Picture lacks sharpness, critique requested

[Dragster3]

If the OP had nailed focus this wouldn't be an issue.

I looked at the pic super zoomed, her hands have the best focus, she must be leaning back.

Not a fan of the 200mm 3/4 body shot. But hey...whatever works right?!

 

[pendennis]

With a D500 and a 70-200 lens, the effective focal length is 105-300. You may be able to get by at 70mm, but never at 200. The longer focal length compresses a bit too much. It's all right to bring the background out of focus, but you have to get her completely in focus at the 3/4 length. I'd be shooting at somewhere between f5.6 and f11. And at 1/250 you're not getting any ambient light into the field, which could be helpful. The flash is stopping any movement in the subject, so you can slow the shutter down to help.

You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot. Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other. You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side. And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use. The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face. Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.

As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter. In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women. Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses. No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.

You should also explore a higher angle with the camera. Never shoot upward. You need to get shadows from the nose, and you can't get that with a low angle.

These aren't suggestions for glamour shots. It's what every photographer needs to know to get good portraiture.

 

[Destin]

With a D500 and a 70-200 lens, the effective focal length is 105-300. You may be able to get by at 70mm, but never at 200. The longer focal length compresses a bit too much. It's all right to bring the background out of focus, but you have to get her completely in focus at the 3/4 length. I'd be shooting at somewhere between f5.6 and f11. And at 1/250 you're not getting any ambient light into the field, which could be helpful. The flash is stopping any movement in the subject, so you can slow the shutter down to help.

You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot. Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other. You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side. And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use. The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face. Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.

As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter. In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women. Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses. No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.

You should also explore a higher angle with the camera. Never shoot upward. You need to get shadows from the nose, and you can't get that with a low angle.

These aren't suggestions for glamour shots. It's what every photographer needs to know to get good portraiture.

Some of this is good info. Some of this is strong personal opinion or gross over generalization.

Many professional photographers shoot portraits with the Nikon 200 f/2 or even a 300 2.8. Saying 200mm is a bad length for portraits is flat out untrue.

The crop factor does not affect compression at all. 200mm compresses the same whether on full frame, aps-c, or even a smaller format like m4/3. Sure you get a longer apparent focal length from the crop factor, but the compression is the same regardless. You'll actually get a deeper DOF on the crop sensor because you're farther away from the subject.

Also, you absolutely can shoot upwards at subjects. Maybe not a female who you're trying to make appear femenine and pretty, but there are many times to shoot upwards at a subject.. generally if you want them to appear more powerful or aggressive.

 

[gossamer]

This one was shot at ISO100, f/4.0 1/250th at 200mm

Why 200mm, you must have been super far away?

I shoot portraits at 200mm all the time. Great portrait length. One of my favorites.

I also shoot portraits at 2.8 or 3.5 often. Great apertures for outdoor portraiture.

If the OP had nailed focus this wouldn't be an issue.

I also think there's an element of motion blur here. 1/250th really isn't that fast at 200mm. Especially when you add the crop factor.. OP should really be at 1/320th or faster. I try to shoot at least 1/500th if I'm shooting at 200mm wide open, faster if I can get it. Even if this means increasing my ISO levels to 800 or 1000, the D500 is good enough that nobody other than us will know the difference.

There was also actually no reason I couldn't have shot at 1/320th at probably ISO200, particularly since I was using the strobe. I just didn't think I needed to. Now I know.

Why 200mm, you must have been super far away? ... Not a fan of the 200mm 3/4 body shot. But hey...whatever works right?!

Yes, I was super far away. I also have a 24-70mm, but the consensus from a previous post was that the 70-200mm would blur/compress the background better and just produce a better picture. It does feel awkward being so far away from the subject. I chose the 3/4 body shot just as a starting point, and figured I could crop it as needed, but couldn't later add to the picture.

Yes, you can use a DOF calculator to figure everything before you even turn your camera on. The prospect of using a wide aperture should be done judiciously so as to avoid such a shallow DOF that part of your subject is not in focus.

In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing. I was using dofmaster and f/2.8 at a distance of 10' resulted in a DoF of just 9 inches with my 24-70.

I would have been fined with using f/5.6 but it's not always possible because it's sometimes necessary for the subject to be too close to the background for it to be blurred/compressed. For example, how would I take a picture of someone sitting or standing on a busy city street, but blur as much of the background behind them as possible? Would my 24-70mm be able to do this?

 

[pendennis]

Some of this is good info. Some of this is strong personal opinion or gross over generalization.

Many professional photographers shoot portraits with the Nikon 200 f/2 or even a 300 2.8. Saying 200mm is a bad length for portraits is flat out untrue.

The crop factor does not affect compression at all. 200mm compresses the same whether on full frame, aps-c, or even a smaller format like m4/3. Sure you get a longer apparent focal length from the crop factor, but the compression is the same regardless. You'll actually get a deeper DOF on the crop sensor because you're farther away from the subject.

Also, you absolutely can shoot upwards at subjects. Maybe not a female who you're trying to make appear femenine and pretty, but there are many times to shoot upwards at a subject.. generally if you want them to appear more powerful or aggressive.

My comments are directed at the photo the OP provided, not portraiture in general. I did portraits for over thirty years, and have done them for any number of clients, from glamour, to corporate and environmental.

Unless there's a reason to include a background (context i.e.), whether deep or shallow, it's better not to have anything in the portrait that detracts from the subject.

Yes, you can get away with a slightly lower camera angle, if you want to portray power in the subject. But, a middle-aged woman, in this instance, would be done a disservice.

There's nothing wrong with a zoom lens, but it's vital that proportions be maintained if you're doing a "standard" composition (head/shoulders, head/waist, 3/4, full). Zooms aren't a substitute for proper framing.

There are exceptions such as in the case of a woman who thinks her nose is too long. There are lighting and lens compression techniques which alleviate these problems, and it's only experience and the criticism of other photographers which allow you to grow and become proficient.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Many things have already been said. Here´s my 2c:
I don´t think the blur is a result of camera shake. The belt is sharp and so is the left neck, if it would have been camera shake, there should be no sharp areas unless they moved at the same speed the camera shakes . At close inspection the teeth seem to be somewhat moving and the flash freezes most of the motion. Maybe your model was moving her head/talking? But I don´t think that is the main problem.
Like many other photographers I like to shoot wide open - even for video. There is no rule what you have to do in photography. If you like a particular style like a blurry background it is OK to not have the complete person (or even the complete face) in focus. Anybody who thinks I´m wrong: take a look at this image and tell me it is bad. It is not shot wide open, but at f4.0 and since the girl is much smaller than your model and the crop is closer, the DOF is even much smaller than in your image. So telling you, you have to stop down to get the right area in focus is not the only option. You may miss more shots shooting wide open, but if you like the style, you will get rewarded.

The focus may be off because you chose the wrong focus point (you say you didn´t, so this is out of the way).
It may also be a focus-recompose issue when you focussed first and then recompose. I do this method all the time, and it works for me but I have read that others have problems with it. It seems to be related to how you tilt your camera.
I repeat myself way too often in this regard, but the lens may have a focus issue (in this image back focus because even the ears are sharper than the eyes). I had that more than once and some cameras have micro adjustment to correct that. This is your last reserve though.

One more thought on the background: if you have people with dark hair, don´t place them in front of a dark background unless you have a lot of light comming from the back, I have brightened the hair a bit to make up for that.

To safe images like this one, you can use the unsharp mask on the face only and blur the rest of the image a tiny bit. Here is my try:

 

[Derrel]

Looking at her face, eyes, eyelashes, lips,etc: it looks to me like a bit of camera shake on the ambient light exposure, plus a bit of flash freezing her, and a verym,very slight bit of a "ghost image" issue. Or perhaps it is a VR feedback loop, but I do not see shallow DOF issues, but rather very sliught traces of image movement/blurring. This blurring/shake/movement is most noticeable on the face and eyes and lashes. I think the f/4 at 1/250 exposure is about right, in the bad way of being 'right', to show blurring and that slight bit of flash as a very subtle "ghost image", as it is called.

If you'd used MORE flash power, and stopped down, the shot would likely be very crisp.

 

[pendennis]

One other thing - If you want sharpness in the image, it's critical that you use a tripod. There's no substitute for a solid platform for your camera. You have a subject who is standing quite still. No reason not to lock down another variable.

 

[Designer]

..it's critical that you use a tripod.

If not exactly "critical", then helpful for sure!

 

[Tomasko]

Helpful is not to shoot portraits with 200mm. That's no longer a portraiture, that's paparazzi-style... Then he wouldn't need high shutter speed and/or tripod.
In portrait you're not trying to hunt down the person, but to get rather close and capture his/her expressions etc. Get intimate..
Trying to shoot a portrait from such a long distance is ridiculous, no matter how many "professional" photographers you know who do it.

Now I noticed it's even on APS-C... That's like shooting wildlife with that sensor and focal length.

 

[Designer]

In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing. I was using dofmaster and f/2.8 at a distance of 10' resulted in a DoF of just 9 inches with my 24-70.

I would have been fined with using f/5.6 but it's not always possible because it's sometimes necessary for the subject to be too close to the background for it to be blurred/compressed. For example, how would I take a picture of someone sitting or standing on a busy city street, but blur as much of the background behind them as possible? Would my 24-70mm be able to do this?

I don't know why someone would be critical of using a calculator to help with knowing the DOF. I usually advise using a DOF calculator. I have one as a mobile app. on my phone.

The one point I attempted to make was; it seemed as if you had selected the 10' mark somewhat arbitrarily, and as a consequence were struggling with getting the right frame at that distance.

For any kind of shot where you want separation from the background, you can still use the principles of physics to blur the background, whether in the city or not. To get the answer to your question, plug in some preliminary numbers into your DOF calculator using your 24-70 lens. I'd start with the maximum zoom (70mm) and the maximum aperture (f/2.8) (and your camera, of course) to find the distances. If you are going for a walk, memorize some of the key values so you won't be fumbling with calculations out on the street. Then you will know before each shot what to expect for DOF.

 

[Designer]

Helpful is not to shoot portraits with 200mm. That's no longer a portraiture, that's paparazzi-style... Then he wouldn't need high shutter speed and/or tripod.
In a portrait you're not trying to hunt down the person, but to get rather close and capture his/her expressions etc.
Trying to shoot a portrait from such a long distance is ridiculous, no matter how many "professional" photographers you know who do it.

Wrong!

And not helpful.

 

[Tomasko]

That's your opinion. If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.
Btw, don't forget you need their release form even if you shoot them from behind the trees @Designer .

 

[Designer]

In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing.

I found that post. It was posted by Ysarex (post #2) in this thread: Depth of field calcuations with a D500 and 24-70mm

Taken in context, I believe he was trying to get you to loosen up a bit. His own many years of practical experience has educated him in the everyday settings so he doesn't need to consult a table to know the DOF.

 

[Braineack]

Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!

200mm is NOT extreme for portraits. the compression is flattering for both the face and background.

her hands are not sharp.