Baby non professional photography

[h_._jm]

<p>Dear Photographers; every once in a while I repeat similar questions.<br>

Just excuse my excitement and wanting to get everything just right!<br>

I will hopefully be a father in 3 months! I want to fine tune my arsenal to suite baby photography best.<br>

I have a feeling that mastering and investing in better lighting may help me better than lenses as mine are already good. But here we go.<br>

Here is my arsenal<br />6D<br />24-105L f4 IS<br />24-70 f2.8 mk1<br />17-40L f4<br />70-200 f4 is<br>

135L<br />50 1.8 II<br />100 Macro non L<br />430ex II<br /><br />I definitely want to downsize my lenses and see no great advantage in having both the 24-105 and the 24-70. I prefer the 24-105 since when we shoot family photos anywhere we stay still and IS helps much more in darker areas. Plus it's lighter and perfect for overseas; I can add an UWA for same weight!<br /><br />At the same time I sold my 35L 1.4; 2 years ago and I feel that would be the best indoor baby photography lens hands down. <br /><br />So my plan was initially to do this:<br />Sell the 24-70 AND the 50 1.8II and invest in top glass prime i.e. Sigma 35/50 ART 1.4 OR 35 1.4 L OR 50 1.2 L<br />And use that lens plus the 24-105L as my main baby photography lens<br />+/_ Buy another flash one that triggers my 430 exII +/- strobes/umbrella etc....<br /><br />But If you professional photographers don't see much advantage of the 24-105 + Top end prime VS my current 24-70L and the 50 1.8 II...then why waste my money and time changing?!<br /><br /><br>

I will look forward to your inputs; if anyone has suggestions for lighting setups; ideally small setup and practical for a non professional would be great.<br>

Merry Christmas and Happy new year!<br>

Peter</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There is a fair amount of functional overlap in your kit, but I wouldn't presume to dictate which ones to keep and which to sell.<br>

I have a 'normal' Nikon f/1.2 lens but I tend to shoot normal lens stuff with a Canon 50mm f/1.8. The f/1.2 is a specialist's tool -best for low available light and for 'bokeh'. You won't get much for the 50mm f/1.8 so I'd just keep it (as I have done).<br>

I consider the 24-105mm to be my main lens -- it may not be the best optically, but it is just so darned handy.<br>

Congratulations on the family addition.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>You don't need more glass. I do virtually all of my baby photography with two of the lenses you already have, the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4, and the flash you already have. The longer lens is helpful in that it allows you to keep the flash farther from the baby and to get close-ups when you can't get too close.</p>

<p>I'm assuming you want candids, which is pretty much all you can get anyway once the baby becomes mobile. Shooting wider than f/4 becomes very difficult under those circumstances because of the very narrow DOF. When I am compelled to shoot without a flash, I just boost the ISO and, if necessary, clean up a bit in post. Your camera does very well in low light, so you will be able to push ISO quite a bit.<br /> <br />The one thing I would buy is a good large bounce card and a diffuser. You won't want direct flash, both because it is ugly and because it will disturb the baby. I use the Demb Flip-it (the standard size) and the Demb diffuser for all of my baby shots with flash. the one flash with bounce and diffuser, with the flash mounted on the camera, provides adequate and very nice lighting.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You don't need to sell anything. You've got great equipment. If you want to sell something, I'd dump the 24-70mm.</p>

<p>On your full frame body, shooting in the 70-120mm range is flattering to subjects. Be sensitive to your wife and include her in shots, but be sure that she looks as good as the baby or better. I prefer my 70-200mm to my 24-105mm for portraits. Both are excellent.</p>

<p>If you don't already have a preference, try both natural light and flash (with a diffuser). A reflector is indeed very handy. Shoot in Raw so that you can adjust white balance and get the most out of all your shots. Shoot full resolution all the time. You can always resize downward.</p>

<p>Plan on making a vanity book after the first year. Start with the very pregnant Mama and end with the first B'day. I guarantee that it'll be a hit with the wife and grand parents. I use MyPublisher, but there are several fine alternatives. Do the large size, deluxe book.</p>

<p>Take lots and lots of pictures, but then cull and share only the very best. Be very critical of your own work. Go for great poses, but take plenty of candid shots. The 70-200mm is perfect for this. </p>

<p>Look at the work of others and try to copy that, BUT shoot what you lie, A LOT. Most people don't shoot enough, or, just as bad, they don't cull their work and show ten shots of almost the same thing. It's your job to pick the very best. If 3 are "stunning", well okay, keep all three, but only share the best. (As your wife's opinion when it's close). </p>

<p>Teach the wife to use your camera. She might really get into it. If she insists on her cell phone, then make sure she's got one with a good camera and run those through you software.</p>

<p>It's an exciting time, but you need to keep your energy up for a whole year to produce a stunning book, which you can do. Oh, when #2 comes along, keep up the work. They deserve just as much attention as baby-one. </p>

<p>May this be a blessing to you and your family. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>If you are wanting shots of baby then your best bet is the 24-70L. So I'd forget about disposing of it to get a 35 which would give you dubious benefits.</p>

<p>I would probably get rid of the 135L or 100mm macro (which one do you use more?), and the 24-105 mm, and keep the rest.</p>

<p>I would also forget a fancy lighting kit too, because, in my experience, this is something many people buy and then never or rarely use. You should have plenty of good natural, window light to illuminate baby, unless of course you are wanting the "I went to a studio" look; but how many times will you want that anyway?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Generally, I tend to agree with Robin, but I disagree about the 24-70mm vs. the 24-105mm on a full-frame body. 70mm is just at the beginning of the most used portrait focal lengths. Also, the 24-105mm has IS.</p>

<p>If I were "cleaning up this kit", I'd sell the 24-70mm, the 24-105mm and the 135mm and then buy an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II. (I'm assuming that you use the macro, even though the 70-200mm with a 25mm ET is about as good, or better). Truth be told, I'd also sell the macro also and replace it with an EF 25 ET to use on the 70-200mm. Unless you're a macro-freak, the ET gets you where you need to be and the 70-200mm zoom is much easier to work with. </p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are wanting shots of baby then your best bet is the 24-70L.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Different people do things differently, but I have to disagree. I just went through a stack of baby shots to check my memory, and most of the ones I shot with my shorter zoom were at 100 or 105 mm. I rarely went below 70mm except when I wanted a group, e.g., the baby with both mother and grandmother. I think you would end up regretting ditching the 24-105.</p>

<p>One weakness of the 24-105 is vignetting, but this is trivial in post, and I find that I often want a vignette with baby shots, and I more often add more vignette than remove what the lens produces.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Use Digital Lens Optimization in Raw conversion and the vignetting will magically disappear. </p>

<p>For portrait, I prefer my 70-200 to my 24-105mm, but I use them both and love them both. </p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>Use Digital Lens Optimization in Raw conversion and the vignetting will magically disappear.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And in Lightroom, it is a single click, turning on the lens profile. However, I rarely do it with baby shots and in fact often add more vignetting in post.</p>

[Trigger_Happy]

<p>Congratulations!<br>

The first 3-10 days the babies will usually sleep trough "anything" as long as they are warm and with a full belly. <br>

A good bean-bag and a soft blanket are good props as well. Bounce soft flash, open aperture and long lens. Try to get eyes, nose, mouth and hand in the same focus plane. </p>

 

[h_._jm]

<p>Thanks for your advise and wishes fellow photographers!<br>

I get the general gist is that definitely 1 standard zoom lens is what most think I would need instead of my current two; and most advise me or think the 24-105 will be more practical. <br>

As for lighting I do have one of those dome shaped massive diffusers which I use.<br>

What I also got from this and thanks to you guys; I will try to use the 70-200 I will probably get more use for it now; I hardly use it.<br>

Best Regards everyone and have a happy great new year.<br>

Peter</p>

[doug_armstrong]

<p>I have an entirely different take on what you are going to be doing. You're not going to be doing non-professional photography; you're going to be doing photography-as-a-parent. In my experience that means that the two most important attributes of a camera are 1) Small & light enough to always have it with you, and 2) Capable of taking pictures in the lowest light that is common. Neither high image quality nor super-low-light capability are even on my list.</p>

<p>At this point I am looking back. I'm about to become a grandfather. As the parent of a baby I found that, when I was not away at work, I was a parent 100% of the time and a photographer 5 to 10% of the time. (When you are a parent these calculations always add up to more than 100%.) That meant that the camera bag became a place to keep all my gear together when it was put away; when "in use" a camera needed to be on a camera strap and slung so that it was out of the way behind me. I don't think that we have more than 2 or 3 pictures that would benefit from being printed larger than 8x10 in. If I wanted to create a portrait of one of our babies, it would be a collage of snapshots with two larger images, one in the upper left of the newborn in his mother's arms and the other in the lower right of the 5-year-old doing something that was entirely his own idea. It's not any one of the hundreds of individual new things that a baby does which I most remember. Instead it's the large number of big changes that are most memorable. </p>

<p>All this is a way of saying that the most important thing is to be able to take 30 seconds to take a picture before going back to being a parent. Since it was film, I needed ISO 400 film and a fast 50mm or 35mm lens. Today I would use a DX or micro 4/3 camera set to ISO 3200 and a small, light lens. That would be light enough to have with me and fast enough to get good results in living room or kitchen lighting. It would probably be a "kit zoom" with a "35mm-equivalent" range of about 28 to 85mm (or even 70mm). When I needed longer, I would just plan on cropping. Again, no plans to be able to print 16x20. </p>

<p>There would be times when I would want more: those newborn pictures, for example. Those would be planned and only semi-candid. I would bring a longer lens, a couple of off-camera flashes, and perhaps a tripod. These days it would probably be a tele-zoom, but with planning that would not be a requirement. </p>

<p>Spend plenty of time just being a parent. It can be fun at the most unexpected moments.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Doug says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Neither high image quality nor super-low-light capability are even on my list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That is certainly an appropriate view for a "photographer as parent". However, some of us strive for more. We want things like photo-albums that our spouses, parents and friends look at over and over. We want our ISO 3200 and 6400 shots to look stunning when shown full-page in a 11x14" book and fantastic if hung on the wall as a 24x30" print, etc.<br>

<br>

We can be photographers and parents at the same time. There is, indeed, a learning curve. I see it all the time when I go to public beaches and see noob parents with camera, flimsy tripod and pose after pose in the waves. My off-hand shot taken with a tele-zoom, or even my 500mm probably blows away anything that they get, BUT they're learning. Desire and perseverance may get them to my level, but they'll never get there if they don't start.<br>

<br>

We'll never know how serious we'll be as photographers until we start. All of us will start off with a big burst of energy and most will fade away and the batteries in their cameras will go flat and the card will be full before they pull the camera out again. OTOH, some of us will get really sucked in and want to achieve professional-level results that we're proud of, along with our significant others. Our OP, based on his existing kit, seems to be a candidate for the later group.<br>

<br>

It's funny, you go from feeling and looking geeky, lugging around two cameras and a bag or vest full of lenses, but before you know it, people are taking you seriously. You can't be taken seriously without going through a geeky, awkward stag where you're trying to find your personal voice as a parent photographer. Just start. Have a goal in mind for each shooting day and for the first year of each of your children. Once you do that, keep setting new goals and keep growing. If you drop out, then you drop out. Not everyone is meant to be a photographer-parent, but, if you are, then you have to start in order to find out.<br>

</p>

[doug_armstrong]

<p>David, You are completely right that some people's goals might require more time and equipment dedicated to baby photography that what worked for me. I still want to caution against getting carried away. Let me make my implicit caution explicit.</p>

<p>Just as a lawyer who has legal issues of their own should always hire another lawyer to represent them, I would advise a photographer to hire another photographer if their goal is the best possible photographic record. In this case the risk is not sub-par photography but sub-par parenting. I know from experience that one can get so wrapped up in the photography that one damages ones relationship with a child or spouse. There are two ways of dealing with this that come to mind. I'm sure there are more. I used an intentional restriction of my own goals. It would have worked just as well to have had a discussion with my spouse so that we both knew when I could be a photographer first and when I needed to be a parent first. </p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Interesting point, Doug. When you and I were babies, the norm was to have a professional take a "setting" at one-year. Very few newborn shots were taken, other than an obligatory shot by a hospital staff photographer. Now, someone does footprints of the newborn in the hospital and there may or may not be a picture attached.</p>

<p>These shots are now less obligatory than they were in the old days, but many parents still have them done. I have two Gen-X daughter, one millennial daughter and two millennial granddaughters. We have squinty pix of all as newborns, taken by some mysterious entity at all of the hospitals, but none of the formal one-year portraits that my parents had taken of me and my brother. My mom was on some studio's mailing list and she had formal pictures taken pretty regularly until we entered grade school, then there were annual, school-sponsored pix after that.</p>

<p>Do millennials and Gen-Xers hire professional photographers to document their newborns these days? I don't know the answer. That didn't happen with my granddaughters after they left the hospital. I don't miss those shots. My mother probably had them taken for herself and then to share with my grandparents and friends. Now, Sharing now has a different meaning. Anyway, if a person wants those posed, formal pix, I agree that paying for some is a good idea. Trying to replicate or better is an option, but you've got the formals, if you really want them.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Keep the macro lens. Baby photography is often close up.</p>

[h_._jm]

<p>Ed thanks for that. YES! since this post I took the 70-200F4IS; 135L and 100 macro and done a mixup shooting of family portraits and closeup (1 person) portraits as well as general nature photography (animals, plants...) on a family day out as these are my favorite subject matters.<br>

Short story I found I definitely have a huge use for the macro in portraits and closeup and I will be keeping it. TBH the 135L is pretty redundant for me with the 100 Macro; so it's on sale now!<br>

Thanks for your and everyone's advise and input.<br>

Peter</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You still might try a 25mm Extension Tube with you 70-200mm to see if you really need a separate macro lens.</p>