| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2007 10:05:41 AM · #1 |
| I wish to seriously take up photographing children, something like 1- 5yr old. I am only equipped with just a canon 18-55 kit lens and my passion. Can anyone guide me what all do i require to make decent professional pictures i.e lens. lights etc etc?? |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 10:14:45 AM · #2 |
Buy yourself a Canon 50mm 1.8 It's not a very expensive lens and very good in colour and sharpness. Then get outside, visit a playground. Don't forget to ask permission, some parents are very protective of their kids. Get down to their level and stay close but not so close that you intervene in their play.
Bottom line: photographing kids is not in equipment, it's in entering into their world instead of bringing them in yours. In their world, they are at ease, they have fun and that's what you want to record. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 10:18:13 AM · #3 |
Thanks mark but i am thinking more on the lines of studio shots i.e planned images with the permission and presence of a parent.
I am more curious about the light setup as i am not sure whether the strong lights would be suitable for this. Is contineous light a good idea or would flash be okay?
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 10:20:37. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 10:52:02 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by manniagni:
I wish to seriously take up photographing children, something like 1- 5yr old. I am only equipped with just a canon 18-55 kit lens and my passion. Can anyone guide me what all do i require to make decent professional pictures i.e lens. lights etc etc?? |
as the father and principal photographer of a 3 year old, i can tell you that you'll need a lot more patience than you think you have.
especially when you start getting more than one kid involved:
good luck, though, 'cause it sounds like fun...
as far as equipment, you'll want some fast glass, or lights to get fast shutter speeds. kids just don't sit still very long. after that, i'd suggest a few backgrounds and some props (chairs and such)
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 10:52:04 AM · #5 |
Ok, first of all, you can't say "I want to shoot kids of this age group or that age group" because a parent may have a child who is two and a child who is ten and want both photographed. If you shoot kids, you shoot all kids.
Next, you will need a fast lens. 50mm 1.8 is good, but 50mm 1.4 is better!! Obviously if you have more money, buy better lenses. I'm currently using the Canon 17-55 2.8 and its awesome!
You will need lights, a set of AlienBees is a good place to start. Look at AlienBees.com. You will also need backdrops, props, and maybe even costumes.
Seriously, you will need to do some research. Google other child photographers and see what they're using and how. Study sites that teach you to use studio lighting. And, practice practice practice - maybe practice on a dog or cat (they also move quickly) until you get pretty good at it.
Some reading that might help you -
Portrait Lighting Learning Thread
Good luck with your new venture. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 10:59:36 AM · #6 |
| Thanks Shane and Cindi for your inputs. If given a choice is it a better idea to shoot children (sorry for the gross phrasing) in thier own home environment, i mean dont they feel intimidated by studion setups? Or will giving a kiddie look ( colorful walls, softs toys etc) to the room help to make it a better place |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:09:16 AM · #7 |
Thanks for starting this thread. This is also what I would like to get into.
This is what I have so far that seems to be working. I background stand (70$ from RitzCamera) and some cheap (wide) $1 per yard fabric from Wal-mart. I buy about 4 yards and I am able to make a simple background. I also bought a cheap bag of clamps to stretch the background over the stand. I have also bought some cheap props (flowers, chairs etc..) to use.
I am planning on buying some lights this week. I am having trouble deciding which lights to get. I plan on going to people home to take the pictures. So the kids will be more comfortable. So I don't want to lug a bunch of stuff with me. I was looking at this light from Alien Bees.
Light
Do you think this would be enough light for a studio style shot?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:11:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by manniagni:
Thanks mark but i am thinking more on the lines of studio shots i.e planned images with the permission and presence of a parent.
I am more curious about the light setup as i am not sure whether the strong lights would be suitable for this. Is contineous light a good idea or would flash be okay? |
For my own kids I use studio flashes sometimes, it's no problem. Biggest problem in a studio setting is to keep em in the place you want em. Kids tend to get bored within minutes and then start exploring their surroundings.
Using standard stuido equipment is no problem, there is no difference with adults in this respect. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:22:03 AM · #9 |
But, once in a while, you get lucky and they sit still :)
Most of the time, they are moving SOMETHING LOLOL
I use 2 shoot through umbrellas :)
ETA: she is 15 months
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 11:22:35. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:24:29 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
I am planning on buying some lights this week. I am having trouble deciding which lights to get. I plan on going to people home to take the pictures. So the kids will be more comfortable. So I don't want to lug a bunch of stuff with me. I was looking at this light from Alien Bees.
Light
Do you think this would be enough light for a studio style shot? |
Ringlights are really specialty lights and not really something you'd want to rely on as your only light source. If you want to use AB's, that's great, but I suggest you start looking at the other kits, preferably those with 2 or more lights.
If you want portable/lightweight equipment, then you might consider using some combination of Canon 580EX and 430EX flash units with a ST-E2 controller. That may cost you more money, but will be easier to use and carry/setup. You can also use manual flash units like the Vivitar 285HV which are about $80/ea. You will still need a stand and a slave for each one. Any of the typical battery powered units will be a lot less powerful than a propoer strobe setup, but there's no reason they won't do the job.
If all you want is to use is one, on camera light, then I suggest you get a 580EX, a flash bracket and a diffuser of some kind, such as the Lightsphere. Then learn all you can about mixing ambient and strobe light.
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 11:25:20.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:24:35 AM · #11 |
Those shots are so cute. You do so good with children portraits. But it does help that your children are so cute.
What type of light set-up do you use?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:26:55 AM · #12 |
[/quote]
Ringlights are really specialty lights and not really something you'd want to rely on as your only light source. If you want to use AB's, that's great, but I suggest you start looking at the other kits, preferably those with 2 or more lights.
If you want portable/lightweight equipment, then you might consider using some combination of Canon 580EX and 430EX flash units with a ST-E2 controller. That may cost you more money, but will be easier to use and carry/setup. You can also use manual flash units like the Vivitar 285HV which are about $80/ea. You will still need a stand and a slave for each one. Any of the typical battery powered units will be a lot less powerful than a propoer strobe setup, but there's no reason they won't do the job.
If all you want is to use is one, on camera light, then I suggest you get a 580EX, a flash bracket and a diffuser of some kind, such as the Lightsphere. Then learn all you can about mixing ambient and strobe light. [/quote]
Thank you, this is what I needed to hear. Someone to tell me what to buy. (LOL) I would rather not spend the $400.00 for one light if I could get a set for about the same price. I just thought it would be easier to only have to setup one light. Less for the kids to mess with.
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 11:28:14.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:27:13 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
Those shots are so cute. You do so good with children portraits. But it does help that your children are so cute.
What type of light set-up do you use? |
who?? |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:29:04 AM · #14 |
You, sorry I need to remmember to quote.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:34:28 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by JenniferDavidGA:
You, sorry I need to remmember to quote. |
OH! LOL sorry, thanks for the compliment!
Since I travel and shoot on location a LOT, I have the Smith Victor setup... it was within my budget but the lights that it came with were a bit toooooo bright so I got some 200watt bulbs and those work MUCH better... it is easy to break down and set up ~ 15 min I also have the Savage background stand listed on the page... once again, easy to set up and very very lightweight.
This what you were lookin for?? :) |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 11:37:14 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 12:09:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want portable/lightweight equipment, then you might consider using some combination of Canon 580EX and 430EX flash units with a ST-E2 controller. That may cost you more money, but will be easier to use and carry/setup. You can also use manual flash units like the Vivitar 285HV which are about $80/ea. You will still need a stand and a slave for each one. Any of the typical battery powered units will be a lot less powerful than a propoer strobe setup, but there's no reason they won't do the job. |
just to add to spazmo's suggestion, the shot i posted above was done with the nikon equivalent flashes on stands with umbrellas. i've done several quick shoots that way (see the headwear outtakes in my portfolio) including a wedding. for an all day shoot, changing the batteries that often might be a bit much, but for something quick and lightweight, the results are pretty good...
s
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 12:49:55 PM · #18 |
Check out //www.michelecelentano.com/family/index_fam.html
Now then, would you like to know what she uses?
Mostly canon 5D and 70-200 2.8 IS, but she loves her 85 1.2. She also has a 1Ds MK2...and lots of other lenses, all L glass. She prefers natural light, even in the studio, and shoots JPG only, and just learned PS in the past year (I/m sure she has a flunkie for the PS work)
Can you get started with less? Sure.
Things to consider - what are you after? Indoor, outdoor, studio, your location or theirs, props or not, copying JCPenney et al or going more artistic (and high end)? Posed shots or kids acting like kids? Are you selling files, prints, albums?
Michelle shoots 100-400 images per session, like a wedding (she did weddings exclusively for 15 years) and projection sells, and it's not low priced - Mom likes too many images? Then she puts 20 in a wedding-type album and charges $1000+ for it.
If you don't know your focus, your specialty, your customers won't either. Trying to be everything to everyone won't be profitable.
Get a 70-200 2.8 lens. It's the #1 lens for individual portaiture, followed closely by the 85 1.8 or 1.2, or the 135 F2. Telephoto lenses make people look better, wide angle lenses distort them.
Getting in too close makes people feel uncomfortable, so a 50 is not long enough. Zooms are better with kids - they move a lot! It allows you to shoot the whole kid, zoom in on the face and get that shot, and then back to 3/4 about as fast you can push the shutter button. With a prime you'll be running around trying to to trip on toys or light cords or what have you, and it'll be distracting as all hell to the kid.
Canon makes the 70-200 2.8, as does Sigma. Look a bit and you can find a tamron 70-210 2.8 SP LD for under $500 - great lens, not sure why it's so cheap, but it's an affordable way to get started.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 01:11:29 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Get a 70-200 2.8 lens. It's the #1 lens for individual portaiture, followed closely by the 85 1.8 or 1.2, or the 135 F2. Telephoto lenses make people look better, wide angle lenses distort them.
Getting in too close makes people feel uncomfortable, so a 50 is not long enough. Zooms are better with kids - they move a lot! It allows you to shoot the whole kid, zoom in on the face and get that shot, and then back to 3/4 about as fast you can push the shutter button. With a prime you'll be running around trying to to trip on toys or light cords or what have you, and it'll be distracting as all hell to the kid.
Canon makes the 70-200 2.8, as does Sigma. Look a bit and you can find a tamron 70-210 2.8 SP LD for under $500 - great lens, not sure why it's so cheap, but it's an affordable way to get started. |
I disagree. I find the 70-200 focal range to be all but useless for anything but a full face shot at anything over 85mm. It's just too long, especially indoors unless your studio is the inside of a sports arena.
Just because some pro shoots with this or that lens/camera is no reason to buy that same combination. Find and use whatever works for you.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 02:03:06 PM · #20 |
| There's a lot of good info available on Fran Reisner's site. She does well out of this business, as her prices show. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 02:32:13 PM · #21 |
I don't own lights and usually only shoot on location outside so I can't help with the whole light set-up thing. But I can agree that fast lenses are a lifesaver when it comes to kids and animals. :) I use my 50 1.8 (although I'd really like the 1.4 version) all the time. I like my 70-200 as well but it can be little long in some instances. Still a great lense. My next step is to get a fast wider lens like Cindi mentioned above. The kit lens is okay but I always find myself wishing I had something faster.
I prefer the look of photos taken using natural light as opposed to studio set-ups but that's just me. Best thing to do is decide what you want to offer. I've noticed some people have linked to some nice studio, fine-art type portraiture so I thought I'd add a couple of photographers that I admire that use natural settings and mostly, if not always, natural light.
Just get low and have fun and have a whole ton of patience. :)
Audrey Woulard
Jinky Art
Another good resource of different types of childrens photography is The International Guild of Childrens Photographers.
Edit: and someday I'll learn how to spell. :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 14:34:19.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 04:31:21 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I disagree. I find the 70-200 focal range to be all but useless for anything but a full face shot at anything over 85mm. It's just too long, especially indoors unless your studio is the inside of a sports arena.
Just because some pro shoots with this or that lens/camera is no reason to buy that same combination. Find and use whatever works for you. |
There is something to be said for having your own style and finding what works for you, but there is no reason to re-invent the wheel or try and fight what works for the pros - it works for them cause it makes money, it makes money cause it makes nice images.
I don't shoot in my studio with the 70-200 for size of my studio reasons, but outdoors - 100% of the time for portraiture. I've attended lectures, seminars and lunches with many working pros, people making MILLIONS with portraiture annually - so, umm, sorry if I defer to their way of doing things.
I want a 5D just for this lens! It's nice a crop camera, but it's magical on a FF body.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 04:51:56 PM · #23 |
I'm going to put my 2 cents in here and say that a 70-200 (0r similar) zoom lens seems a little over-board to be using for *strictly* portraiture. I'd personally go the route of a fast prime if that is all you're doing. 85mm, 105mm, 135mm.. something along those lines. Keeps you back enough, but is usually light enough and simple enough, and of course, primes generally are a lot better optically than a zoom. A 70-200 (or similar) lens is definitely a great thing to have in an arsenal, but I think you just give up too much in terms of bulk/IQ at times.
Also, if you're doing more natural/candid type photography, a 70-200 will tire you out really fast. It's bulky, and difficult to manage when following/chasing children around. Been there. Some are better than others (Like the not-so-bulky-but-impossible-to-find-and-far-too-expensive Pentax 80-200), but in the end, it's nicer to have a smaller zoom for these situations, or a nice fast AF prime..
Or, ideally, two bodies with different lenses on each.
Concluding, I'll stick with what I've heard a couple of people say. Experiment.. try different lenses if you have the opportunity.. and find what works best for you. Try not to worry too much about what the "pros" are doing, tried and true or not... as there are hundreds of pros, and I can guarantee they don't all use the same methods either :)
The most important thing is to stay fresh.. have *FUN*.. stay relaxed.. and put out a product that makes you and your client(s), happy.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 03:46:06 PM EST.
