msmoto said:
The photo for you to capture is during the labor. While you cannot understand what this is about.... maybe if your bicycle chain broke once you can....

I just spat my coffee through my nose!!!! LOL!

Thanks for that thought msmoto!

Oh man, shooting a woman in labor takes some guts! They are suffering quite a bit at that time and can be very uncooperative to say the least. But, msmoto is right, there will be tons of emotion to capture in her face and posture if she lets you get away with it! Providing comfort every five minutes is essential. I have experienced it twice and I would describe it as a short journey through hell. Postpartum is different. You will see beautiful expressions on an exhausted face.

Msmoto has a lot of courage. I would photograph the pregnant mom in the nursery long before labor and the newborn baby at the hospital. That's it. But then I am a chicken when around suffering or exhausted women!

OK, you are going to have to keep it simple, I think. On DX, just use a 50mm lens, or 35mm. FX use 85 or 50mm. The photo for you to capture is during the labor. While you cannot understand what this is about.... maybe if your bicycle chain broke once you can.... the photos of your wife during this time can be absolutely outstanding. And, the majority of the time you want to be giving support, holding hands, talking in support, etc., so the photos have to be your second job. But the opportunity is there, if she is agreeable, to capture some very beautiful times. And of course postpartum is a beautiful time as well. Her face will be filled with a thousand emotions. Shoot like hell. Edit later. I would suspect from 100- 200 exposures if you are shooting before, during, and after the birth. But remember she is the subject and her face is where it is at. No flash. Use ISO high enough to allow an f/stop of maybe 4.0 or 5.6 and shutter speed of 1/125th to 1/250th. If not enough light, open up but try to maintain the shutter speed so images are crisp. 3- 4 FPS in bursts is the way I would do it. Shoot 20, hold hand for a couple minutes, shoot some more, etc.

Your emotions may be high, so practice this once you know the procedure of the delivery from the staff.

A pregnant woman and a fisheye gives me an idea. Make that belly HUGE.

donaldejose said:
Personally, I don't like birth pictures of that icky mess. Who wants to see them? Not me. Not your friends. Wait until the baby is all cleaned up. We are not trying to show the horrors of war, are we?

Lol...don't worry. We already discussed this and we decided no birth pictures and will wait until after she is cleaned up and everything.

Pregnant wife in home nursery.

What is important to have in the image?

1. Wife's face with a pleasant expression.

2. One popping big belly! Pose her in profile with head turned towards the camera.

3. Some baby stuff (like crib or changing table) showing it is your nursery.

You don't need her feet, you don't need her knees, you don't need the legs of the crib, you don't need the legs of the changing table. They don't add to the story of the image. People recognize a crib from just seeing the top part. So you should try a 3/4 body shot instead of a full body shot.

Personally, I don't like birth pictures of that icky mess. Who wants to see them? Not me. Not your friends. Wait until the baby is all cleaned up. We are not trying to show the horrors of war, are we?

tcole1983 said:
^^^ in this case it was maternity pictures of my wife and she wanted them in our nursery...so yeah the room was what she wanted. This isn't going to be a usual constriction as I would prefer to be outside or even in our living room would give me more working distance and wouldn't be such a chore.

In other cases it has been my brothers houses and the rooms are fairly small as well...really anywhere inside a house I can see similar size constraints. The only reason in my house that I can spread out enough is because our dinning room and living room are one big open space.

Great, If this is a delivery suite, first obtain the regulations regarding flash, cameras, etc. from the hospital. Then, you may have to cover your camera with a sterile or at least clean cover. In a small room as you describe, I would have one camera on a monopod so as to get it overhead with a 12-24mm on DX. Second camera with 24-70 zoom, or a 50mm f/1.4 on DX. This can be held up and moved in and out and should be far enough back so as to not interfere with the delivery. The primary issue for me would be to make certain in no way did I obstruct the attending physician or midwife. Discuss before hand with the staff, the usual sequence of events, the timing, and where the staff will be during the delivery. And where the baby goes post delivery. You may want to cover all these events.

Good luck and congratulations. You may be too busy holding your wife's hand to take many photos.

^^^ in this case it was maternity pictures of my wife and she wanted them in our nursery...so yeah the room was what she wanted. This isn't going to be a usual constriction as I would prefer to be outside or even in our living room would give me more working distance and wouldn't be such a chore.

In other cases it has been my brothers houses and the rooms are fairly small as well...really anywhere inside a house I can see similar size constraints. The only reason in my house that I can spread out enough is because our dinning room and living room are one big open space.

An undistorted whole body shot in a 10x12 room? Why is that necessary? Is there something special about that room and is there a client who demands a full body portrait in that "special" room?

First, you don't want to use a lens smaller than about 28 or 35mm on FX or 18mm to 22mm on DX or you will start to distort the image. So lens choice creates some distance limitations.

Second, make the subject smaller by posing them sitting in a chair.

Third, use your legs to find another location. The room is too small. Admit it instead of trying to fight it.

Fourth, every room has a door. Back out the door as far as you can and shoot through the door to gain as much additional room as you can without letting the door frame into the photo. You probably can extend a room 3 feet this way. If you are using on camera flash bounced off the ceiling this could be a problem because the bounce flash may be trapped by the casing above the door so shoot available light. At the very least you can get your body outside the room with the camera in the doorway so any bounce flash stays in the room.

Fifth, it might be possible gain a few feet of distance by shooting through an open window but this is going to involve "set up" because you are very likely to need a ladder on the outside of the house.

Sixth, change the way you hold your camera. Place your camera on top of your head, kneel and lean your back up against the wall, trip the shutter. By taking your own body away from the back of the camera you have effectively enlarged the room about one and a half to two feet. Sure your framing will be hit or miss. Take lots of shots and see if you can happen to get one you like. If you have the ability to shoot tethered run your live view LCD output to a laptop screen which you can watch while the camera back is placed directly against the wall. Now you can see your framing as you shoot.

Gosh what a nice thread.... an opinion for each situation and a thousand ideas... So..

Bokah... either close up or a long lens.... wide open or close to this.

Shooting people inside.... I attempt to determine what I want in the end.... If a wide, slight distortion is desired, for drama, then on DX, a 12-24mm or the 16-35mm. Even 10.5mm, but extreme care must be taken with humans so as to not give them undesired characteristics.... as in caricatures. For heads on DX, I like the 24-120mm with the caveat one must have a high ISO if stopping the subject is desired. The 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 are super for portraits. Even the 135mm f/2.0... The faster lens allows a higher shutter and stops subject movement better than a VR which is great for camera shake, but unfortunately still requires the subject to be still.

I think what I just said was this: Take a lens, e.g.., 50mm f/1.4 on DX, shoot about fifty shots in a room. Then evaluate and edit viciously down to about five photos. Next, try another lens, either 85 or 35. Same thing. I make so many mistakes and throw away about 50-75% of the shots for multiple reasons, I think we simply have to practice and learn over and over.

The other option, not my favorite, is to use two, three or four strobes, either into the walls, or one wall, and ceiling, and shoot with the f stop you want after adjustments. One can actually make the lighting look like available light if several strobes are strategically placed and adjusted for low light levels, but with the 1/800th second flash, the movement problem is solved. Of course, umbrellas or soft lights can be used if there is room.

The camera angle, high and down is great for groups. One gets a "special effect" with the distortion.

A different approach - and not necessarily one that will fit your desired output - Put the camera high and shoot down at your subject. It will give you a teen Facebook profile look that you'll probably dislike as much as I do, but it will give you more body to work with and depending on how you set up your shot, you may be able to get close enough with the 35 mm 1.8 to get some bokeh on the shot. The focal plane when shooting down would mean you'd have the head (depending on DoF/aperture) in focus, and the bokeh would kick in for the body too, which might not be what you want. Anyway, it's fun to try to think through the challenge you set. Good luck with however you make it work.

To get bokeh you need distance BEHIND your subject and the background. Therefore in a small room you're just not going to get it, regardless of what lens you use. A head shot maybe, but that's not your objective.

You can do it in Photoshop, but it takes familiarity with making a precision silhouette and effectively filling background data in. In short, it's work.

Lol well it appears we are off topic now. I wasn't trying to take pictures of the room (but thanks anyway). A longer lens isn't the solution as if i was standing wall to wall with the 35 then longer = not going to work. If i have the working room or just needed a head shot or upper half of the body it wouldn't be a problem. The problem is maybe a 10x12' room andd needing the whole body in the picture.

I could see the distortion being a problem though on using the UWA...i might try it though just to see. It might do something more for me than what i was getting. I at least wouldn't have to worry about my working distance at all.

I've done interiors with both of my small DSLRs, and the following photo was taken using a Nikon D60 (DX) with a Nikkor 12-24/f4 lens (DX), and a tripod, to capture a room with dimensions approx 4mX4m (13'X13').

Just posted this example to flicker, at:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6834722634/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Cheers

Michael

For people, a standard 50mm will do (on FX). I tried using a 28mm and it gets too much of the room in the shot. If you want to concentrate on the person, use a 50mm or better yet, an 85mm if you have enough room and want a good crop.

donaldejose said:
Be careful with using anything wider than 50mm as the face of your subject can distort (elongates the nose and makes the ears recede too much.

Not necessarily a bad thing in, for example, party photos. UWA distortion is a thing that may make or break an image. Do it right and people will refer to you as an artist.

Ouch - I have a 17mm f/3.5 tokina that has very little distortion that comes to mind. 12-24mm is probably the best option and do the "bokeh" in post. No much of a choice any other way.

TaoTeJared said:
I like small rooms to force people to be more comfortable for close shots and I use the 60mm 2.8 macro, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4g (on DX). For groups I use my 12-24.

Bokeh is almost impossible with groups or anything more than a 1/2 shot (torso and head) is your goal. I think I understand what you are trying to do as I desired the same - Not so close but wanting bokeh- I gave up on it long ago and focused on interesting compositions with subjects being on the edges with negative space in the middle.

NSXType-R said:
To get bokeh you're going to have to get in close with the 35mm 1.8, there's no way around it.

Like others have said, for one or two people it might work, but it won't work for group shots

Yeah Tao...and NSX I know, but I needed a full body shot for these so getting closer with the 35 wouldn't work. I thought it might not be possible at least with what I have to work with. I just need more space to use my 105 and it wouldn't be a problem. I might invest in the 50 or 85 F1.8 so that at least it isn't as long as the 105.

I also get a little flustered setting it up on a tripod and using a remote and stuff. If I was just snapping the pictures of someone else then I might not be so terrible at it.

To get bokeh you're going to have to get in close with the 35mm 1.8, there's no way around it.

Like others have said, for one or two people it might work, but it won't work for group shots

I like small rooms to force people to be more comfortable for close shots and I use the 60mm 2.8 macro, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4g (on DX). For groups I use my 12-24.

Bokeh is almost impossible with groups or anything more than a 1/2 shot (torso and head) is your goal. I think I understand what you are trying to do as I desired the same - Not so close but wanting bokeh- I gave up on it long ago and focused on interesting compositions with subjects being on the edges with negative space in the middle.

From what you're saying it sounds like you are just trying to isolate subject. If Bokeh isn't an option have you considered putting a screen of some sort or a fabric/blanket behind the subject to eliminate the issue? I think the idea of moving closer to subject will be less flattering.

Donald is right... 35mm on dx and 50mm on fx...

Be careful with using anything wider than 50mm as the face of your subject can distort (elongates the nose and makes the ears recede too much.

Godless said:
24mm 1.4G is my number one gun these days, no need for flash anywhere. In very small places I often have fun with the Samyang 8mm fisheye as well. Try the ultrawide with modest flash bounced to the ceiling.

That would probably work best, but for the price of that lens I have lots of other stuff I shoot more often that I want lenses for.

Well I thought about it more and maybe using the 12-24 and being very close while having more distance to the background would maybe get me better subject isolation. I will have to try it next time.