How do I get children interested in photography?

Question

What is the best way to get a nine-year-old girl interested in photography?

Asked by J. Walker

Answer

Give her a camera?

That's all I had to do with mine. :)

Answered by Eric

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best tips for photographing children?

Question

I have two children (ages 2-4) who are just getting old enough to know when to make the worst possible face or simply run away when I bring out the camera.

Does anyone have any tips on how to get children to cooperate better for photography?

Asked by cadmium

Answer

It is very highly dependent on the personality of the child. What works wonderfully for my daughter (Positive Feedback) may not work for other kids. So it helps if you already have a good handle on working with the child. With that said, here is what works for me:

Positive Feedback
My 3 year old is very appreciative of positive feedback. If I laugh at a funny face she will keep making the face again and again. If I tell her she's doing a great job of letting Daddy take pictures then often she will want to keep posing.

Give the Child Options
If there's one miracle parenting strategy this has got to be it. Every night: "Time to go to bed." produces "I don't want to go to bed." But "Do you want to go potty and then go to bed or just go to bed?" produces "Potty and then go to bed." So maybe you could try something like: "Do you want to hug your brother while Daddy takes the picture or do you just want to stand by him and smile while Daddy takes the picture?"

Distraction
I recently took pictures of my daughter and a friend on a play date. It was easy for them to ignore the camera because they were more interested in playing with each other. As a result I got great shots of them chasing each other and playing together.

Engage in Pretend Play
Sometimes you can make the camera part of the game. Last week my daughter moved the bathroom stool into the living room, stood on it, and started singing songs. When we asked what she was doing she said she was on American Idol! So of course I grabbed the camera and tripod and my wife and I sat behind the camera and asked her name, what song she was singing and what show she was on. I got TOO MUCH footage and she still wanted to keep playing. Or maybe they're playing with a friend/sibling and perhaps you could direct the play a little bit by saying something like: "Are you going to chase each other?" "Do you want to play outside together?"

Patience, Patience, Patience
I also try to hang around with the camera for awhile and keep taking pictures (or pretending to) the whole time so she'll eventually get bored. Then I can potentially get some candids. Disclaimer: In theory this works perfectly. In practice I have two problems: 1) I get bored before she does. 2) By the time she gets bored she moves on to doing something completely different than what I was trying to get a picture of in the first place. (Which I suppose is fine if you're flexible.)

Answered by Stainsor

Check more discussion of this question.

What lens should I buy to get better pictures of a one-year old running around a dimly-lit house?

Question

I'm an amateur photographer with a Canon Rebel XS, and I'm trying to figure out what type of lens I should buy to take better photos of my one year old when she is running around in our dimly lit house. I seem to find myself in a lot of situations where there are kids on the move in low light, and my 50mm f/1.8 II just isn't able to do it. Suggestions?

Answer

I don't think another lens is necessarily what you need, although since 50mm is a bit narrow indoors on a Rebel XS, you may want to consider something a bit wider. (The question Will a 35mm lens work for great indoor pictures of my kids? asks about Nikon but the answers will apply in general.) A Rebel-series camera has a sensor which is about 22mm wide, which means that the 50mm lens you have acts as a short telephoto. This is great for portraits of stationary subjects, but not so good for fast-moving small children indoors.

Something in the 28mm to 35mm range will be more "normal", a length which gives a convenient, natural perspective in many different circumstances. If you're feeling like it's often difficult to get everything you want in the frame with your current lens, this is something to explore.

For the low-light issue, though, the f/1.8 maximum aperture of your current lens is quite good. You can't go much faster without spending a ton of money. Image stabilization might help if your problem is that you can't stay still enough for longer shutter speeds, but I'm guessing the main problem with movement is in your subject, and nothing in the lens can help that. In fact, a fast lens (one with a wide aperture, like yours) is actually harder to use in this case, since your little one is apt to zoom right out of the narrow area of focus.

So, I think the main thing you need is more light. Since you probably don't want to add stadium floodlights to your house, take a look at Prime lens or flash: which upgrade will most improve baby photos? — with a focus on the "flash" aspect. A better flash provide a lot more illumination than the pop-up flash does, and more importantly, will allow you to bounce light off the ceiling, not just flash it forward, avoiding the harsh light and shadows often associated with amateur flash photography.

Canon's lower-mid-range flash, the Speedlite 430EX II, is a little pricey at $300 — but that's less than a nice lens might cost. It's also very well featured and able to grow with you as you upgrade the rest of your photography. You could also choose a compatible third-party option like the Metz 50 AF-1 ($200) or the more basic (all-automatic only) but very powerful Sigma EF610 DG ST ($150). Or, you can get a much-cheaper all-manual Yongnuo YN-560 ($70!), but that may not be what you want for in-the-moment kid photos.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why am I getting a slow shutter speed with Child mode on Nikon D3100

Question

I am just starting out with my Nikon D3100 and taking pictures of my kids who never seem to sit still. I thought that Child mode would be the most appropriate mode to do this with but I seem to be getting slower shutter speeds than I would have expected and consequently the pictures come out blurry when inside with available light. The settings I have are:

• Child Mode
• Flash disabled - because I only have the built in flash and it seems to really blow out the kids faces when it's on.
• Aperture automatically set to largest value (in this case, f2.8)
• ISO automatically set to 400.
• Shutter speed automatically set to 1/20.

My thought was in Child mode I would have expected there to be a lower bound on shutter speed, say 1/50 or so, and let the camera bump up the auto ISO to 1600. Then, if the camera hit the ISO limit, it could start backing down the shutter speed to get the correct exposure, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening to me.

Answer

The manual describes child mode like this:

Use for snapshots of children. Clothing and background details are vividly rendered, while skin tones remain soft and natural.

So, while it probably affects the exposure program as well, from Nikon's own words the main concern seems to be with color rendering. Whatever effect this might have have on the automatically-selected shutter and aperture speed is "inside the black box". This is one reason I'm not fond of scene modes for learning. They're for people who want to avoid thinking about photography and just take some pictures. This doesn't really help ease you in to advanced knowledge in any way — it just gets annoying.

Since you're clearly thinking about how you want the shutter speed to be, I think it's time to abandon "child mode".

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the best camera to buy for a child to help them learn about photography?

Question

I have a seven year old daughter who is keen on getting a camera for Christmas. She is able to look after possessions (is very safe with her violin from school) although this is a recent development. I use Olympus 4/3rds and Micro 4/3rds camera. She has borrowed my EP-1 a number of times and enjoyed using it.

I learnt photography using a completely manual Praktica PLC3. This was challenging to use as you had to do the light metering and set the focus yourself. I wouldn't want to get a completely manual camera as I think that might put her off, but I would like one with enough flexibility to allow manual setting of aperture, shutter speed and focus so she can really learn how to be creative with it once she's got bored with point and shoot.

What cameras would you recommend we look at? Should we get one with a viewfinder?

Budget: under 200 GBP / 300 dollars. Preferably less!

Is this a sensible approach, or should we go for a cheap / rugged point and shoot until she is ready for the next level?

I am aware of the "What non-toy camera would be good for a child?" question, but it doesn't quite answer the same issues I am seeking to solve.

Answer

When there are many choices and no single "right answer" I like to let my children be involved in the decision making. Therefore I recommend this approach.

1. Find a camera store with a good selection in your price range AND a sales person you feel can work well with your daughter to help her make her selection. Discuss your goals with the sales person and find out your options. Make an appointment to come back with your daughter.

2. Talk with your daughter about her Christmas gift and help her develop her list.

   A. She may want to get more than one camera. Seriously! Last week I saw young girls in a swimming pool having a wonderful time taking each others' pictures underwater. Underwater digital cameras start at U.S. $20 according to a google search.

   B. Does she want to make stop-action movies of toys moving, clouds moving or a plant growing? A tripod is needed so the camera doesn't move between shots.

   My nephew has had his own camera for a year and a half. He enjoys making "Lego Men" movies from stills. His last upload to YouTube was impressive: Title, credits, background music and narration of the Lego Men as they moved around. He uses the free Windows Live Movie Maker to make movies from .jpg photos.

   C. Does she want to take pictures of fireworks, lightning bugs or the funny blur of someone swinging? A tripod and a bulb-capable camera are needed.

   D. Does she want to do funny things like "Hall of Mirrors" effects of her friends or put the cat's head on the dog's body? If so software is needed. If it doesn't come with the camera(s) and can't be downloaded free it has to be part of the Christmas gift budget.

   E. Etc.

3. Take her to the camera store to select her Christmas gift. Take your camera to record her decision process. :)

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I choose between an SLR or an expensive P&S?

Question

I am planning to buy a new camera and am all confused. I am an amateur photographer who likes to click good photographs. I try to make the most of my Nikon CoolPix camera and have some decent understanding of what and how to click. Photography seems to be an upcoming hobby for me in recent past.

Below are some of my chief requirements :

1. The camera should be able to take good pictures indoors. Mostly I will be clicking Indoors.
2. The Camera should be able to click quickly. This is a must. This requirement comes as I will be mostly photographing my one-year-old daughter. Children are not steady — they don’t wait for your camera to stabilize the image. In the best case, the camera should be able to easily capture moving objects; I think it is like a "sports mode" or should have a high FPS. I am hoping that I can use the sports mode when it is difficult to make my daughter to pose.
3. It should have a good zoom. Many a times, it is not possible to reach places which you want to photograph; for example, a bird sitting on top of a building.

I am now confused about which camera to buy: an SLR or an expensive Point-and-Shoot?. With the help of friends I have been able to shortlist the below two cameras:

• Nikon D5100 priced at $676 at Amazon. A default lens of 18-55mm.
• Sony HX 100 At $450 at Amazon. 30× Zoom

I am worried that if I buy an SLR, I will have to buy an expensive zoom lens as well. At 676 USD, the D5100 is already on the more expensive side for me. Also, in my experience, a 5× zoom looks trivial to me and I feel that a 10-15× zoom is generally needed. The Nikon 5100 comes with a 18-55mm lens which probably gives 3× Zoom. To my surprise, experienced photographers that I know said that you will not need much Zoom?! Also, I am told that a 30× zoom that the Sony P&S has will not be of much use without a tripod.

The Sony HX seems to have a good sports mode at a good 10 FPS. On the contrary, the SLR has a much lower 2-6 FPS, which means that I will not be able to capture moving objects. Again, my friends tell me that a 2-6 FPS that a SLR gives is very good.

Can you please suggest which camera will meet my requirements more? Is an Expensive Point & Shoot as good as a DSLR? Is Point-and-Shoot better for zoom and high FPS ?

I am also unsure why zoom is generally not given with SLRs, even though it is possible to calculate it.

And, finally, which camera will give better HD Video ?

Answer

Since you say "Photography seems to be an upcoming hobby for me in recent past", I think you should get a system camera of some sort. That means a camera with interchangeable lenses and other dedicated accessories (like hotshoe flash options). Usually, that means an SLR, but there's a relatively new class of mirrorless interchangeable lens digital cameras like the Micro 4/3rds system from Olympus and Panasonic or the NEX from Sony that you may also want to look into.

In this, you are giving up some of the convenience based flexibility of an all-in-one package with a superzoom lens in exchange for customizable flexibility where you can build a set of equipment for your needs.

Because you are trying to cover a lot of things, from low-light to extreme telephoto, any all-in-one package is going to suffer from a lot of compromise. The image quality of that 30× zoom lens is impressive for what it is, but not that great in an absolute sense. The same comes from the tiny sensor used, which enables the high telephoto numbers. (See this for the technical reason why a small sensor helps here; as you can see, it's really just like cropping.)

I've covered some of my reasoning in Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?, and I'll try not to repeat myself too much.

You can get a lot from a point & shoot camera, although I'd steer you to one of the lower zoom high-end models which tend to focus more on image quality and low light rather than emphasizing the zoom range as a priority. Compromise has to happen somewhere, and for taking kid pictures, I think that's the right direction. That would be something like the Canon Powershot G12 or S95, Olympus XZ-1, or Fujifilm X10 (not to be confused with the X100, which is also very exciting but more of a commitment to a certain approach to photography).

If you go for an SLR, you'll have to put more work into clicking good photographs — but you'll also be able to get a much bigger return on that work in terms of results. You won't have the gigantic zoom range, so you'll probably have to move around more, and/or change lenses in the middle of things. Without spending for a camera body priced at about twice what you're aiming for, you won't get the raw FPS, so you'll have to learn to time your shots rather than counting on "pray and spray". If you had just said "I want to take good pictures and not think about it", I wouldn't advise this direction — but if you're really interested in photography as a hobby and in making great pictures, it'll be worth the investment.

You'll certainly end up putting in more money into a system camera, whether SLR or mirrorless. I think $1500-$3000 is a reasonable budget to start with for the first couple years, although you can be more frugal if you're careful. You don't necessarily need to spend that all in one go, but it sounds like you want to do a lot of things. You'll probably immediately benefit from at least a nice normal prime lens and a basic hotshoe flash. As you note, the 18-55mm kit lens doesn't cover a huge zoom range, and it's also not very fast. Given your desire for more telephoto reach, you'll probably want to add a telephoto zoom and a solid tripod. Each of these things, in their entry-level versions, runs about $200 — and you may decide you want to move up from entry level.

If you decide that frames-per-second are really vital, you may want to consider if you can stretch from the Nikon D7000, which offers 6fps (and comes with an 18-105mm kit lens, which offers more convenience but again is an exercise in compromise). Or you could look at the comparable Pentax K-5, at 7fps. I know this is stretching your budget (especially with a new baby — I've been there!), but you may decide it's worthwhile after all. Life is short, and your child won't ever be a baby again: start getting those great photographs as soon as possible. In support of this position, I'll leave you with one of my favorite camera-recommendation articles. It's tongue-in-cheek (there is no real "George") but is also serious: The Online Photographer: Letter to George.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to take photos of children in difficult lighting?

Question

I recently went to a one-year-old's birthday party. The event took place inside; there was some light coming through the windows from outside and there was also light from the lightbulbs in the room, although not nearly enough. I used S mode on my Nikon D5100 (with an 18-55 stock lens) in order to reduce blur as much as possible, even though I wasn't able to go too low with the speed given the lighting; I also increased ISO to about 640.

Some of the pictures came out orangey due to the lightbulbs (the white balance was set to incandescent), especially when people were sitting just below the light source, while others came out blurry, despite my effort.

What should I have done better? Would shooting in RAW have helped?

Answer

In a situation like this there is no substitute for a faster lens. Kids are a challenge to photograph at the best of times but with low light you only have two options flash which kids tend to hate or a faster larger aperture lens. Something like an f/1.8 or f/1.4 prime lens aren't too expensive and let in a lot more light than your kit lens which is f/3.5 at best. This allows you to lower the ISO and get faster shutter speeds which is essential for kids because they never keep still.

If you shoot in RAW this will give you the most options for post processing the images when you get them into your computer. With RAW white balance settings do not effect the RAW data at all so you can set the balance later individually on each image.

Check more discussion of this question.