Please don't tell me what I think it is
Jan 18, 2013 20:22:23 #
Feb 17, 2013 12:14:25 #
if you are shooting at 1.8, focus/recompose could have shifted your focus. Did you toggle focus points?
Feb 17, 2013 14:37:19 #
I can't believe this thread is still alive...
Is there any wagering going on about how long this will continue? 5 more months and it will celebrate a birthday!
Is there any wagering going on about how long this will continue? 5 more months and it will celebrate a birthday!
Feb 18, 2013 18:22:12 #
The entire left side of the face is in soft focus. Therefore in my opinion the camera to subject proximity is the problem, I noticed too that there is what appears to be a 'smudge on the point of the girls nose, Almost like the nose was touching the lens.
tainkc wrote:
Actually do tell me if this is a back focus issue.... (show quote)
Feb 22, 2013 11:30:35 #
I reckon the auto focus, focused on her right eye as it has
more light on it and it is closest to the centre of the frame
by a fair margin.
The logic decided not to use a smaller aperture
for more dof as the shutter speed would have been too long to
prevent blurring from camera movement.
The facial recognition (if any) part of the logic on this camera is not smart enough to know it would be a nicer pic if it had of focused on the closer eye.
Or, you were too close to your subject and your lens is not capable of focusing at all at a range close enough to include the eye closest to the lens. My 50mm lens wont focus much closer than .45 0f a metre/17 inches on a full frame sensor.
more light on it and it is closest to the centre of the frame
by a fair margin.
The logic decided not to use a smaller aperture
for more dof as the shutter speed would have been too long to
prevent blurring from camera movement.
The facial recognition (if any) part of the logic on this camera is not smart enough to know it would be a nicer pic if it had of focused on the closer eye.
Or, you were too close to your subject and your lens is not capable of focusing at all at a range close enough to include the eye closest to the lens. My 50mm lens wont focus much closer than .45 0f a metre/17 inches on a full frame sensor.
Feb 22, 2013 14:31:32 #
Switch to manual control and forget all the auto functions except the autofocus which you can move to where you want. Then you get what you want because you control it instead of the camera. I shoot everything in manual mode except for the focus, but with 39 focal points to choose from, I can put it where I want it.
Feb 22, 2013 14:54:11 #
Has anybody noticed that this topic was more or less beaten to death several months ago? The subject in the shot is now collecting Social Security and has retired to Florida. Tom is now a famous photographer for his Triple-I (Intentionally Imperfect Impressionist) style.
Feb 23, 2013 01:17:04 #
RMM wrote:
Has anybody noticed that this topic was more or less beaten to death several months ago? The subject in the shot is now collecting Social Security and has retired to Florida. Tom is now a famous photographer for his Triple-I (Intentionally Imperfect Impressionist) style.
Yep- 4 posts above yours!
Feb 26, 2013 07:18:46 #
tainkc wrote:
Actually do tell me if this is a back focus issue.... (show quote)
I'm not sure what distance you were from her when you took the shot, if you were stood a metre away, then you would expect a depth of field of around 1.35 cm with your aperture at 1.8 and a 50mm lens. This looks about what you have achieved, so all would appear to be well. You can download depth of field calculators for free from the web for your PC or your smart phone, I find them really helpful sometimes, especially with hyperfocal distances.
Sep 6, 2013 18:09:20 #
greg vescuso
Loc: Ozark,Mo.
tainkc wrote:
Yeah, that's what I thought.
My guess would be since you used auto focus and the right eye is in a better lighting situation then the left eye your camera focused on the right eye and with a 1.8 aperture at such a close range you wouldn't of got her whole face in focus. Adding to the focus issue the left side of her face is not lite up as much, drawing your attention to it even more.
Sorry I posted just went to the end and posted, Didn't know this was such an old post.
Nov 7, 2013 22:53:23 #
How close did you get to your subject? Your lens may have reached the limit of close focus and the far eye was it's minimum focal distance. The closer to the subject, the more critical your focal plane is. If you focused on the person's nose at minimum focus distance (around two feet), the right ear would really be out at f1.8. If you did the same thing at six feet, the depth of field would be greater, and the right side of the head would be in sharper focus. Is it better to back up and crop or stay close but lose depth of field. The call is yours, but test it out and you may like the result.
Nov 10, 2013 12:13:50 #
At f/1.8, whether at 35mm or 50mm, presuming you are fairly close to the subject, depth of field is only one or two inches. I recommend using a depth of field chart or application. I have had many blown shots that would have been good if I had only checked DOF first.
Dec 1, 2013 01:24:23 #
The nifty 50 on DSLR is equivilant to a 75. Wide open you are fortunate you got enough depth of field to keep her whole face in focus. So for a dim light grab shot, it's great.
Dec 1, 2013 12:06:26 #
tainkc wrote:
Actually do tell me if this is a back focus issue.... (show quote)
The photo, as it stands, is just a snapshot of a friend that was done on the fly. No feeling was put into it. Because, if it was anything else, I would have considered the mood I wanted of her. She has beautiful eyes and a nice smile.
To take advantage of that, I would have backed up to a 3/4 pose. I'd have her look at me with a softer smile. Because the light was coming from her right side, I would have put a white paper reflector on the left side to reflect a sparkle to the showered eye and also light up a little spot on her cheek. Same as a Rembrandt painting. Even the shadowed area needs a bit of detail.
I also would have rechecked everything before shooting, and that bit of hair over her eye would never have been in the photo.
All in all, it was a cute snapshot.
Rocky
Dec 1, 2013 12:06:26 #
tainkc wrote:
Actually do tell me if this is a back focus issue.... (show quote)
The photo, as it stands, is just a snapshot of a friend that was done on the fly. No feeling was put into it. Because, if it was anything else, I would have considered the mood I wanted of her. She has beautiful eyes and a nice smile.
To take advantage of that, I would have backed up to a 3/4 pose. I'd have her look at me with a softer smile. Because the light was coming from her right side, I would have put a white paper reflector on the left side to reflect a sparkle to the showered eye and also light up a little spot on her cheek. Same as a Rembrandt painting. Even the shadowed area needs a bit of detail.
I also would have rechecked everything before shooting, and that bit of hair over her eye would never have been in the photo.
All in all, it was a cute snapshot.
Rocky
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.