gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

If shutter speed is not an issue, use a tripod with ISO 100 and aperture at the sweet spot. Let the shutter do what it needs to do. Vary the aperture for differing needs.

PhotosBySteve

I would suspect, that since your camera was in aperture priority it probably allowed your shutter time value to go way to long. Taking pictures of people indoors, I try to never let my shutter go below 1/125th. Absolute minimum is 1/60th, only if absolutely necessary. When shooting wide open, a perfect focus on the closest eye is a necessity. I myself shot primarily in manual mode under those conditions. I would suggest trying shutter priority with ISO in auto, if you are not confidante with manual mode. The best way to get good indoor shots is with of camera flash, if allowed.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I shoot the same way often under in home window light. However with children it can be difficult unless they're old enough to understand about being still while you shoot. Any movement, as you're away, will cause blur and an out of focus look. This light certainly makes for very nice color and beautiful shots and I really enjoy my results. Subject stillness is the entire key to making these shots really work. Good luck.

ghill42 Loc: Colorado

The words Wide open vs sweet spot distracted me. What were you asking?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It's not porn, it's photography.

Wide open = maximum lens aperture = maximum light

Sweet spot = highest resolution, most well-corrected aperture you can use on a particular lens.

Most lenses snap into focus easiest at maximum aperture. Most lenses are sharpest, with fewest chromatic aberrations and other issues, about two or three stops down from maximum aperture.

Allen McDonald Loc: Atlanta, GA

What shutter speeds were you getting shooting at ISO 800? I would much rather have some noise than a blurry image due to motion. I also shoot Fuji cameras and lenses and when shooting indoors or at night I'm often using ISOs of 1600, 3200, or even 6400 with good results. When shooting candid shots of people I prefer to keep the shutter speed at 1/125 or higher. One characteristic of Fuji cameras IMO (and many others) is that the noise at higher ISOs is not always objectionable and often times gives the image a more film-like, artistic look. This is highly subjective of course. A well composed shot with interesting subject matter but with a bit of noise, grain, or even softness trumps a technically perfect but uninspired shot every time!

barryg

The 35 f2 is very sharp wide open. If there is a sharpness problem I would suggest that maybe you were not focused on the eye. DOF at f2 and close distance is very shallow.

therwol Loc: USA

Shooting with a lens wide open is an art that has to be mastered. Most lenses are a bit soft wide open and at the next aperture, but what destroys the pictures is often the shallow depth of field. Up close, a face may not be entirely in focus (Eyes in focus, tip of the nose and ears out of focus.) Group shots of people may have some people in focus and others out of focus. I generally don't bother with it anymore. It was a necessity to deal with it in the film days, but now you can crank up the ISO and use a smaller aperture. Some of the better DSLRs can take pictures at ISO 3200-6400 with just a bit of noise that doesn't matter so long as you're not making huge enlargements.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Have I been mistaken all along? I thought that lenses DID focus at their maximum aperture and then closed down to the selected aperture. For instance, I thought that was the advantage of fast lenses like the f2.8's or faster. While the selected aperture might be f4 or even f8, the lens would focus at f2.8 (or faster) before closing down when the shutter released.

BTW...Very informative thread. I'll make a note of Piccure+ and Topaz Detail. Always good to hear from kymarto.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

When we had little children, I was using Kodachrome 25, but got by indoors via bouncing flash off the ceiling. A couple of Christmases ago, a niece was here with her children; her husband teaches photography {high school}, but had never seen that "trick".

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Not mistaken, so long as you're talking about most cameras and lenses made since the late 1950s, and NOT talking about lens adapters that require manual aperture control. (Those lens adapters are VERY popular with video cinematographers, because they WANT step-less manual aperture control for fade-in, fade-out effects. They let you use dSLR/SLR full frame glass on APS-C and Micro 4/3 bodies used to record video.) I spend a lot of time doing video, where manual focus is the norm, not the exception, and where adapters do come into play.

There is an exception for extremely wide aperture lenses (f/0.95 to f/1.2 or so). It is very difficult for AF to achieve repeatably accurate focus with such lenses on certain cameras. Couple that with the need for the focus calibration on dSLRs and SLRs to be perfect when you have such shallow depth of field, and you have a cluster of opportunities for failure.

The primary advantage of f/2.8 and faster lenses is their usefulness with cross-type focus points. At f/4, cross type focus points are no better than regular focus points. So the AF system can "hunt" and miss focus quite easily. At least, that was true on all the Canons I used to use. I couldn't stand the 24-120mm f/4 L lens, because it was too slow to focus in low light.

JohnMD Loc: Colorado

True.

But the point I was trying to make is that the camera doesn't focus on what you want it to focus on . . . it focuses on whatever the focus point is on.

However, when we are talking about shooting wide open, the distance between the tip of the nose and the eye socket could be enough to make the shot look out of focus.

Which is why I advised to manually focus.

While the cameras today are pretty smart . . . they aren't as smart as us!

Why not make focusing as much of the process of taking a photo as determining f/stops and shutter speeds?