what am i doing wrong? focus/sharpness/lighting help needed...

jerseygirl,

I think you should buy and read a book on photography. It looks like there are a couple of basic things you don't understand. All the Photoshopping and flash settings in the world aren't going to help you.

For instance, the photo in your second post is plenty sharp. It is just that it isn't sharp everywhere, because the depth of field is not very deep. What makes the depth of field (or focus) deeper? This is basic photography. Either stopping down the lens, (going to a higher F-stop) going to a wider angle, or moving further away from your subject.

If you look at her eyes & lips, they are sharp. But her ears and some of her hair isn't. This is because you were shooting at pretty close range with a telephoto, and probably a wide aperture too.

Before you buy any more equipment, buy a good book that explains the basic technical facts of photography.
 
jerseygirl,

I think you should buy and read a book on photography. It looks like there are a couple of basic things you don't understand. All the Photoshopping and flash settings in the world aren't going to help you.

For instance, the photo in your second post is plenty sharp. It is just that it isn't sharp everywhere, because the depth of field is not very deep. What makes the depth of field (or focus) deeper? This is basic photography. Either stopping down the lens, (going to a higher F-stop) going to a wider angle, or moving further away from your subject.

If you look at her eyes & lips, they are sharp. But her ears and some of her hair isn't. This is because you were shooting at pretty close range with a telephoto, and probably a wide aperture too.

Before you buy any more equipment, buy a good book that explains the basic technical facts of photography.
i am well aware of the basics of photography and find your comment to be just a tad bit condescending. others are responding to my questions and the explanations are helping. this is the beginners place and i believe my initial post was not that of a blithering idiot. perhaps i'm not explaining myself clearly?

i understand depth of field and what i am shooting for is to have as much of my subject in focus while having the back blurry and lighting decent. what i do not know is how to achieve this with the equipment i have in low light conditions. from what i understand (and have read) is that great indoor digital shots are not so easy to come by. perhaps i'm misinformed?

over the last couple days i have taken hundreds of photos all at various combinations and am not achieving the desired result...
 
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending, it just seemed like you don't fully understand DoF. If you did, you would be able to pinpoint what is wrong and fix it.

I was also thinking back to another thread where you were asking what lens to buy. I think I recommended a 50mm f/1.8. I don't remember what you decided to do...

So based on what I've seen so far, here is what I would do.

1) Use a bit smaller aperture so you'll have a bit larger DoF
2) Use a bit more light so that you can still use a fast enough shutter speed that she won't move on you.
3) Move her further away from her background, which will help to blur it.
4) If you haven't already, consider the fast 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens. It seems to be exactly right for what you're trying to do.
5) With the lens you have, you might try this. Zoom to around 30-40mm. Move back a little, to expand your DoF. Set the camera to the maximum resolution. If you have to crop a bit afterwards, it shouldn't be a big deal, as you have lots of "spare" resolution to work with. Unless you're planning on making poster prints. Get her as far away from her background as possible.
6) Another idea: You might consider using a softer background, one that looks soft even when it IS in focus.

The shutter speed will be an issue, if not for you (because the camera is tripod-mounted) than for her, because she probably doesn't want to sit still.

Have you thought of doing some window light portraits? If you had more light to work with, you would have more choices of apertures & shutter speeds.
 
Do you see the squiggles around the eyes, nose, chin, and cheeks? These are JPG artifacts. You probably aren't getting many from using the "fines" setting in the camera, but when you save them again after shrinking. When saving, there should be a slider or box of some sort where you can tell it how much compression or quality to choose. Some software will use one and some will use the other. You want high quality (min 80%) and low compression (max 20%). For the web, I usually use 80/20, but for full size images for printing, you want 99/1. If you try to sharpen when you have JPG artifacts, they tend to stand out even more, as you might see in the two I did above. Some parts look better and some worse.

Here are some good tutorials for helping with contrast.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/levels.htm
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm
thank you!

i understand the loss in quality when saving for the web, but even the large original file was not as crisp as i would have liked/imagined. those contrast tutorials are helpful, what settings for sharpening did you use? did you apply the unsharp mask to the entire image or did you select certain elements?

short of photoshop manipulation, what do i need to do to achieve a similar outcome with my camera? or was that "as good as it gets" (i tend to think not)? also, the second photo i posted was that of "true color", and possibly what i would the final hues to somewhat resemble? but i don't know, like someone else said, the colors are "cool"...
 
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending, it just seemed like you don't fully understand DoF. If you did, you would be able to pinpoint what is wrong and fix it.

I was also thinking back to another thread where you were asking what lens to buy. I think I recommended a 50mm f/1.8. I don't remember what you decided to do...
i'm still experimenting, haven't made up my mind yet, wanted to take a bunch of shots at 50mm to see what the lack of zoom gives me.
So based on what I've seen so far, here is what I would do.

1) Use a bit smaller aperture so you'll have a bit larger DoF
i'm seeing that through my examples
2) Use a bit more light so that you can still use a fast enough shutter speed that she won't move on you.
if i don't have the natural light available due to logistics, do i need to adjust flash settings and/or position artifical light (yuck) somewhere?
3) Move her further away from her background, which will help to blur it.
i tried that, any more and she'll fall off the bed...
4) If you haven't already, consider the fast 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens. It seems to be exactly right for what you're trying to do.
this is what i'm leaning towards but want to make sure i'm getting the best use out of what i have...
5) With the lens you have, you might try this. Zoom to around 30-40mm. Move back a little, to expand your DoF. Set the camera to the maximum resolution. If you have to crop a bit afterwards, it shouldn't be a big deal, as you have lots of "spare" resolution to work with. Unless you're planning on making poster prints. Get her as far away from her background as possible.
6) Another idea: You might consider using a softer background, one that looks soft even when it IS in focus.
will try...
The shutter speed will be an issue, if not for you (because the camera is tripod-mounted) than for her, because she probably doesn't want to sit still.
exactly!
Have you thought of doing some window light portraits? If you had more light to work with, you would have more choices of apertures & shutter speeds.
logistically it's difficult to do in my home with the little one. i can't just tell her to go stand by the window, but have had a some luck with one room with her on the floor by a bay window...

thank you!
 
1) Use a bit smaller aperture so you'll have a bit larger DoF
4) If you haven't already, consider the fast 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens. It seems to be exactly right for what you're trying to do.

Unfortunately those two conflict. The reason the 50mm is fast is because you can use a larger aperture, which is going to give you even more shallow DOF.
 
what settings for sharpening did you use? did you apply the unsharp mask to the entire image or did you select certain elements?
I use smart sharpen on the whole thing with a radius of 2 at a strength of 15.

short of photoshop manipulation, what do i need to do to achieve a similar outcome with my camera?

I think most images are going to need at least some help. Rarely do they come out great right out of the camera. Learning to see the light goes a long way towards getting close in-camera. That just takes practice.

As far as the colors go, it's all about taste. I personally would rather have a pleasing skin tone over an accurate representation of the sweater, but everyone has different goals. All depends on what you want.
 
Do you have any examples of what you are trying to achieve? I think that might make things a little more clear...and help us to make recommendations.
 
short of photoshop manipulation, what do i need to do to achieve a similar outcome with my camera? or was that "as good as it gets" (i tend to think not)?

When I first shot digital, I had the same feelings. I'm not familiar with the Rebel, but I have Canons. I suspect your camera has similar capabilities. If so, you can program your camera to do some sharpening. Also, I think too what I was seeing is the results of a zoom lens... the first zoom lens I did much work with. The vast majority of my previous work was with fixed focal length lenses.

also, the second photo i posted was that of "true color", and possibly what i would the final hues to somewhat resemble? but i don't know, like someone else said, the colors are "cool"...

Yeah.... the colors are cooler, and thank goodness. The second version is MUCH closer to what I desire. These days, I ALWAYS shoot a card and set a custom white balance before EVERY new situation. If I have a change in lighting, I do it again. It's not much of an investment in time considering the results.

I hope this helps.

Pete
 
Do you have any examples of what you are trying to achieve? I think that might make things a little more clear...and help us to make recommendations.
basically i like to take candid people shots up close without having to stand on top of them. lately i've been shooting my little one at home indoors, where the light is not so hot. i don't know how to use my flash and prefer not to if at all possible. the below was taken in the same room as the other photos in this thread on a previous day with no flash. i like the light (could use more on the face) and the coloring is more representative of what my daughter was wearing. in this room my little one's back is facing the windows where the light comes in. the room is small, so is she, so moving things around and positioning both of us where i would ideally want to be, is logistically not possible - so how to compensate? flash? artificial light?

i am trying to understand how to make the most of what i currently have, and what other lens to buy should it be required to achieve my goals. in this controlled setting i am experimenting with various combinations and feel like my photos lack sharpness. i'm finding that either the entire subject is out of focus, or some features are and some are not. since i like candids and have a fussy infant, i guess i'm looking for some guidelines absent a "perfect combination" as i understand settings will vary. i am noticing also that the higher the ISO, the grainer my images get (which from what i understand is to be expected). is there such a thing as a "sweet spot" for portraits/close-ups for this type of lens? or is that just drivel...

i don't want to have to edit every photo i take with photoshop. do i need to experiment a bit with the white balance as another poster mentioned? thanks!

shooting info for below:

Shooting Mode - Manual
Shutter Speed - 1/80
Aperture Value - 4.0
Metering Mode - Center-weighted averaging
ISO Speed - 400
Focal Length - 35.0mm
Flash - Off

thephotoforum8.jpg
 
One thing that I think will help a lot is to not have the subject backlit. This puts the face in shadow and the light is very flat. Have the light come from behind you, not in front of you, and off to the side a bit. It looks like in the shot above, there's a window on either side of the bed. If you rotate the child 90 degrees, you'd have one of the windows lighting the front of the child's face and to the side, rather than both behind and to the side. You could also try 180 around with you at the head of the bed and the kid at the foot.
 
One thing that I think will help a lot is to not have the subject backlit. This puts the face in shadow and the light is very flat. Have the light come from behind you, not in front of you, and off to the side a bit. It looks like in the shot above, there's a window on either side of the bed. If you rotate the child 90 degrees, you'd have one of the windows lighting the front of the child's face and to the side, rather than both behind and to the side. You could also try 180 around with you at the head of the bed and the kid at the foot.
i will try that, will have to put something up for a background, because as it stands it would be too busy. this is all fine and good for this particular setting and somewhat willing participant, but how to translate what i am doing here to other settings where i candidly want to take photos i have not a clue. i guess i'll cross that bridge once i get to it...

thanks for all your help :D
 
will have to put something up for a background, because as it stands it would be too busy.
This is why I like shallow DOF. I don't mind having parts of the subject blurry, and it can do a good job of hiding a distracting background. Sometimes you still may want to put something up, like a sheet or whatever.

this is all fine and good for this particular setting and somewhat willing participant, but how to translate what i am doing here to other settings where i candidly want to take photos i have not a clue. i guess i'll cross that bridge once i get to it...

It takes patience and practice. It's amazing how many times an image will present itself once you know how to look for it.
 
Unfortunately those two conflict. The reason the 50mm is fast is because you can use a larger aperture, which is going to give you even more shallow DOF.
The bigger aperture isn't going to be a problem if she moves back a bit.

In her latest photo, jerseygirl shot at f/4. I can't tell from her comments if she likes the result. It looks good to me, but the background could be a tad more blurry. Stop down to f/2, no problem.

She's back far enough that she has a decent DoF to work with. The lens is wide open, and she still has her baby's entire face in focus. (not to mention her clothes)

It looks good to me; very sharp.
 
The bigger aperture isn't going to be a problem if she moves back a bit.

In her latest photo, jerseygirl shot at f/4. I can't tell from her comments if she likes the result. It looks good to me, but the background could be a tad more blurry. Stop down to f/2, no problem.
minus the dopey expression, i do think the light (except on the face) and focus are decent for a beginner like me, but like you said it would be nice to have it a tad more blurry.
She's back far enough that she has a decent DoF to work with. The lens is wide open, and she still has her baby's entire face in focus. (not to mention her clothes)

It looks good to me; very sharp.
now this was shot at 35mm and would not be possible with the 50 mm lens at that same position, correct? i would need to stand back more, which is good because in general i don't wish to be so close to my subjects. why i can't consistently get these types of shots is beyond me. most of them are like the previous ones i posted, where my daughter is more blurry...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top