SheenaghGebhard wrote:
I'm sorry to ask such a dumb question, but after trawling through many questions and answers regarding, depth of field, apeture, ISO settings etc., I don't even know where you find the information that tells you the settings your photo was taken on in order to address the problem in the image! The attached photo has the bubbles in focus but the child is blurred. I think this is because my DOF is too short? Can someone tell me where I can find the info on the picture so I could maybe begin to figure out how I could have taken them both in focus? I am in the process of organising some tutoring so the technical jargon of F stops, ISO and apeture do not remain what currently might as well be "Swahili"
I'm sorry to ask such a dumb question, but after t... (
show quote)
To: SheenaghGebhard- new user
From rts2568
Hi SheenaghGebhard,
Yes, Your question strives after the word or phrase EXIF. You should have received a CD/DVD with your camera if you bought new and once loaded you will be able to open your photo and be provided with the information you seek.
Since however, I read you have found out anyway. Some of these settings will be discussed herein.
One useful piece of, to-do-research:
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/depthfield-preview-button.shtmlI have to contradict most of the other offerings here because I dont agree that this question relates to DOF (Depth Of Field), though DOF needs to be understood for a shot like this where a 52 mm focal length is set. There is no exif data with your photo so I cant know for sure whether you are using a 52mm focal length on a mid range zoom lens, or a telephoto zoom on your APS-C sensored 7D, which in turn would put you approximately 6feet (2 meters) from your daughter & her bubbles. Im guessing, but Im guessing again that you were using this zoom lens hand held? more on this in a minute. I must suspect also, that as you are a newbie the lens used will more likely be a kit lens? The question of which focal length range is impossible to tell with the limited information supplied, though this also should be in your EXIF information, especially if your lens was/is a Canon make, not an independent like a Tamron or other make, though their information may be shown also, depending on the model.
Why this other information would have been useful is because I dont believe you had a DOF problem here, at least not in total, though you need to become familiar with DOF so that you dont have lost depth in future shots of your daughter or other members of your family or friends/pets.
Now your actual question
what would you suggest would capture the best images
? Undoubtedly, aperture priority! This because one of the problems you face with shots like this is indeed DOF short-falls, so F8 or F11 or even F16 would be good options, while ensuring that the speed is sufficient to eliminate camera shake if the lighting was less.
Now I have to insert a short piece of advice. Your quote which Ive highlighted in the above sentence, youve changed, it doesnt exist anymore as I now re-check my text. If you have other questions, please, to keep yourself up to date with what you are asking, make a new entry with the new question.
Now back to the original question. The problem is, I believe, loss of sharpness (camera shake)!
There will be any number of detractors here-follows, but what appears to have been missed is that all of the bubbles, all, including the child are in fact out of focus or un-sharp. I havent seen in the multiplicity of replies to your question, mentioning that the bubbles at the front and at the back of the child are pretty much, equally unclear, as is the child in the middle. Yes, the background also but that isnt a worry here, just doesnt help to asses a focus point. Of course this will no doubt puzzle you more as you have mentioned that you thought the bubbles are all in focus. If this were the case, then the child would have to also be in focus. If you examine this photo closely, that you, and other readers, will come to understand what I am saying.
A close examination of this shot reveals what is suspiciously like movement. OK, everyone is going to jump down my throat and tell me, as if I hadnt picked up on your mentioning that this shot was taken @ 1/1250th second. So I say, so what!
Normally a shutter speed of this rating would be more than enough to stop just about anything but in the circumstances of which you have included with your question and subsequent information, I suggest it isnt anywhere near fast enough. Now a 1/4000th sec would be closer, or if it had been taken while the camera was on a tripod. The reasons for this are:
1/ the focal length of 52 mm which has forced you to come in close and therefore also
2/ the close proximity which increases the chance of shake/motion problems. Coming in close here could be viewed as parallel to doing close up work.
3/ the childs movement exceptionally emphasized at this close distance under any circumstances.
4/ your movement, combined with hand held camera shake etc. Again this movement increases camera shake at this distance especially, at this relatively close distance.
Im strongly suggesting here that no matter what aperture you set in advance to ensure sufficient DOF, if you took the same photo again in the same lighting circumstances (seemingly near perfect), that the same blur(?) will occur.
There are two other possible causes.
A/ The quality of the lens you used.
A1/ the optics are one thing, this especially if a zoom a single focal length lens is more likely to give you a better resolution depending on the lens involved of course.
A2/ the aperture of F6.3 that you were given by the automatic systems assessment, may not be the lens best optical resolution. You would need to carefully take some test pictures to clear that one up.
These are things that you will have to evaluate later on you have enough to concentrate on first and although DOF is close to the front of the queue, it isnt your priority at this point in your learning to properly use your camera; its how to competently handle your camera in a manner that will greatly reduce any chance of future blur problems; in all shooting conditions or with any subjects.
Firstly, read, re-read your instruction book because Im guessing that holding your camera properly, especially if using a tele or tele-zoom, will be discussed in some sort of useful way, then go from there in both practice and more reading to form immoveable concepts in your brain.
Read up elsewhere on site, on the web or in library books perhaps, concentrating in your searches, on avoiding camera shake, holding your camera correctly and etc. Take note when using your cameras strap is mentioned, to wrap your wrist with it, or have it firmly pulled into the back of your neck etc most important when photographing subjects like this but generally also.
Tripods will of course be mentioned, though not necessarily applicable here. There will be various types, shapes and sizes of mono pods mentioned also and you may like to consider these seriously as one or the other will serve you well, even with this sort of capture. No way to describe the use of one or other of the monopod options in this entry, too complex to write about, though if you know someone who is a very serious, or professional photographer, who use mono pods, just might (no guarantee here either) be able to help with a hands on demo.
If you were confused at the beginning, then you dont need to confirm that your mind will be in more turmoil now. Sleep well on this contradiction to just about every other entry; Im not one to readily join in with mass hysteria games. However, I havent done this to mislead and I suggest you dont dismiss camera shake too lightly, even though most of the other offerings herein might be a persuasion to do so.
I must add though, this photo, blurred or not is just great and will be a treasure of yours for many years to come. Just an aside, when out in the sunshine like illustrated in this photo, your built in flash would come in handy when the prime light source is where it is, though specifically to this photo of bubbles, it would need to be less than if there were no bubbles, but this is again, another issue and will come in time if you follow this interest; and much greater understanding will arrive if you experiment, as you will come to terms with your cameras bits and pieces in time.
I do hope you can understand this change of tack I offer and that the above gives a good start to head you in the right direction for constructive learning.
rts2568