Beginner Would You Keep This Shot?

Sony Corleone

Sony Corleone

Messages
213
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been fiddling with camera settings in efforts to speed shooting up while getting better exposures. Last night, I cranked off a few shots without bothering to get out of bed, to see how it was working. Luckily, I had a model who never gets tired and never charges.

One thing I did was to turn AWB on and set a pretty high ceiling. I had read a lot of things about the amazing power of Photolab 9 noise compensation allowing for high-ISO shots, and I wanted to see if it worked. Looks like it does. This is an ISO 2000 shot in a dim bedroom, and the difference between raw and JPG is so great, when I went back to check, I pulled the JPG up accidentally and thought, "This raw file never needed noise reduction in the first place."

I thought this was a wasted shot because the baby was thrashing around and refusing to cooperate, he was in an odd location, and the left hand was nowhere near the plane of focus, but now I like it because it says a lot. It shows how babies behave. It shows the little bumper I had to install on the night table corner to keep him from injuring himself. I didn't even crop it, because I thought the composition didn't need any help.

I bumped up the exposure by 0.3 because I had read that was good for people with darker skin tones. He isn't that dark, but his mom is.

I'm going to keep it, but I wonder what people who are less biased will say.

A6700390 DxO by Cosmo Bogus, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
As Neville said; it's a personal picture and that has an entirely different set of criteria. The only thing that matters is that it says something meaningful to you.

As an image to present/deliver; no, I wouldn't. Primarily due to the deep shadow on his face and the rolling shutter banding.
 
As a memory, sure if I felt strongly about it. As a picture for a client, no.
 
Thanks for pointing out the shutter problem. I didn't even notice it, and although I had heard of rolling shutter effects, I didn't know what they were.

The web says I should not use silent shutter mode, because it causes this sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Viewed on a phone screen, the biggest flaw I see is banding from a pulsing light source.
 
Glad I learned this while I was just goofing around to test the camera.
 
Sony Corleone said:
The web says I should not use silent shutter mode, because it causes this sometimes.
Click to expand...
Well, the source of the issue is the type of lighting... LED I'm guessing. That's because the light flickers, it's just faster than you can usually see. But rolling shutter can often see/record it...
 
Last edited:
I am trying to fix this with Affinity, but while I can smooth out the lines, Affinity refuses to save them. They look fine for a few seconds and then revert. Topaz Photo AI can't fix it.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I am trying to fix this with Affinity, but while I can smooth out the lines, Affinity refuses to save them. They look fine for a few seconds and then revert. Topaz Photo AI can't fix it.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge at the moment there's no 'obvious' automated post fix, though careful brush work might moderate the effect.
 
It's not that big a deal. I have zillions of better shots. The big benefit of trying to fix this is that it helps me learn how to use the programs.
 
It’s a shot I might keep for the memories, but I’d more than likely bin it unless it was a remarkable milestone moment.

There is potential to a shot like this - your baby is reaching towards the lens with a shallow dof to create depth - but the lighting has to be right, background clean and the frame free from clutter for it to come together.

The bird box toy (or whatever it is) isn’t really recognisable, doesn’t add anything to the picture and puts the face into shadow, for no really good reason.

What are we trying to say with this image? Baby has new toy? Baby exploring world around him? It’s just not clear, tension and intrigue can be good, but the tension is unsatisfying - even if I resolve it, what’s the message? Get what I mean?
 
The first and most important rule in photography is there are now rules.

It's an interesting photo, I'd lighten slightly particularly the shadows, crop out a bit of the left & right, drop the colour saturation slightly. A keeper and maybe an idea to explore.

Ian
 
See, I don't care about the clutter or the shadow on the face, because this is a candid shot, and it's supposed to capture a real moment. In real life, the world isn't a tidy studio full of carefully set-out props, and you have to take the lighting life offers you. That object behind him is his favorite toy, so if his mother sees this shot 20 years from now, she'll remember that toy, and that will add to her enjoyment of the photo. I guess it looks bad to strangers, however.

I like the blurry hand because it emphasizes how hard it is to take pictures of babies, and it shows how little they care about a photographer's problems. He was trying to grab the camera, and I was dodging and darting. The fact that he's beside the bed reflects the fact that he has a wonderful habit of attacking his parents in bed.

He got a rash from eating oranges, and that will also bring back memories.

It's a messy photo of a messy moment. I can see why no paying customer would accept it.

The only things that really bother me are the bands.

A lot of his photos are so tidy, they almost look like AI. I like those, too.
 
You need to get your kid a toy Camera, he is trying to grab yours and imitate you. To him being human means having a camera. Keep up the good work.
 
Sony Corleone said:
See, I don't care about the clutter or the shadow on the face, because this is a candid shot, and it's supposed to capture a real moment. In real life, the world isn't a tidy studio full of carefully set-out props, and you have to take the lighting life offers you. That object behind him is his favorite toy, so if his mother sees this shot 20 years from now, she'll remember that toy, and that will add to her enjoyment of the photo. I guess it looks bad to strangers, however.

I like the blurry hand because it emphasizes how hard it is to take pictures of babies, and it shows how little they care about a photographer's problems. He was trying to grab the camera, and I was dodging and darting. The fact that he's beside the bed reflects the fact that he has a wonderful habit of attacking his parents in bed.

He got a rash from eating oranges, and that will also bring back memories.

It's a messy photo of a messy moment. I can see why no paying customer would accept it.

The only things that really bother me are the bands.

A lot of his photos are so tidy, they almost look like AI. I like those, too.
Click to expand...


In other words it is a family snapshot, so the answer to your question is yes, keep it
 
Sony Corleone said:
See, I don't care about the clutter or the shadow on the face, because this is a candid shot, and it's supposed to capture a real moment. In real life, the world isn't a tidy studio full of carefully set-out props, and you have to take the lighting life offers you. That object behind him is his favorite toy, so if his mother sees this shot 20 years from now, she'll remember that toy, and that will add to her enjoyment of the photo. I guess it looks bad to strangers, however.

I like the blurry hand because it emphasizes how hard it is to take pictures of babies, and it shows how little they care about a photographer's problems. He was trying to grab the camera, and I was dodging and darting. The fact that he's beside the bed reflects the fact that he has a wonderful habit of attacking his parents in bed.

He got a rash from eating oranges, and that will also bring back memories.

It's a messy photo of a messy moment. I can see why no paying customer would accept it.

The only things that really bother me are the bands.

A lot of his photos are so tidy, they almost look like AI. I like those, too.
Click to expand...

There is a clash of two different worlds at play, I think - a snapshot or a memory where nothing matters, it’s an image of your world, just for you, and then going to the trouble of reducing noise and banding to make something more idealised, more perfect, but then neglecting the big black toy, and uneven shadow it casts.

If you really wanted to showcase the real worldness that you said, you’d have at the very least stood up and got a wider image to take in the context, to see the favourite toy, not try blur it out.

As I say, for a memory or milestone, it’s great, but the toy in front of the face, the blur, the banding, the noise, it all comes together to show lack of intent wrapped up in an explanation that doesn’t quite hold together.
 
Last edited:
It’s not technically perfect, but that’s kind of the point. It feels real. The expression, the closeness, and even the hand coming into frame all add to the sense of a genuine moment rather than something staged.
 
If I was in your shoes, I'd archive it, e.g. put it into a folder on the computer. You never know, you might come back to it and it's perfect for printing and sticking into the family album

Maybe you get another photo just like it in the next few weeks that's better, in which case in might keep that instead - or the two photos displayed next to eachother might take on a new meaning :)
 
I only chuck out the totally rubbish shots, anything is kept. Who know what tech will be around next week to fix it. I'm sure the parents will love it. Happy chap.
 
To answer your question

I don't know the child so I would not keep it

If I knew the child then yes I would keep it

Forget the technical aspects / flaws and think about the emotional impact it has for those who do know the child
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
cuthbert said:
There is a clash of two different worlds at play, I think - a snapshot or a memory where nothing matters, it’s an image of your world, just for you, and then going to the trouble of reducing noise and banding to make something more idealised, more perfect, but then neglecting the big black toy, and uneven shadow it casts.

If you really wanted to showcase the real worldness that you said, you’d have at the very least stood up and got a wider image to take in the context, to see the favourite toy, not try blur it out.
Click to expand...
You have to realize that was not even close to possible. When you take candid shots, your opportunities come when you don't expect them, and they often last less than half a second.

If I had stood up, I couldn't have captured anything like this moment. The fact that I was lying in bed, taken by surprise, is part of the shot's essence.

When circumstances permit, I try to get the technicalities in order before shooting.
 
Sony Corleone said:
You have to realize that was not even close to possible. When you take candid shots, your opportunities come when you don't expect them, and they often last less than half a second.

If I had stood up, I couldn't have captured anything like this moment. The fact that I was lying in bed, taken by surprise, is part of the shot's essence.

When circumstances permit, I try to get the technicalities in order before shooting.
Click to expand...

So essentially it's a family snap, which is fine, but not a photo to analyse in depth.
 
Sony Corleone said:
You have to realize that was not even close to possible. When you take candid shots, your opportunities come when you don't expect them, and they often last less than half a second.

If I had stood up, I couldn't have captured anything like this moment. The fact that I was lying in bed, taken by surprise, is part of the shot's essence.

When circumstances permit, I try to get the technicalities in order before shooting.
Click to expand...

I would accept that, if this photograph was like that one where the bullet was captured moving past Donald Trumps' ear, but this is a slow moving baby with a bird box in front of it's face, in bad light, with the wrong settings, on a bed doing nothing in particular.

One of the bits of advice I had on this forum which was a bitter pill to swallow - many years ago now was along the lines of my photo looked like a snapshot with a pro lens.

It was great advice, and it needed to be said. I want you to be a better photographer - there are too many mediocre and bad photos out there, but I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and reaffirm your belief that this is an amazing piece of work - or even a good piece of work - you trying to justify a bad photo of a baby on a bed doing nothing, like it's somehow a once in a lifetime moment in time that can't be reproduced, when it is anything but,. It is just deluded and it's holding you back from creating great work.
 
Last edited:
Babies are not slow-moving!
 
Sony Corleone said:
It's not that big a deal. I have zillions of better shots. The big benefit of trying to fix this is that it helps me learn how to use the programs.
Click to expand...
There isn’t a post capture automated fix. But there’s a camera setting fix.

You’ll have to check your manual for it, you need to look for anti- flicker shooting, also helps if you use mechanical shutter and sync your shutter speed to the frequency of the lights.

Also laughing at the idea that 2000 ISO is ‘high’.
 
Maybe I've been overly influenced by pixel-peepers.
 
Never a good thing! (And that's both being influenced by and being a pixel peeper!!!)
 
I think it's an awesome shot! Photos of me are all in black and white, and soft. It's a memory for the parents. Doesn't matter if it is technically perfect or not, I still think it's great, a snapshot in time. If he was my son, I'd keep it.
 
I am continuing to study software, so maybe I can fix the stripes eventually, well enough for an album.
 
Sony Corleone said:
I am continuing to study software, so maybe I can fix the stripes eventually, well enough for an album.
Click to expand...
I’d print it as it is,

As a family photo it’s great, if it was one of my kids or grandkids I’d love it.

You could spend a day cleaning it in software, clear the banding, tidy the background, but you’re not turning it into a masterpiece, it’s still only an OK ‘photograph’

But again, it’s a great picture of the child.

My Mrs used to cull my wedding photos. Mostly because I’d get attached to images that I’d worked hard to get, or where I was attracted to a concept, but I’d not quite pulled it off. But she would see the image just as it was.
 
Sony Corleone said:
Now there is something I can relate to.
Click to expand...
You’re kinda doing the right thing by asking for advice and critique here.

The two problems with that approach are:

This is a very technical forum and you’ll get more technical advice about how to fix problems whether the shot is worth it or not.

We’re naturally quite polite, and despite you asking for blunt comments, the advice will be more vague. ‘Why not shoot it like this instead’ rather than ‘that’s never gonna be a successful shot because’.

See my comment on your tree shot ;)
 
Phil V said:
We’re naturally quite polite, and despite you asking for blunt comments, the advice will be more vague. ‘Why not shoot it like this instead’ rather than ‘that’s never gonna be a successful shot because’.
Click to expand...

I am not a self-hating American, but I have no problems with people being polite after my many bad experiences with forums that mainly serve my compatriots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top