Another of my wife.

[Evertking]

View attachment 146645
I fixed my focus problem!

 

[tirediron]

Those eyes couldn't be any better; that said, I think just a bit more DoF wouldn't have gone amiss, but that's personal taste.

 

[Evertking]

Those eyes couldn't be any better; that said, I think just a bit more DoF wouldn't have gone amiss, but that's personal taste.

Hey, I'm about home and will post up some pics, if you don't mind could you take a look at them and tell me if I adjusted this right? Seems like a lot to me. +15 but then again, this was my first time doing this.

 

[Evertking]

Here are two
1/320
3.5
Iso 320
Last on doesn't seem as sharp as the first one. Did I go to far on the adjustment?
I tried the dot tune method and I got a green dot.. focus confirmation Everytime but when I took the camera out back and just took pictures at a yard stick it was off and so I adjusted. And when me and my wife are at the park with the kids today we took these and then I adjusted till she was in focus for me but I'm about half blind and have glasses, so... Lol

 

[Derrel]

Those eyes couldn't be any better; that said, I think just a bit more DoF wouldn't have gone amiss, but that's personal taste.

I would echo tirediron on that sentiment, that a slight bit more depth of field would not have gone amiss on this lovely lady's portrait. I just want to see the 'realness' that such a lens can create when stopped down a bit, and shot from fairly close-up.

 

[Evertking]

Those eyes couldn't be any better; that said, I think just a bit more DoF wouldn't have gone amiss, but that's personal taste.

I would echo tirediron on that sentiment, that a slight bit more depth of field would not have gone amiss on this lovely lady's portrait. I just want to see the 'realness' that such a lens can create when stopped down a bit, and shot from fairly close-up.

Some where around 5.6? There was a walking trail there and i wanted to use as a leading line and now I see if I would have had more dof that would have helped bring it into the picture.

 

[Derrel]

Can I post a shot with the camera-right eye sharpened in post software? Yeah, f/5.6 would likely have pulled the far eye into crisp focus, yet still blown out the backdrop quite nicely at such a close camera-to-subject distance.

 

[Evertking]

Can I post a shot with the camera-right eye sharpened in post software? Yeah, f/5.6 would likely have pulled the far eye into crisp focus, yet still blown out the backdrop quite nicely at such a close camera-to-subject distance.

Yeah, please.. go for it. I can see now that I'm going to have to read up on DOF cause I was sure I had enough to get her whole head in focus.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a quick spotting of the original, and some Lightroom sharpening applied to the camera-right eye and forehead and that side of the face...just to show the difference that more sharpness can make. Speaking of getting whole head in focus; what about the necklace and her upper chest areas? Those things also could contribute to the overall look and feel of the shot. One needs to remember that with the subject this close, even f/8 or f/9 or f/10 or f/11 can be needed to get the **whole** head into focus.

There was not enough sharpness in the original large .JPEG to apply much more software sharpening than I did, but as we can see...with more that is sharp, her beauty comes through better! We can literally SEE more of her fae and eyes when more is in-focus.

 

[Evertking]

Wow.. i see what your saying. I need to forget all the YouTube videos i have watch and not be afraid of more DOF. I'm going to read up on DOF and play around with the calculator and get back out there tomorrow. Thanks for your help.

 

[Evertking]

Now I just have to figure out if I ever had a focus problem.