Picture lacks sharpness, critique requested

[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.

@Dragster3 I'm curious which part of this you disagree with.

 

[Dragster3]

Her hands show most detail and 200mm is extreme to "me". You can use what u want, but to me 200mm for the situation is extreme. The subject is a human...not a squirrel that's gonna run away. Lol

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Dragster3]

We should start a thread...guess that focal length, same pic different focal length, then crop so they all look the same. See who fools who.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

@Dragster3 Her hands may show the most detail, only because they have the most detail -- but they are still blurred. You can't even see the facets on her ring, her watchface is mush. To me it looks like the focal plane is right at her neck. Nothing in the image is sharp.

The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.

We should start a thread...guess that focal length, same pic different focal length, then crop so they all look the same. See who fools who.

I know who would lose already.

 

[Dragster3]

@Dragster3 Her hands may show the most detail, only because they have the most detail -- but they are still blurred. You can't even see the facets on her ring, her watchface is mush. To me it looks like the focal plane is right at her neck. Nothing in the image is sharp.

The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.

We should start a thread...guess that focal length, same pic different focal length, then crop so they all look the same. See who fools who.

I know who would lose already.

Relax @Braineack , I'm not the only one who "thinks" 200mm is extreme. Actually it's 300mm if we are gonna be technical about it. As far as your awesomeness that has built in mm detection and natural born winner... IDK. I am no "pro" by any means. Just my opinion. BTW I use the disagree button a lot. That's why it's there. [emoji6]

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Tomasko]

The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.

Or maybe it shows a strong preference of contact with the subject, what should be the most important thing when taking pictures of living human beings. OP had to stay probably about 8-9 metres (9.73yd) from the subject, which I find silly, but I suppose that's just me.

@Dragster3 , oh, so I'm not the only one. Guess we're both weird (and probably thousands other photographers who don't do portraits from 10 metres away).

 

[Dragster3]

Thank you @Tomasko

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.

Or maybe it shows a strong preference of contact with the subject, what should be the most important thing when taking pictures of living human beings. OP had to stay probably about 8-9 metres (9.73yd) from the subject, which I find silly, but I suppose that's just me.

@Dragster3 , oh, so I'm not the only one. Guess we're both weird (and probably thousands other photographers who don't do portraits from 10 metres away).

I get that point, but I wouldn't care if I had to use walkie talkies or a bullhorn to direct the subject so long as the resulting shot was worth it...

I'm going to shoot at whatever focal length makes sense for the picture I'm trying to achieve.

this is a nice little video that shows the vast difference in resulting image depending on the focal length and distance to subject:



imho, the further he was shooting the better. At the end when he's around 135mm with his 70-200 -- he's still quite close to the subject, what like 10' away?

 

[Tomasko]

Wait, there's a difference between 135mm and 200mm (or even 300mm as someone mentioned that is supposedly still just fine). As it's a DX sensor, it's 300 and 450mm FF equivalent. We usually take pictures of wildlife with those focal lengths. Also Jared is shooting a FF body or not? Not sure which one he used in this video.

Yep, D3s...

I don't think anyone said it's not possible to take a portrait with 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but to use 200/300 focal lengths on a DX for a portraiture work is still in my opinion just silly.

 

[Dragster3]

@Braineack that is a full frame camera, he would have to have zoomed to 300mm to prove your point. So this video actually supports what I am saying ....Thanks! I knew you would come around!

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

You're still focusing (no pun intended) on the wrong point.

again, I understand your point about being far away from the subject, and again, I don't care how far back i need to stand if the resulting image requires i stand a football field away. You almost need to shoot that long on a DX to achieve the BG compression/bokeh a FX sensor can do at a much closer subject distance.

 

[Dragster3]

With good glass I can achieve that look with 85mm and a crop. Sorry but 200mm on DX is not ideal for a 3/4 shot. Again this is my opinion. Obviously it didn't work out for the OP, he's looking to get a sharper image with a DX lens not a FX. Either way...loving this post!

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Braineack]

OP's sharpness issue was all poor technique.

OP captured two exposures in the shot -- one from the underexposed ambient which was blurred mainly due to shooting technique. The other from the flash, but it was't enough fill based on the camera settings to register as a sharp crisp image on the sensor.

If stabilization was being kept on during the shot--it probably exaggerated the issue.

I've run into this exact same issue before when first starting shooting portraits. This was shot using the 85mm 1.8G, you can see I captured two images. One sharp crisp image from the flash exposure, and another underlying blurred one from having poor technique using 1/80sec.

 

[gossamer]

I get that point, but I wouldn't care if I had to use walkie talkies or a bullhorn to direct the subject so long as the resulting shot was worth it...

I agree with this, but it also means that I can never use a hotshoe flash.

With good glass I can achieve that look with 85mm and a crop. Sorry but 200mm on DX is not ideal for a 3/4 shot. Again this is my opinion. Obviously it didn't work out for the OP, he's looking to get a sharper image with a DX lens not a FX. Either way...loving this post!

Glad you're loving it - it's sure a help to me How much better is the 85mm prime than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at 85mm? Is the glass that much better? Is it inherently designed differently?

I've run into this exact same issue before when first starting shooting portraits. This was shot using the 85mm 1.8G, you can see I captured two images. One sharp crisp image from the flash exposure, and another underlying blurred one from having poor technique using 1/80sec.

Very interesting. I see that. How does that happen? Is the goal to always overpower the sun when using strobes and shooting portraits outdoors? The problem I've had with doing that in the past was that the picture then was just overexposed.

Would someone help me to summarize the improvements I should make to my portrait photography to avoid this issue in the future?

- Turn off VR when using flash
- Don't use AF55 point group for portraits.
- Use a tripod
- Change to AF-S and single point. Should I start with that point being the area closest to me, such as her nose?

 

[Designer]

I agree with this, but it also means that I can never use a hotshoe flash.

Oh, sure you can! Don't be silly. You need to get that flash off the camera anyway, so put it closer to your subject, and use a modifier to diffuse the light. Of course, you will need a way to trigger the speedlight, but there are ways to do that.

Would someone help me to summarize the improvements I should make to my portrait photography to avoid this issue in the future?

- Turn off VR when using flash
- Don't use AF55 point group for portraits.
- Use a tripod
- Change to AF-S and single point. Should I start with that point being the area closest to me, such as her nose?

I think it was turn off VR when your camera is mounted on a tripod, which it should be anyway, but sure, turn it off when using flash, also.

#2 and #4 are the same issue. No, not her nose; her eyes, or one eye anyway, usually the closest, but right on her eye is where you want the focus area. Considering that the current fad is to shoot with a very shallow DOF, you should at least try to get the eyes in focus, even if the nose is not. Actually, I much prefer getting the entire head in focus, including chin, forehead, ears, hair, neck, and while I'm at it, her shoulders, bodice, arms, necklace, and anything that is part of the portrait. I figure out the DOF, trying to get at least two feet to be safe, so that's one foot behind and one foot in front of the focal plane. I want all the person to be in acceptable focus.

#3 I always use a tripod when trying to make a descent portrait. I then have a choice of how to release the shutter, and I usually use a cable release, although I've used other methods depending on my exact needs.