Baby Portraits...S100FS

Moges said:

Hi Paul, adorable subjects!

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Moges said:

Very soft though. Which leads me to think you were in Scene Position
2 ---> Portrait Enhancer mode.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Moges said:

As described by Fuji, in this mode "the FinePix's powerful automatic
retouching system gives skin tones a silky-smooth texture and removes
blemishes such as spots and wrinkles."

Click to expand...

Moges said:

Regarding your shots at 400 ISO, SP 1 or 2 puts you into AUTO ISO.
With this setting it is highly unlikely the S100fs would choose a
nice clean setting like 100 ISO for an indoor portrait.

Click to expand...

Moges said:

I checked your EXIF with Opanda which says you were in Portrait mode.
Tested one of my own pics set to PE and uploaded to Photobucket.
Opanda will not specifically read Portrait "Enhancer". Fuji's
FinePixViewer software does read PE mode in the File/Folder Info.

Click to expand...

Regards

Paul.

Moges said:

Hi Paul, after my earlier reply I now realize you posted being in
Portrait Enhancer mode.

Click to expand...

Moges said:

Baby's have such wonderfully smooth skin, I would reserve this
setting for more mature subjects

Click to expand...

Thank you, I will leave this setting alone until my next visit to my parents

Regards

Paul.

Waffelbcker said:

I agree completely with Malinda. Especially about the adorable subjects!

Click to expand...

Waffelbcker said:

I'd just like to add, that the "enhancer" mode you chose might well
be the reason for some loss of detail which Kim mentioned. I noticed
that it even smears away black hair next to skin tones at base ISO.

Click to expand...

Thanks Waffelbcker, next time my daughter is round I will try some pictures without using scene mode.

Regards

Paul.

Dorito said:

Nice photos Paul, my comments are...

Click to expand...

Dorito said:

• The skin seems overly smoothed. I know a baby's (young child's)

skin is supposed to be smooth, but that "plasitification" (again, is
that a even a word?) effect is setting in with these faces. Picture

1. 2 has the baby looking a bit like those "realistic dolls" you can

buy.

• The direct? flash on the scene is giving distracting large patches

of blown highlights on the white teddy bears - perhaps making them
all brown teddy bears will help with this (to reduce the
reflections), or not using a direct flash - try a flash diffuser if
you can.

• Was a setting changed in picture #3? in this one, something is

making the baby's hair become a unified colour patch - the texture is
being lost. Although this is not as evident in the other pictures.

Click to expand...

No the camera was on the same setting for all pictures.

Dorito said:

For me, picture #4 is the best, if only because the baby looks more
"real" than in the others.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments Dorito, I have taken it all on board.

Regards

Paul.

Just a comment on the kleenex Kim mentions. That works surprisingly well. I had to shoot an interior my son was remodelling and I used my 0.5x wide angle adaptor. The first shots had a harsh shadow of the add on lens showing and so I wondered if diffusing it would work. I had a kleenex in my pocket and held it folded in front of the flash and everything in the room lit up evenly, if a little dimmer than I would have liked. I was using my son's card from his p&s, and he will just bump the exp a tad in Picassa.

I had tried my Stoffen Omni bounce diffuser taped onto my flash at home ...and that didn't work nearly as well. The photos came out about 4 stops under exposed. That thing works great on my manual flashes though.

jj
--
My photo collection:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjlad/sets/