Creative Picture Taking 101 For Diaper Boys & Girls

[iCrinkle2]

So I see tons of people out there on the web that just take poor quality pictures being boring and dull of them selfs wearing there diapers. Now I know you wanna share your diaper with everyone guys, but if you take crappy boring photos then no matter how many photos that you take no ones going to want see you in them. But just become morally disgusted and more turned off then anything. Play around with the composition of your photo's and angels of shots. Make sure they are clear and crisp and you have good lighting. Try to play around with depth of field also. These are all things that I think of when ever I take my pictures and I want to encourage all of you to do the same and keep these factors as a mental note when taking pictures. NO MORE LAME CROTCH SHOOTS GUYS that all be creative right girls. Also for those of you who post pictures of your self wearing a diaper and your inner thighs are all hairy deffanitly not at all attractive, can I get some girls to agree with me. Now I know I don't have a lot of hair being im asian but just creative in your picture taking people PLEASE. So for heres your assignment I want those who feel comfortable to post pictures of them selfs here on DD to try and be creative for once and play around take some time in taking your picture and post it below and I want to see what great fantastic photos you can come up with.

Below I'll post a few pictures of my self and let you be the judge of what you think is it tasteful or offensive

PS. Think about your environment or surrounding areas what that says also about your photo or what you might be doing in the photo.

Look at the angel

Play around with color and not so close

[DailyDi]

Cute pics! I like interesting angles of diapers, diapers up-skirt or sticking out of pants. Okay with crotch-shots if they are highlighting the diaper.

My pet peeve: hard-ons under clear plastic pants. I get so many of those and I can't really use them and have seen enough of em to not find any penis impressive.

[WallaWalla]

My pet peeve: hard-ons under clear plastic pants. I get so many of those and I can't really use them and have seen enough of em to not find any penis impressive.

I lol'd.

[Guest NaughtyAshes]

I think I take clear and fun snapshots.

[Angela Bauer]

I Crinkle, can you explain how a photo can be both under and over exposed at the same time?

Do you mean that the foreground is in deep shadow causing that area to be under exposed while there is strong back light which is over exposed to the point of blowing out?

Something that often disturbs me is inappropriate white balance as if the digital camera is set for daylight when the light source is normal incandescent lamps.

Often the white balance issue can be solved by using strobe lighting, which is nearly the same as daylight. A full set of studio strobes, appropriately used, can add a professional touch to photos, even AB/DL pictures.

[WallaWalla]

Studio strobes are out of the price range for the casual exhibitionist who can't be bothered to buy a new webcam every 5 years.

[sarah_ab]

what i find interesting is you talking about crotch shots, yet your banner in your sig is ALL crotch shots... i mean what about some diapered ass shots?

[square_duck]

Well, I'm glad no one complained about my pics Granted I'm not the most artistic of the bunch, and certainly not the most photogenic, but I like more action shots...rather then posed. I'm not a model *shrug* so I shoot what I can. I'm not much into photography either, I am still futzing with the digital camera, but I do try for more creative shots than the standard not that I post a lot of pics, I'm not THAT much of a whore but quality instead of quantity

[Pseudocrem]

what i find interesting is you talking about crotch shots, yet your banner in your sig is ALL crotch shots... i mean what about some diapered ass shots?

I agree. And the pics weren't diapers anyway, look like some kind of little kids pull-ups.

[rusty pins]

Well, I often see the same people with basically the same crotch shots over and over. One or two are OK, after that it's just repetitive. Mix them up with side shots and back shots as well. It's also nice to see more of the person than just their diaper area! A couple full body shots are nice to see once in a while. You don't have to include your face if you don't feel like it, but I like to see the whole person in diapers, not just the same old diaper area pictures that all looks the same. Being creative with the backround or the activity someone is engaged in also makes for a more interesting picture. Someone who is doing something such as washing dishes or fixing a pipe under the sink in diapers kind of tells a story and makes people realize that we are all just regular people who have regular lives and chores to do. It's just that we sometimes do them when we are wearing our diapers.

To go further, pictures of people wearing clothes with their diaper showing a little or the bulky outline of a diaper is good. Diapers visible under a skirt, out the back of your jeans or through the legs of shorts are nice to see now and then. It lets your own imagination tell a story. Public pictures in diapers are also nice to see, as long as they are taken in a private area with no one else around that could notice and be offended. A walk along the deserted beach or woods is nice or an area of a deserted park when no one can see you makes an interesting picture of someone out doors wearing a diaper and shirt! I'd be tempted myself to take a couple pictures out in my boat except for the privacy issue of someone possibly recognizing my boat and my fishing friend (who wouldn't want to have his picture taken in diapers, even if he was holding a 30 pound king salmon he just caught!)

As far as penis shots either openly or under plastic pants, there is no need for that here! Send them privatly to a friend who asks for them if you must or else go to a porno site to post them! Messy diapers are OK if taken from the back of the diaper as long as no actual mess shows. Some people may enjoy seeing a poopy diaper or a poopy butt however many more feel that it's disgusting! Posting it in a gallery that clearly states poopy diapers is one thing, posting it in a gallery that dosn't first warn members what they will actually see is disgusting.

Being creative with your pictures is a great idea. Not all people have that talent, though. Even the most basic knowedge can be improved with just a little reading up on the subject. Never take a picture facing into the sun. Your subject will be dark and you will just see the brightness of the sun. Turn around and have the sun shine on your subject and light him or her up. Flashes are good up to maybe 12 feet or so when it's dark. You can't take a photo of a castle at night and expect your little flash to light up the whole building 100 yards away! With digital cameras you have lots of ways to experiment without wasting film! If your picture just dosn't look good, don't post it anyway. Try different lighting and angles until you get a good enough picture to post. Some people don't have the best equipment and maybe they only have a cell phone camera to use. In those cases, better to post what you have if it's somewhat good enough if that's all the better camera you have to work with!

[spark]

I tend to go with what Elaine said about the man's body. It is functional and utilitarian. Unless you're body is perfectly sculpted, the naked male body is architecturally equivalent to a warehouse (and in a lot of cases a worn down one). Even when a woman isn't perfect, her body is still shaped and quite pleasant to look at.

As far as looking at dimly lit diaper shots, why are you wasting your time posting stuff like that? I find them distasteful, and generally a waste of time.

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

I'm personally sick of seeing photos with low lighting, excessive grain, and guys in general and/or their "junk." I honestly don't really care one way or another about the hairy legs though. Hairy legs on a woman are fine, hairless legs are fine as well, but it's not going to be something that I really fixate on.

What bothers me the most? Well in the stuff listed in the poll, I'd start with low lighting and poopy diapers. I have no problemm with crotch shots, and even enjoy them, as long as they're good crotch shots. The same goes for people with hairy thighs, pee diapers, and pure nudity. My bigger pet peeves would have to be low-res photos, grainy photos, dimly lit photos, photos that are clearly taken with a digital (not optical) zoom, and any combination of the above. My biggest pet peeve though is seeing the "T-Girls" posting in the section marked "women," when their junk is blatantly visible through their diaper, or some other feature gives them away. Seeing a half-naked T-Girl is a good way to make my balls recoil, and totally ruins the mood for me. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a place for T-Girls to show off their photos too, I'm just saying it shouldn't be in the section marked "women."

As for what I like to see, creativity, "girls" in diapers, crotch shots, hairy and hairless inner thighs are all a good start. I also like diaper p0rn, but it has to be done a certain way for me, and I get no enjoyment out of cloth diapers, so I like to see the disposable ones. One thing that I really like to see, that I don't see very much of, is photos of used diapers. That is, photos of diapers that are wet, with or without the person who wore the diaper in the photo. I also like photos of diapers worn by female DLs during their period, which seems to be equally rare.

Furthermore, taking pictures isn't art, taking a photo is art. What's the difference? Pictures are what you take on those crappy little point-an-shoot cameras that everybody and their grandmother has, or worse, your cell or your webcam. That's another pet-peeve, pictures taken on cell phones and webcams. Photos are taken on DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras, and those cameras usually carry either the name "Nikon" or "Canon" on them. Photos are taken on cameras with detachable lenses and strobes, and are form of art. Hand me a Nikon D3X or comparable full frame camera, the appropriate lens, and a modular flash/strobe light, let me manually focus and white balance the thing, and I'll look through the viewfinder (not the LCD) and give you a photo worth looking at. Hand me the cheap point-an-shoot that you bought at Wal-Mart and I'll give you the same crap that we're all sick and tired of. Truth be told, a full frame camera isn't even really necessary, and I could still give you an excellent picture on something like the Nikon D80 or a comparable alternative.

I Crinkle, can you explain how a photo can be both under and over exposed at the same time?

Do you mean that the foreground is in deep shadow causing that area to be under exposed while there is strong back light which is over exposed to the point of blowing out?

Angela, I've read iCrinkle's post a few times now, and I can't see where he said anything about a photo being both under and over exposed at the same time. What you're describing is something that can be done for artistic effect. It actually sounds like you're describing a lens flare. Granted, lens flares are like salt, a little bit adds to the flavor of the dish, but too much ruins it. (Unless you're J.J. Abrams in which case, everything is better with lens flares.)

Something that often disturbs me is inappropriate white balance as if the digital camera is set for daylight when the light source is normal incandescent lamps.

Often the white balance issue can be solved by using strobe lighting, which is nearly the same as daylight. A full set of studio strobes, appropriately used, can add a professional touch to photos, even AB/DL pictures.

Angela, when you refer to "inappropriate white balance," are you referring to the photos that come out with an orange tint to them due to an incorrect exposure level? Keep in mind that most (if not all) consumer grade cameras actually take a better picture when automatically white balanced then they do when manually white balanced. It's been my experience that attempting to manually white balance a consumer grade camera leads to a worse picture then using the AWB function. Likewise, most people here buying consumer grade cameras, or as I prefer to call them, cheap point-an-shoots, can't afford or won't invest in a decent set of strobes. More and more people are also transitioning away from traditional consumer-grade cameras to even lower quality cell phone cameras or webcams.

The white balance issue can also be corrected in Photoshop or a similar editing program, the orange tint caused by incorrect exposure can be removed with various filters and forms of level correction, although this should be "plan B," and not "plan A." Most people would actually benefit from learning about their camera's lens, rather then the number of megapixels that it has. A 5MP camera with a high quality lens will run circles around a 10MP camera with a low-quality lens, but most people probably don't realize that.

A final pet peeve of mine is when someone "watermarks" their photo, and does so with an obnoxiously intrusive watermark that obstructs a good portion of the image. iCrinkle has actually done this on his photos, more so in the second one then the first one. A "watermark" should be in one of the corners, and shouldn't be obnoxiously intrusive. I'm not saying that a watermark should be excluded entirely, just that it shouldn't distract me from viewing the photo itself.

Here are ten tips that I can give everyone whose thinking of taking photos in the future:

1. Avoid the cliches that have already been mentioned here, such as poor lighting

2. Look into a decent camera if you don't already have one. The lens is more important then the number of megapixels, and your research should focus on the lens first and megapixels second. For DSLRs, Sony is good, Canon is better, and Nikon is the best. For point-an-shoots, Canon is good, Kodak is better, and Nikon is usually the best at the higher end of things, which is where you should be looking. As a general rule of thumb, if it's sold in Wal-Mart, you probably shouldn't buy it

3. If you have a professional camera, learn how to white balance it, if you have a point-an-shoot, learn how to correct your images with photo editing software

4. Don't zoom in! This is the biggest amateur mistake, and the easiest way to ruin a photo. Push in with the camera itself instead, use the timer if you can't hold the camera where you need to, but avoid the temptation to zoom in. If your camera has an optical zoom, you can cheat slightly, but don't make a habit of it

5. Get creative with your camera angles, center some photos, and use the rule of thirds for others

6. Tell a story. If you're going to take crotch shots, why not do a time-lapse that shows a diaper as it's being wet? Better yet, show us what you're doing while you're wearing your diaper

7. Don't just take a picture and then upload it unless your picture is "news" related, meaning you're showing us the packaging of a new product or something similar that we haven't seen yet. After you take your photo, run it through photo editing software like Adobe Photoshop. Using the Photoshop example, fix your levels or any other basic flaws, and "sweaten" your picture, meaning improve the color slightly to make your photo more interesting. Photo filters are also useful to add certain artistic effects

8. Experiment with your photos, figure out what works and what doesn't. Your first batch of photos will suck, everyone's first batch does, but it'll be a learning experience. Your second batch of photos will be significantly better as long as you can look at your photos and figure out what did and didn't work

9. Listen to constructive criticism from others, but develop a style while doing so, and don't change that style as a result of the criticism given by others. "Your photo is too dark," or "there's too much clutter in the background," are all acceptable criticisms, but if you always have a cluttered background as part of your style, you shouldn't change it based on what other people tell you to do

10. Once you have the basics down, go against the grain. "Going against the grain," means doing something that normally wouldn't be done. One example would be having a set of crotch shots with one or two "butt shots" in a row, purposely placed, that draws attention to those specific photos. Just don't overdo this, or people will figure out what you're doing, and the effect will turn into a flaw. This technique should be attempted only by those with somewhat advanced skills

Above all else though, have fun. Remember, what one person likes, another probably won't, and what one person dislikes, another probably will, and that goes for me as well as anyone else.

[sarah_ab]

hahah wow seriously, its a gallery where anyone can post photos..... if you don't like the pictures than dont look at them for christs sakes... but honestly if you are looking for professional quality photos then go to one of the pay sites that provide that...

[tommee]

A 5MP camera with a high quality lens will run circles around a 10MP camera with a low-quality lens, but most people probably don't realize that.

This, this, a thousand times this!

Another thing to remember is that alot of the pictures we take of ourselves have to be done quickly and covertly. We prefer not to go and take diaper pics outside where the lighting is good, for obvious reasons, and usually draw the curtains when prancing around in just our diapers. It's difficult and expensive to take decent shots indoors, and most aren't going to make a tremendous effort to take a picture of themselves in a very compromising position.

[Angela Bauer]

Every person I have ever met has personal likes and dislikes.

Above a valued member quotes me and appears to disagree. This is fine. The OP made a poll. The top question under likes and dislikes is low light level under or over exposed. In my previous reply I pointed out that generally a photo is either over or under exposed, yet if there is strong back light aspects of the background can be over-exposed to the point of blowing out and yet the foreground can be in enough deep shadow it is under-exposed.

One of my pet peeves is a photo that is not color and density corrected, especially when the foreground is overly yellow. Often this started as a white balance problem. Some consumer digital cameras do a better job of auto white balance than do others. The reason I get peeved about an over-yellow photo is that hardly ever does this flatter people. There are many famous movie makers who insist all their interior scenes be color timed so they look as if the lighting was from candles. Yes, I am talking about Woody Allen as a prime example of bad taste in color timing.

Members feel that because they need to take their diaper photos discreetly, they must share those pictures as taken. If they have a computer able to download from a digital camera and then upload to websites, they have some form of photo editor. Folks of DD, that editor does not need to be the current Photo Shop Professional. All such photo editing software has the ability to adjust the color and density of pictures. Sometimes all you need to do is increase the brightness to remove a yellow cast and bring out shadow detail.

Bottom line is the pictures each of us take must make us happy.

[puffybedwetter]

I'm personally sick of seeing photos with low lighting, excessive grain, and guys in general and/or their "junk." I honestly don't really care one way or another about the hairy legs though. Hairy legs on a woman are fine, hairless legs are fine as well, but it's not going to be something that I really fixate on.

What bothers me the most? Well in the stuff listed in the poll, I'd start with low lighting and poopy diapers. I have no problemm with crotch shots, and even enjoy them, as long as they're good crotch shots. The same goes for people with hairy thighs, pee diapers, and pure nudity. My bigger pet peeves would have to be low-res photos, grainy photos, dimly lit photos, photos that are clearly taken with a digital (not optical) zoom, and any combination of the above. My biggest pet peeve though is seeing the "T-Girls" posting in the section marked "women," when their junk is blatantly visible through their diaper, or some other feature gives them away. Seeing a half-naked T-Girl is a good way to make my balls recoil, and totally ruins the mood for me. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a place for T-Girls to show off their photos too, I'm just saying it shouldn't be in the section marked "women."

As for what I like to see, creativity, "girls" in diapers, crotch shots, hairy and hairless inner thighs are all a good start. I also like diaper p0rn, but it has to be done a certain way for me, and I get no enjoyment out of cloth diapers, so I like to see the disposable ones. One thing that I really like to see, that I don't see very much of, is photos of used diapers. That is, photos of diapers that are wet, with or without the person who wore the diaper in the photo. I also like photos of diapers worn by female DLs during their period, which seems to be equally rare.

Furthermore, taking pictures isn't art, taking a photo is art. What's the difference? Pictures are what you take on those crappy little point-an-shoot cameras that everybody and their grandmother has, or worse, your cell or your webcam. That's another pet-peeve, pictures taken on cell phones and webcams. Photos are taken on DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) cameras, and those cameras usually carry either the name "Nikon" or "Canon" on them. Photos are taken on cameras with detachable lenses and strobes, and are form of art. Hand me a Nikon D3X or comparable full frame camera, the appropriate lens, and a modular flash/strobe light, let me manually focus and white balance the thing, and I'll look through the viewfinder (not the LCD) and give you a photo worth looking at. Hand me the cheap point-an-shoot that you bought at Wal-Mart and I'll give you the same crap that we're all sick and tired of. Truth be told, a full frame camera isn't even really necessary, and I could still give you an excellent picture on something like the Nikon D80 or a comparable alternative.

Angela, I've read iCrinkle's post a few times now, and I can't see where he said anything about a photo being both under and over exposed at the same time. What you're describing is something that can be done for artistic effect. It actually sounds like you're describing a lens flare. Granted, lens flares are like salt, a little bit adds to the flavor of the dish, but too much ruins it. (Unless you're J.J. Abrams in which case, everything is better with lens flares.)

Angela, when you refer to "inappropriate white balance," are you referring to the photos that come out with an orange tint to them due to an incorrect exposure level? Keep in mind that most (if not all) consumer grade cameras actually take a better picture when automatically white balanced then they do when manually white balanced. It's been my experience that attempting to manually white balance a consumer grade camera leads to a worse picture then using the AWB function. Likewise, most people here buying consumer grade cameras, or as I prefer to call them, cheap point-an-shoots, can't afford or won't invest in a decent set of strobes. More and more people are also transitioning away from traditional consumer-grade cameras to even lower quality cell phone cameras or webcams.

The white balance issue can also be corrected in Photoshop or a similar editing program, the orange tint caused by incorrect exposure can be removed with various filters and forms of level correction, although this should be "plan B," and not "plan A." Most people would actually benefit from learning about their camera's lens, rather then the number of megapixels that it has. A 5MP camera with a high quality lens will run circles around a 10MP camera with a low-quality lens, but most people probably don't realize that.

A final pet peeve of mine is when someone "watermarks" their photo, and does so with an obnoxiously intrusive watermark that obstructs a good portion of the image. iCrinkle has actually done this on his photos, more so in the second one then the first one. A "watermark" should be in one of the corners, and shouldn't be obnoxiously intrusive. I'm not saying that a watermark should be excluded entirely, just that it shouldn't distract me from viewing the photo itself.

Here are ten tips that I can give everyone whose thinking of taking photos in the future:

1. Avoid the cliches that have already been mentioned here, such as poor lighting

2. Look into a decent camera if you don't already have one. The lens is more important then the number of megapixels, and your research should focus on the lens first and megapixels second. For DSLRs, Sony is good, Canon is better, and Nikon is the best. For point-an-shoots, Canon is good, Kodak is better, and Nikon is usually the best at the higher end of things, which is where you should be looking. As a general rule of thumb, if it's sold in Wal-Mart, you probably shouldn't buy it

3. If you have a professional camera, learn how to white balance it, if you have a point-an-shoot, learn how to correct your images with photo editing software

4. Don't zoom in! This is the biggest amateur mistake, and the easiest way to ruin a photo. Push in with the camera itself instead, use the timer if you can't hold the camera where you need to, but avoid the temptation to zoom in. If your camera has an optical zoom, you can cheat slightly, but don't make a habit of it

5. Get creative with your camera angles, center some photos, and use the rule of thirds for others

6. Tell a story. If you're going to take crotch shots, why not do a time-lapse that shows a diaper as it's being wet? Better yet, show us what you're doing while you're wearing your diaper

7. Don't just take a picture and then upload it unless your picture is "news" related, meaning you're showing us the packaging of a new product or something similar that we haven't seen yet. After you take your photo, run it through photo editing software like Adobe Photoshop. Using the Photoshop example, fix your levels or any other basic flaws, and "sweaten" your picture, meaning improve the color slightly to make your photo more interesting. Photo filters are also useful to add certain artistic effects

8. Experiment with your photos, figure out what works and what doesn't. Your first batch of photos will suck, everyone's first batch does, but it'll be a learning experience. Your second batch of photos will be significantly better as long as you can look at your photos and figure out what did and didn't work

9. Listen to constructive criticism from others, but develop a style while doing so, and don't change that style as a result of the criticism given by others. "Your photo is too dark," or "there's too much clutter in the background," are all acceptable criticisms, but if you always have a cluttered background as part of your style, you shouldn't change it based on what other people tell you to do

10. Once you have the basics down, go against the grain. "Going against the grain," means doing something that normally wouldn't be done. One example would be having a set of crotch shots with one or two "butt shots" in a row, purposely placed, that draws attention to those specific photos. Just don't overdo this, or people will figure out what you're doing, and the effect will turn into a flaw. This technique should be attempted only by those with somewhat advanced skills

Above all else though, have fun. Remember, what one person likes, another probably won't, and what one person dislikes, another probably will, and that goes for me as well as anyone else.

Yes! T-Girls need a section for their pictures please!

[Puer Aeternus]

@Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover

You make it sound like if you have the cash your automatically a professional photographer; Like art comes from the camera not the artist.

Hand me the cheap point-an-shoot that you bought at Wal-Mart and I'll give you a photo worth hanging.

A photographer makes art based on his/her skills, not the equipment; they would probably be able to do it faster and easier with the right stuff, but knowledge of a good photo comes with know how and practice. Personally, I would hand a beginner photographer the Wal-mart camera everytime, only when they learn framing and composition would I ever even consider to give them an SLR.

DD/ML makes some good points later on; but dont think that by buying an expensive camera you will instantaneously have amazing pictures. Photography is both technical and artistic. You have to know your equipment and how to use it to get the right effect you are looking for AND you have to know about basic aesthetics and composition. Experimentation comes naturally from a knowledge of both.

[WallaWalla]

I don't even bother with the gallery. It's a lot more fun to post them on the forums.

I have yet to get a complaint.

[Missy Q]

Being a photographer by hobby, don't get me started on camera-used mistakes.

But in regards to diaper-related stuff,  I would love more butt shots . (both sexes)

[Ccwick]

I don't even bother with the gallery. It's a lot more fun to post them on the forums.

I have yet to get a complaint.

I don't think women really get complaints that i'm aware of. Usually the men hehe.

[shoelessjoe]

Why don't we have a photography contest and see who can take the best ABDL related pic. Anyone interested?

[PArms]

Why don't we have a photography contest and see who can take the best ABDL related pic. Anyone interested?

Alright. I am appointing myself as a judge. I wanna see da piccies!!!

[lostlilboy]

sounds fun. i agree thought i do like well taken pictures, i do hate the constant same shot photos everyone takes

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

hahah wow seriously, its a gallery where anyone can post photos..... if you don't like the pictures than dont look at them for christs sakes... but honestly if you are looking for professional quality photos then go to one of the pay sites that provide that...

My "complaints" if they even qualify as such about the gallery pertain to mislabeled material, not the content itself. I don't expect professional quality photos from most members in the gallery, but I expect people to post in the proper section. Pictures of women should be in the section marked "women," with pictures of "men" in the section marked "men." See my previous comment in the need for the T-boys/girls to have their own section as well, for everyone's sake. Likewise, photos in the products section should be of the products themselves, not of a person who just happens to have a particular product on them in the background. In an odd way, this pet peeve is more an issue related to posting in the proper location then the actual skills of the photographer. I hope this clarifies my position.

@Tommee: Thank you, I cringe every time I see someone buy a camera purely on megapixel count with no regard for the glass on the lens itself. I can usually tell when someone has done this, because they always post their photo as it was taken, and it always looks like it's had one too many "Sharpen" filters from Photoshop applied to it.

You're right, a lot of the pictures people take of themselves are spur of the moment, and most people aren't going to invest in good equipment just to photograph themselves. However, if someone has good equipment already on hand, there's no reason that they shouldn't use it. One thing I didn't mention was that it's probably best for people to plan to take their photographs ahead of time. If you know you're going to have the house/apartment to yourself for a few hours, or even better, a few days, that's the ideal time to take your photos. As far as difficulty goes, it really depends on the indoor shot. A well-lit room, especially in the daytime, will generally yield a better photo then, say a photo taken in a basement with one incandescent light-bulb hanging from the ceiling. A good camera, one with decent high dynamic range, will also make shooting indoors easier. You're correct though that outdoor photography is easier then indoor photography under certain conditions though.

Every person I have ever met has personal likes and dislikes.

Above a valued member quotes me and appears to disagree. This is fine. The OP made a poll. The top question under likes and dislikes is low light level under or over exposed. In my previous reply I pointed out that generally a photo is either over or under exposed, yet if there is strong back light aspects of the background can be over-exposed to the point of blowing out and yet the foreground can be in enough deep shadow it is under-exposed.

Angela, now that I know what you're referring to, (it wasn't what I was thinking of,) I can honestly say that I've never seen it, although I don't think that I'd like it if I had. This particular phenomenon sounds like a disaster.

One of my pet peeves is a photo that is not color and density corrected, especially when the foreground is overly yellow. Often this started as a white balance problem. Some consumer digital cameras do a better job of auto white balance than do others.

I have to agree with you on the lack of color/density correction. This is really simple to do and even the most basic photo editing tools are capable of it.

The reason I get peeved about an over-yellow photo is that hardly ever does this flatter people. There are many famous movie makers who insist all their interior scenes be color timed so they look as if the lighting was from candles. Yes, I am talking about Woody Allen as a prime example of bad taste in color timing.

Members feel that because they need to take their diaper photos discreetly, they must share those pictures as taken. If they have a computer able to download from a digital camera and then upload to websites, they have some form of photo editor. Folks of DD, that editor does not need to be the current Photo Shop Professional. All such photo editing software has the ability to adjust the color and density of pictures. Sometimes all you need to do is increase the brightness to remove a yellow cast and bring out shadow detail.

Bottom line is the pictures each of us take must make us happy.

You're correct, some consumer cameras auto white balance quite well while others do not. However, most consumer cameras don't manually white balance well at all in my experience, leaving the auto option as the only useful option. This is easy enough to correct though, but people just need to spend a couple more minutes using basic photo editing software to make the correction.

I'm pretty sure I know what you're referring to now, and I can't stand the "yellow tint" either when its coming from professionals who should know better. Good color timing goes a long way in making images look better then they would otherwise.

I should have included this in my previous post, and you're absolutely right Angela. There are plenty of decent free photo editing tools that will adjust the color/density of a photo just as well as Photoshop would. I was heavily tempted to add the word "Elements" when referring to Photoshop in my example, and probably should have done so. Most people here don't need what Photoshop proper offers. The GIMP is an excellent Win/Mac editing tool that does a good portion of what Photoshop does for free. Mac users need only open their photos in "Preview" or "iPhoto" to gain access to basic editing capabilities. I'm pretty sure that these programs have some form of counterpart on recent versions of Windows, and if not, there are free tools that you can download. (See my previous comments regarding the GIMP.) I actually find it more useful to kick up the contrast and then adjust the brightness as needed for optimal results, but your mileage may vary. I also agree with your final statement Angela, this is supposed to be fun and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

@Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover

You make it sound like if you have the cash your automatically a professional photographer; Like art comes from the camera not the artist.

Hand me the cheap point-an-shoot that you bought at Wal-Mart and I'll give you a photo worth hanging.

I'd say that photography comes 50% from the camera and associated and equipment, and 50% from the artist handling the camera. A good artist with a lousy camera will never reach his or her full potential, and a lousy artist can have the best camera available and will never be able to take a decent photo with it.

I can also take excellent photos on a point-an-shoot camera, and have admittedly taken several that have been used for professional purposes, but that's because I already understand the basics of both the artistic and scientific aspects of photography. I have a cheap little 3.2MP camera that was made something like seven or eight years ago, but I know its strengths as well as its limits/flaws. I know that it has a lens with high quality glass, and that its auto white balance is quite accurate. Likewise, I also know that its manual white balance is a joke, that it doesn't respond well to low-light settings, and that at the end of the day, it's a 3.2MP camera with one CMOS chip rather then three inside of it.

I've shot with several point-an-shoots, and the one I used most recently was, let me check...a Nikon CoolPix S210 that I borrowed from a friend. All right, this is actually an 8MP camera, but the glass on the lens is actually what makes it a good camera. The S210 tends to take slightly overexposed photos, but that's not a real problem, and it actually makes color/density correction easier under certain circumstances. The other thing I've noticed is that the S210 tends to over-saturate the greens in photos of flora. Photoshop's selective color tool seems to be the best method for correcting this issue and yielding a high quality photograph. I can certainly take a decent photo on this camera, but I have to go through a few more steps then I would if I was using a DSLR. I don't like the fact that I don't have a focus ring, I don't like the fact that I don't have a viewfinder, I don't like the fact that I only have one chip instead of three in the camera itself.

A photographer makes art based on his/her skills, not the equipment; they would probably be able to do it faster and easier with the right stuff, but knowledge of a good photo comes with know how and practice. Personally, I would hand a beginner photographer the Wal-mart camera everytime, only when they learn framing and composition would I ever even consider to give them an SLR.

DD/ML makes some good points later on; but dont think that by buying an expensive camera you will instantaneously have amazing pictures. Photography is both technical and artistic. You have to know your equipment and how to use it to get the right effect you are looking for AND you have to know about basic aesthetics and composition. Experimentation comes naturally from a knowledge of both.

I agree with your entire first paragraph except for the last sentence. I would always hand the beginner the professional camera from the get-go, because I want them to get used to holding a professional camera. I'm not going to make someone white balance the thing or pick the correct lens, or worry about ND filters from day one, but I am going to make them get used to using professional equipment, to relying on the viewfinder, (not the LCD,) and to working with a focus and zoom ring. After a couple of weeks, I'm going to start making the person I'm teaching white balance the camera themselves, and to begin teaching them basic lighting. Aesthetics and composition will be covered based on the work that I've already seen. If I'm working with someone who understands basic composition, I'll probably just offer minor pointers. If I'm working with someone whose not leaving enough head room in the frame, I'll likely go into far more detail regarding aesthetics and composition. After my "apprentice" has learned the basics of camera, I'll probably "make" them learn the basics of photo editing, meaning basic use of Adobe Photoshop. Once that's done, I'm likely to combine photography with photo editing, and to introduce my "apprentice" to ND filters. At this point I'm really likely to begin focusing more on the artistic rather then the technical aspect of things, (my "apprentice" should already understand the basic technical aspects of the camera and of photo editing,) and to eventually tie the two together until I've taught my "apprentice" everything that I can. It's been my experience that people who learn on consumer quality equipment tend to have more difficulty transitioning to professional equipment, and to using it properly. (i.e. Using the viewfinder instead of the LCD, manually focusing, and manually white balancing the camera to name just a few things.) Maybe this is because I learned how to shoot professional video before I learned how to shoot professional photos, and maybe it's because I was taught on professional equipment, but just as you've personally had good luck teaching people with point-an-shoots, I've personally had good luck teaching people with professional equipment from the get-go.

I agree with you're entire second paragraph, and you're right, I should have mentioned that a great camera won't improve flaws that aren't inherently technical. Most of the flaws that I see repeatedly though are of a technical nature, which is why I focused on the technical aspect of things. Obviously if someone isn't blocking their shot (beginners should look up this term,) correctly, that's an artistic problem rather then a technical one.

One final thing I forgot to mention, that's worth making a note of. If you decide to take pictures of diapers, try shooting photos of products like Huggies Pull-Ups and GoodNites before you attempt to photograph traditional baby diapers. White is probably the most difficult color to work with, (red and black are close runners up though,) and baby diapers are predominantly white. The same rule applies to predominantly white "adult briefs." If you watch a professionally produced film, and see someone wearing what appears to be a white shirt or other article of clothing, pause the film and take a close look at that article of clothing. Chances are, it's not actually white, but a very, very, very light gray that the character is wearing. This is sometimes referred to as "tech white," and this technique is used because light grays generally show up as "white" on camera, and true "white" has a tendency to be overexposed rather easily. The new GoodNites are actually very photo friendly, as iCrinkle has demonstrated.

[sarah_ab]

ohhhhh if theres a photo contest can us fat girls compete in it???

what if we had a bunch fo different ones.. like "cutest stuffed animal in a diapie" contest.. cause my samuel bear loooks adorable in a diapie!