Christmas pic question

[Bosman]

I'm trying to achieve a pic of my girls about 3 feet in front of our lit Christmas tree. Wanted them to be in sharp focus the tree with lights softly out of focus. The shot would only be of the say the chest up. I put them 3 feet infront of the tree to get the proper DOF. Trying to use fill flash on them and then catch some of the light from the tree in the background, at least enough to get the effect that it is lit.

Hope this makes sense. Was thinking of using say f4 at about 1/30 shutter speed with flash. I don't have any pics to post, took a few snaps last night and nothing was coming out right. Can someone help me with my settings or what ever else I'm missing?

TIA

Joe

[In2Photos]

I would think that with only 3 feet seperating the kids from the tree it will be very difficult to add light to just the kids. Perhaps using a lot of negative FEC would help with the flash straight on. Maybe bounce the flash off of a wall behind you (if possible).

[Titus213]

Take this link - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html - plug in your lens combinations and see which one will give you the DOF you want. Wider focal lengths tend to keep more in focus but either your Tamron or your 50mm should accomplish what you desire. I'd point the flash straight up or even behind me if possible.

[Curtis N]

If you use flash, you'll either need to use a bracket or keep the camera horizontal to avoid a shadow on the tree. If you don't have a bracket and want a vertical shot, shoot it horizontal and crop.

You'll probably want to get things set before you bring the kids in, since they can run out of patience almost as quickly as adults. Maybe put some sort of target in front of the tree to focus on, then experiment with aperture to get the DOF you're looking for.

If you want the tree lights to look bright, I think you'll want to get a decent ambient exposure so the fill flash won't make the tree too bright (think tripod + crank up the ISO some). You might consider increasing the distance between kids & tree to maximize flash falloff.

The Tamron will probably produce a more pleasing bokeh with the lights than the 50mm F1.8, but you may want to experiment with lens choice, too.

Let us know how it works out!

[Bosman]

Thanks everyone!

[Bosman]

If you use flash, you'll either need to use a bracket or keep the camera horizontal to avoid a shadow on the tree. If you don't have a bracket and want a vertical shot, shoot it horizontal and crop.

You'll probably want to get things set before you bring the kids in, since they can run out of patience almost as quickly as adults. Maybe put some sort of target in front of the tree to focus on, then experiment with aperture to get the DOF you're looking for.

If you want the tree lights to look bright, I think you'll want to get a decent ambient exposure so the fill flash won't make the tree too bright (think tripod + crank up the ISO some). You might consider increasing the distance between kids & tree to maximize flash falloff.

The Tamron will probably produce a more pleasing bokeh with the lights than the 50mm F1.8, but you may want to experiment with lens choice, too.

Let us know how it works out!

I was planning on shooting horizonally and actually just trying to get the girls (2 of them) faces and maybe down to about their shoulders with the tree branches and lights behind them. So not the whole tree even, just enough to be a "background". Does that make sense? So the girls faces and "tree background" would fill the whole frame. Maybe the shot is tuffer to get than I think or have invisioned in my head. Enough light to capture their faces from the flash while not to much to overpower the small tree lights, while leaving the shutter open long enough to capture the tree lights without overexposing their faces. I know, I know a little knowledge is dangerous. :lol: But hanging out in this place has taught me so much and makes me want to attempt things that I "think" I understand.

[Bosman]

Actually some of these shots are kinda what I'm trying to acheive, but obviously the background has much more light available to capture than trying to get some Christmas lights on a tree.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=245335

[In2Photos]

I was planning on shooting horizonally and actually just trying to get the girls (2 of them) faces and maybe down to about their shoulders with the tree branches and lights behind them. So not the whole tree even, just enough to be a "background". Does that make sense? So the girls faces and "tree background" would fill the whole frame. Maybe the shot is tuffer to get than I think or have invisioned in my head. Enough light to capture their faces from the flash while not to much to overpower the small tree lights, while leaving the shutter open long enough to capture the tree lights without overexposing their faces. I know, I know a little knowledge is dangerous. :lol: But hanging out in this place has taught me so much and makes me want to attempt things that I "think" I understand.
It sounds like you know the look you are going for, now comes implementing the thoughts to create it.

Start without the kids like Curtis said. Setup the tripod and figure out what DOF you want and what exposure gets the tree how you want it. Use M mode. Then bring something in front of the tree as a test subject, set your flash to ETTL and take a test shot. Adjust FEC to get the "subjects" exposed how you want. Then bring in the kids take another test shot and adjust FEC until you get the desired effect.

[Curtis N]

In2Photos and Titus have suggested bouncing the flash, which is usually a great way to get soft, even lighting. And it might work fine.

But understanding the inverse square law might be helpful as you experiment here.
If you use direct, on-camera flash and you're 8 feet in front of your subjects and they're 3 feet in front of the tree, you'll get one stop less light on the tree than the subjects. If you're 6 feet in front of your subjects and they're 6 feet in front of the tree, the flash falloff will be two stops (the tree will get less flash). It's all about the ratio.

If you bounce the light off the wall behind you with enough power to illuminate the subjects, the ratio of distance from light source to subject vs. light source to tree will be nearly 1:1. You'll have little falloff and the tree will be nearly as bright as the subjects.

I'm not saying that bouncing the flash is a bad idea. It's a technique I almost always use when I can. But if you find that the tree is too bright in relation to your subjects, direct flash will help darken it.

[Bosman]

In2Photos and Titus have suggested bouncing the flash, which is usually a great way to get soft, even lighting. And it might work fine.

But understanding the inverse square law might be helpful as you experiment here.
If you use direct, on-camera flash and you're 8 feet in front of your subjects and they're 3 feet in front of the tree, you'll get one stop less light on the tree than the subjects. If you're 6 feet in front of your subjects and they're 6 feet in front of the tree, the flash falloff will be two stops (the tree will get less flash). It's all about the ratio.

If you bounce the light off the wall behind you with enough power to illuminate the subjects, the ratio of distance from light source to subject vs. light source to tree will be nearly 1:1. You'll have little falloff and the tree will be nearly as bright as the subjects.

I'm not saying that bouncing the flash is a bad idea. It's a technique I almost always use when I can. But if you find that the tree is too bright in relation to your subjects, direct flash will help darken it.

I was trying to use my 420ex striaght up with an index card attached, but that might "difuse" the light to much.

[In2Photos]

In2Photos and Titus have suggested bouncing the flash, which is usually a great way to get soft, even lighting. And it might work fine.



In the following example I meant to use direct flash. Sorry, I should have stated that. Either way try a couple different methods and see which works best though.

It sounds like you know the look you are going for, now comes implementing the thoughts to create it.

Start without the kids like Curtis said. Setup the tripod and figure out what DOF you want and what exposure gets the tree how you want it. Use M mode. Then bring something in front of the tree as a test subject, set your flash to ETTL and take a test shot. Adjust FEC to get the "subjects" exposed how you want. Then bring in the kids take another test shot and adjust FEC until you get the desired effect.

[Bosman]

I just found this thread which if you look at Jaertx's pic that is what I am trying to get Only with the girls in sharper focus

[Bosman]

Well how does it look?


ChristmasPic (http://idisk.mac.com/ibosco/Public/IMG_5043.JPG)


Now can someone tell me how to print this in 4X6? I seem to be losing the more than I want to on the sides when I print out a 4x6.

[mjadse]

What did you end up using for lighting and settings? This photo is beautiful- the faces are soft and clear.

[Bosman]

Camera Model Name Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Shooting Date/Time 12/02/06 06:45:23
Shooting Mode Manual
Photo Effect Off
Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/6
Av (Aperture Value) 4.0
Light Metering Center Weighted Avg.
ISO Speed 100
Lens 28.0 - 75.0mm
Focal Length 75.0mm
Image Size 3456x2304
Image Quality Fine
Flash On
Flash Type External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation 0
Red-eye On
Shutter curtain sync 1st-curtain
White Balance Flash
AF Mode Single AF
Parameters
Tone Curve Standard
Sharpness level 0
Color tone Normal
Color Space sRGB
Noise Reduction Off
File Size 2943KB
Custom Function
C.Fn:00-0
C.Fn:01-0
C.Fn:02-0
C.Fn:03-0
C.Fn:04-0
C.Fn:05-0
C.Fn:06-0
C.Fn:07-0
C.Fn:08-0
Drive Mode Single-frame shooting

[Curtis N]

Great job, Bosman!

It's the correct aspect radio for a 4x6, so I can't explain your cropping issue.

[Bosman]

Thanks Curtis!

[gkuenning]

Well how does it look?

In terms of your original lighting question, it looks great. You've definitely achieved what you set out to get. The shot is a winner.

In terms of the kids, they're also winners.

You might experiment with getting a bit more chest, and a little less tree above their heads. I'm not certain whether that would be an improvement--it might make it worse.

When you get a shot you like, be sure to PS out the odd highlights in the left girl's (I can't tell which is older!) lips. Her lipstick is a bit too glossy.

[In2Photos]

Great job, Bosman!


Agreed. Glad you were able to get something you were happy with.

[Titus213]

Looks like you've got a keeper image. Cute kids and good background. And it appears to be 4x6.