and exposure to 0 change, so that the images look as close to what I saw when making the exposure. Auto settings in Lightroom really throw them way off what Id planned.... so I tailor the setting to my spec's.<br /><br />Personally began in Photography in 1985, when my aunt taught me to use her darkroom. One thing she taught me, "Never change your camera to get better images. Learn how to use what you have, to get the best possible. Only if you need a different film size, lens, etc., should you spend the money." Have never bought a camera the first year it was released or used software in the first year. Wait, find out what others find in testing, or extended use, to decide if it is what we NEED."<br /><br />Ive seen many photos by Boy Scouts with a Photography Merit Badge taken with camera's that cost less than $50 which won State and International competition. Its what we know about HOW to use the equipment we have, which creates the best images. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisae Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Jessica, if I may offer one more voice to the chorus? (Please forgive me if someone else has mentioned this. I only skimmed the responses.)</p> <p>My friends who do newborn/baby portraits get smooth, creamy skin primarily by using good lenses at a reasonable aperture (2.8 - 3.5), window-light + reflectors, and really great Photoshop/Lightroom work. Most of them do use cameras like the D700, but it's really the combination of correct exposure + processing that makes their pictures so exceptional. Also, have you looked at websites/blogs like Clickin Moms? You can also join the forum for a fee, but they offer lots of great information in their blog postings.</p> <p>You might also find a depth-of-field calculator app helpful. I have DOFMaster on my iphone. (I just need to remember to use it more often!)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_johnston Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>In that very large enlargement of your image, the Luminance noise setting in Lightroom would improve it a lot. Lightroom is so good now, Ive switched from using Photoshop 100% of the time to Using Lightroom 95% of the time. Mostly using PS for creating Panorama's or editing garbage our of images like electric lines or other things that cant be done with Lightroom. <br> To shoot that image, Id have set the camera on a tripod, and used a lower ISO to shoot it. With a sleeping child, there is no reason to use more than ISO 100... then the entire babies face could also be in focus.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_thomason Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>I do use Lightroom quite a bit and have started using the Luminance feature to improve photos. I'll attach one here. But I feel like in order to get the smooth skin tones I end up with a fake looking image. <br /> The photographer who did her newborn and two month photos didn't use a tripod and she had a long a$$ lens! Not sure how they turned out so sharp. The newborn session was in studio and she had an umbrella and huge flash but the two month session was outdoors under a tree in a local park. No tripod, no reflector, no flash! I couldn't believe how good the images looked. I would post one but I think it's against PN rules... if you go to Facebook.com/jessicathomason it's my cover photo and you can see it. I can tell she's doing quite a bit of work in Lightroom but it looks great. I guess maybe she gets her exposure more accurately in camera. <br /> I'm not against getting a flash but it sounds like I'm probably making a ton of mistakes and I guess I better fix those first.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisae Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>I'm guessing she used a 70-200/2.8 lens. I think macro lenses are also popular for baby photographers. And your attached photo looks much closer to the baby images I see from professionals - they do lots of skin smoothing and I often think they look too plastic. </p> <p>I've never photographed a newborn, so I don't feel qualified to give much more advice. But, I don't think your camera is really the problem. However, if you have the money to spend, great! If I were you, I would buy the D700 + a 70-200/2.8. It's going to be heavy and hard to carry around with a baby, but there's no reason to take it everywhere. And you can keep your D90 and a 50/1.8 when you need something light. And spend the rest on education. (Really, consider a forum membership to Clickin Moms. I would guess most of the members are there to shoot better pictures of their kids.)</p> <p>That's just one mom to another.... :)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessica_thomason Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Thanks Lisa and to the other poster who mentioned Clickin Moms! I will check it out! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p> Well it's nice to have a baby around to shoot. I have a Grand daughter that is about 2 weeks old already. I have no idea why you would have noise from a D90 but I would suggest staying in the ISO 800 or lower area when shooting. I have never been one to go shopping if something gets a little tricky as I just make things work. I broke out my 35mm camera this morning and snapped off a roll of our baby this morning with a little window light while she was sleeping. ( ASA400 shot at 320) using my tripod. Shutter speed was at 1/8th sec and f1.8. I am sure they will look fine but at f1.8 her ear will probably be a bit soft.</p> <p> I believe the D700 does not have video. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Jessica, you don't need any more equipment to shoot like that. More equipment won't help you shoot like that without learning how to use it better and those who reply to seeing an image like that by speculating about what equipment was used do you a disservice. It's just shooting raw, nailing the exposure and then being a bit clever in Lightroom. You can do it with equipment half as expensive as what you have now. If you happen to live near Boston I'd be happy to show you how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisae Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <blockquote> <p>those who reply to seeing an image like that by speculating about what equipment was used do you a disservice.</p> </blockquote> <p>Andy L, I'm assuming you were referring to my comment. I made that guess because my 2 friends who are newborn photographers use that lens most of the time. And Jessica described the lens as long. I didn't intend to do anyone a disservice and, Jessica, I sincerely apologize if I led you astray. There are lots of ways to approach this, and no single right way. There are "typical" ways, but you aren't confined to that. Best of luck. These are exciting days for you. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzzy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Jessica, I see that Lisa E. has made an excellent suggestion to you in talking about spending money on education (forget the D700 you do not need it). I really doubt that you need any of those camera's that you mentioned and you really do not need to learn anymore about lightroom.</p> <p>I would bet that the professional that shot the pictures that you referenced outdoors simply understands her equipment and more importantly photography. I would suggest to you that getting one of the cameras that you mention might well make matters worse rather than better. I would also bet that if you gave your equipment to the professional their images would have come out just as good with your equipment as they did with their equipment. People take pictures not cameras. You should be able to take those pictures that you want with the equipment that you have.</p> <p>Why was the iPhone able to capture an acceptable image for you when it does not have anywhere near the "photographic horsepower" that you D90 does? Based on some of your comments you seem to have a general understanding of what you are doing but you do not sound like you have all the pieces put together just yet. I would recommend taking a course in photography that will put together the pieces for you and max out your abilities on the D90 before moving on. One of the earlier posters also mentioned the book on exposure, another great idea.</p> <p>Your husband should get a video camera for himself as DSLR's are nowhere near as efficient or as effective in shooting home movies as a dedicated video cam is. Once again, professionals that know what they are doing can make some beautiful videos using DSLR's but they could do the same with one of those $100 video cams you can get at Walmart as well.</p> <p>I hope you do not take offense to my suggestions but far too often I have seen folks believe that getting one of those more expensive cameras will fix all their problems only to be severely disappointed.</p> <p>How big do you want to print your pictures anyway. You should be able to get clean prints from properly exposed shots from that D90 bigger than 8x10 even in low light with only a minimal amount of noise reduction (so as to avoid that plastic look).</p> <p>You will be better served by increasing your knowledge about exposure as well as lighting (flash) and learning how to take those images with the equipment that you have then by spending large sums of money on new equipment in an attempt to solve the problem. Once you have taken the time to learn how to do it with the D90 you will not even have to come here to ask the question that you did about which camera because you will know what you are lacking and exactly what you need. Good Luck</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Lisa, apologies if that comment was overly aggressive. It wasn't strictly about your comment. I do stand by the substance of it, though - the OP is talking about spending $8000 on the latest kit because she is not getting perfect results with a D90, but isn't pushing the D90 to anywhere near its full potential. I had a D90 for a long time and when used properly it can make a great 8x10 at ISO 3200, and there are many pros being paid well for shooting in more difficult conditions with a D300, which is identical in high ISO performance, so my recommendation is strongly for the OP to work on developing her technical technique. (How is she supposed to noise filter a JPG that's not properly exposed? Or imitate the style of a pro who's using a multi-light rig if she's not using any lighting? That's fundamentals, nothing to do with camera model.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsbhasin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Hi Jessica,<br /> How big do you print? Why I am asking is because most noise that you see on the screen doesn't reflect in prints until you are nose-viewing the print.<br /><br /> I use an ancient D70 with AF-D 50 and have printed 12X18 with no issues (yes waiting to get jumped at with the quality crowd)<br> <br /> Maybe you can afford it and I would assume D800 would be better than D90 in noise and definitely in AF and other areas but it is really a PRO camera. So if your hubby needs it for video and you can handle its weight (900 gm -2 lbs roughly body alone) and can afford it; no question it is a great camera.<br> I had a few threads started on upgrading the D70 and the max I can afford is D7000. As your daughter grows up, know that NEX (or mirror less types) AF won't be able to keep up. I have tried an NEX -5 (not 5n or 7) and the AF wasn't as good as the dinosaur D70. Personally I like an OVF too which most mirrorless cameras dont have<br> If I were in your shoes, I would stick with the D90 for a bit longer, master the technique and then upgrade to a D7000 or D800 (if you have $$). Note for the latter you are committing to exotic Nikon glass and $$$.</p> <p>Anyways here are a couple of examples with my D70 + 50</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsbhasin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>On the Swing</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsbhasin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>In the park</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsbhasin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Here is a low light (not dark but indoors with tube lighting)</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsbhasin Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 <p>Another low light</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now