Blur

[metoo]

I took some pics of my kids for new years yesterday. I got some cute ones I'm happy with (although I think they may be more of candids then portraits lol) anyway I got a lot like this one. I was wondering if you could help me figure out what the blur is. Camera shake? Motion? The 2.8 aperture? I had the focus set in the upper middle dot.
Also the only thing I had for a backdrop big enough for all three was some black suede cloth. I noticed they kinda blended with it. Is this how a black back drop is suppose to be? Looking at the pictures I think I should have had some type of light on above them?? My son in particular has darker hair and his hair really just blended in with the backround.

This is SOOC. I don't need anyone to try to edit it and fix it. I'm showing it SOOC so you can easily see the blur/blending I'm talking about. I'm just wondering what is causing it, for next time.

Jan. 2012 035 by My1hd, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS
Exposure 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

[autofocus]

Upon looking at the image blown up it appears that no part of the image is in sharp focus. You have a few things working against you here. The DOF with a wide aperture of f/2.8, maybe too slow a shutter speed at 1/100 to be assured you'd stop motion, maybe you missed focus initially, and the kids moved a little before the shot was fired...or you may have jerked the camera a little when you fired the shot. Your better options would have been use of flash (preferably off camera) a faster shutter speed, and a smaller aperture. ~or~ all of the above, but use a reflector instead of the flash. You may have gotten better results if shot around 1/200 at f/4 and adjust the ISO accordingly, or use of an additional light source to adjust for the changes in your exposure settings

[metoo]

Darn that lack of flash again! That's kinda what i figured it was. I had to have the setting where they were and even then it under exposes.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by metoo

Darn that lack of flash again! That's kinda what i figured it was. I had to have the setting where they were and even then it under exposes.

Simply move them to an area that's getting better light, use a reflector to re-direct the light, a piece of white foam core could work, bump your ISO up a bit, and try adjusting your settings accordingly. You also can use some constant power light source to augment the light, and adjust the WB in RAW

[Doug Sundseth]

I'm pretty sure it's not subject motion blur, since the parts of your subjects that aren't moving (crossed legs, for instance) are not sharp. That pretty much leaves blur from moving the camera and missing focus.

Without a flash and with a background, you might try this outdoors in sunlight, but shade the subjects with the background and possibly bring in some light with a reflector (could be just a big piece of white foamcore) to camera left or right.

Shade outdoors is much brighter than indoor light in most circumstances and the open shade will give you even light. You do have to watch out for the very high color temperature when shooting open shade, but that's pretty easy to fix in camera or in post.

[metoo]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Simply move them to an area that's getting better light, use a reflector to re-direct the light, a piece of white foam core could work, bump your ISO up a bit, and try adjusting your settings accordingly. You also can use some constant power light source to augment the light, and adjust the WB in RAW

I was thinking of getting one of those presentations boards from an office supply store. Do you think that would work?

[metoo]

Would more light have cured the blending with the back round or do I need light from a source above them?

Maybe I need something like this? My DIY routine is not working so hot and this one is cheap.
Amazon.com: PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO CONTINUOUS LIGHTING UMBRELLA KIT + Free 27 Watts 5500K Fluorescent Photo Lamp Bulb: Camera & Photo

[Doug Sundseth]

If you do it right outside, you can use the sun as a separation/hair light, since it will be coming in from behind anyway.

I wouldn't recommend a cheap continuous lighting kit. It won't be much, if any, better than your regular room light. (27W light?)

If your ceiling is light colored, those cheap halogen torchiere lights work pretty well. Alternatively, ordinary aluminum-reflector work lights with bright bulbs work very well, though you'll want to bounce them off the walls, ceiling, or some sort of white reflector.

The parts of that kit that you might continue to use are the stand and the umbrella, and depending on the build quality, it might be value for money. You'd have to talk to someone who has seen both that stuff and better quality stuff to know if it's worth what they're asking.

[graciousness]

You will need at least 2 lights - key light, and yes, hair light that you place behind them to give background separation.

Just one of those darn things about photography - you either have too much or too light naturally, so you have to adjust artificially.

I think it's really good exercise to try and see light as the camera does and make judgement if you need more light prior to pushing the shutter. If you are shooting kids who really don't know how to sit still for a few seconds, then fast shutter speed is quite necessary to minimise blur (aside from steady hand). This means that with faster shutter speeds, the darker the image will get. Depending on the amount of natural light you have, most of the time, you will need flash to help compensate for that plus ISO.

Shooting indoors means use of flash most of the time except if subject is very close to strong natural light source (window at daytime, etc).

Cheers

[metoo]

Thanks all. I guess I'll save the 30 towards a flash. It's a bit to cold for doing shots that don't involve coats outside. Oh, well.......