3200, Newbie, new 50mm 1.8g Lens. Great light, Cute kid (mine), ALL my pics suck!

[Midnight78]

Hi. I am a newbie with a 3200. I only had the kit lens and decided to get a Nikkor 50mm 1.8g lens. I am interested in family photography, for my own very young children, with thoughts down the road of maybe doing family photography (like 10 years down the road).

I brought my camera and new lens to my 12 month old's gymboree class which has lots of beautiful natural light. I was so excited. Had my nanny wrangle my kid so I could focus on my camera. All my pictures sucked. In many, only 1 eye was in focus if she was tilting her head. The photos were dark too, despite the natural light and my playing around with my ISO. I played around with the aperture, 1.8-4. I think I was too close? Optimal distance?

Any tips on how to use this lens with my camera for shooting kids would be great. I am hiring our family photographer to do a mentoring session in late February/early March. I am in a small class but the instructor does mostly landscape, real estate, city stuff, etc. I've learned alot about my camera, but not so much about what I want to do.

THANK YOU!!

 

[robbins.photo]

Greetings Midnight78.

Ok, first, deep breath. When we first get started we all run into the same thing. You've got a very capable camera that can take really great photos, you just need a bit of advice in how to get the kinds of pictures you want and your all set. So nothing to worry about there, just a couple of little hurdles to clear and you'll be off and running in no time I'm sure.

Probably the best way to start would be to have you post an image so we can look at it and address specific issues. It helps a lot to know what settings were used, they will be stored in the photo in what is called EXIF data.

 

[yioties]

Post a couple images here but you do know you can use your flash? I absolutely love my 50mm 1.8g and my images are tack sharp!

 

[Braineack]

sounds like you didnt have all the light you thought you did...

post examples here so we can look at the camera settings and suggest ways to improve.

 

[PaulWog]

I almost always shoot in aperture priority mode. Just set your aperture, set your ISO, and let your camera figure out your shutter speed. If the shutter speed is below 1/60 with a 50mm 1.8G on a DX sensor, you'll likely want it higher. If it's below 1/80 and you're taking shots of something that's moving, you'll want the shutter speed higher as well. For sharp photos, probably 1/120th of a second or higher is really a safe shutter speed to have so long as your hand is steady.

At f1.8, focus can be finnicky. It takes some practicing, and the 50mm 1.8G (for me) isn't always 100% accurate. It sometimes doesn't get the focus bang on. It's not an inaccurate lens... in fact, it's fairly consistent, but I sort of can figure out when the lens hasn't quite focused properly.

If I'm taking shots of a moving target, and I want a fast aperture, I usually pick f2.8. That offers a thin enough depth of field to get nice bokeh, but also gives a bit more leeway than f1.8. I love shooting at f1.8 though... you'll likely have no problems with it... it just takes a ton of practice knowing what to focus on to get the focus at the right spot, figuring out what makes the focus stop early or go too far forward, etc (ex. if you take a shot of an eye but you have a bit of the nose where you're focusing, it might average things out a little bit and not focus perfectly on the eye).

If you're taking shots of a stationary target, live view is always more consistent. If I want to take a shot of scenery or something like that, I very often opt to go with liveview. I wouldn't shoot people with liveview normally though.

 

[weepete]

I don't need any images in this case it's pretty simple.

Your apeture is too small and you are getting dof issues. Have a look at a depth of field table and then control your distance to subject and your apature better.

F1.8 is great if you really need it but don't use it wide open all the time. Probbably what you really need is to learn to use a flash effectctivley.

 

[manaheim]

Distance also affects DOF. The closer you get the less things are in focus. The reverse is also true. So you may have hit a twofer.

Photography is a steep learning curve. You can learn a lot from the folks here. Just keep working at it, post your results, and ask questions.

 

[Midnight78]

Hi...heading to my photography class and will post pictures this evening, ugh...I'm embarrassed but it is the only way I will learn.

 

[Braineack]

... but it is the only way I will learn.

correct.


I shoot manual more than anything because I don't like how the camera chooses things. But the lighting is typically constant, and I use flashes in low-light. Otherwise, if I'm using the telephoto I'll use "S" mode If anything. But I've started shying away from it and especially when I start using a f/2.8 200mm.

Because if I'm using fast glass and "S" mode, the camera will almost always drop to the widest f-stop (at least based on whatever ISO you arbitrarily picked). And since aperture isn't something that just be set arbitrarily, I don't like that. What if I want to shoot at 1/125 on an 85mm, but then I want the entire scene in focus? So I'd want maybe f/11, and unless you picked your ISO correctly, the camera wont know that's what you want.

But I hardly use A myself. I could think maybe using it outdoors if I was being creative with the DOF, but otherwise, I'm more concerned with the shutter speed. If I need to close the aperture, and use A mode, then the shutter speed might drop well below a speed I'll be able to use. Example: Shooting 200mm at f/8 on a overcast day. I wouldn't want to drop below 1/200, and I'm sure the camera would choose 1/60 or whatever the min is set to, and then'd you just have to tune your ISO until you can hit 1/200, so might as well shoot manual, adjust to 1/200 and f/8 and let the camera worry about iso based on your metering. Seems like a faster, more logical approach to me.

P makes little sense to me. If anything the ISO is the only thing I want the camera to pick for me based on my meter mode and other settings. this is like hitting the Google "I am feeling lucky" button. Might as well shoot auto.

And because I use auto-iso often, using manual mode works for changing lighting conditions where the iso can go up/down based on my settings/metering and still get a good exposure.

I tend to have a goal of well exposed, sharp images. So using the auto modes, tends to lead to widest aperture and slowest shutter, that's counter-intuitive to my goals. But when I pick an aperture, it's for a reason; get what I want you to focus in focus--completely, partially, barely. And when I pick a shutter speeds, it's for a reason; to be able to freeze whatever it is I need to freeze--be it my shaky hands, or a moving object, or overcoming focal lengths. And when I pick an ISO it's for a reason; the lowest ISO I can achieve to properly exposure my image--using the settings I picked.

So if my rambling make any sense, this is why I tend to be in "M" mode more often than not. Using the dual thumb-wheels is easy enough to set the shutter and aperture in split-seconds, using auto-iso in some situations always the camera to exposure properly to your settings, and that way you wont accidentally shoot a group of people but only the front row of them is in focus cause the camera chose 3.2 instead of the 5.6 you needed or something.

Last year I might have only shot in P or A, and I had plenty of shots that were "missed" because of the automatic camera settings picked. And since you have to set at least 2 settings in S, A, and M, might as well hand pick the two most important ones: S and A.

YMMV.

 

[KmH]

Your apeture is too small and you are getting dof issues.

I would say the lens aperture was to big/wide, and the DoF was to shallow.
Many DSLRs have a DoF preview button/function that stops the lens down to the lens aperture that is set so the DoF can be seen in the camera viewfinder before the shutter is released.

f/1.8 and f/4 are bigger numbers than f/8 is, because the f/number is a fraction.

Lots of photographers new to doing photography have difficulty with focus when using 'fast' wide angle and normal focal length prime lenses.
DoF is controlled by both the lens aperture and the point-of-focus PoF distance.
DoF seems to be the most difficult fundamental photography concept new photographers need to understand.
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

If you want Comments & Critique tips on the photos post them in the People Photography forum in this section of TPF's forums - Photo Galleries - Photos submitted by members for general display or critique

 

[TheLost]

As an example... D3200 w/50mm @ f/1.8.. If your subject is 6 feet away from the camera you only have 3.6 inches of 'focus'.

 

[Midnight78]

Here are pics. Unedited. The top two are at my home and the bottom two are at my kid's class. Would love any feedback.

 

[scotts2014se]

Here's my D3200 50mm set at f/1.8, the first shot is about 1.5ft away and you can see that the nose is the only thing in focus. The second one I was about 4 feet away and you can see that the stuffed animal is more in focus with the settings the same. For better focus close up you would want to increase the aperature.




I took these to demonstrate the DOF. I didn't shoot for exposure.

 

[scotts2014se]

Here is another experiment I did showing how depth of field changes as the aperature is closed along with the amount of light captured as it closes.
I shot this on a tripod about 2ft away bumped up the aperature 3 f stops higher with each exposure starting with f/1.8. You can see how as the aperature closes, more of the pieces come into focus but less light is captured. I did 2 sets, one without the flash and the other with. I am showing the set with the flash. You can still see how the light is effected and the DOF. The set without the flash eventually became so dark with the same settings that you couldnt see it.

 

[Braineack]

Here are pics. Unedited. The top two are at my home and the bottom two are at my kid's class. Would love any feedback.

Notice how #1 looks much better than 2-3-4? (besides the focusing issue)

You have the subject being lit by the window. Large windows make GREAT light sources. If it wasn't for the distracting chair, too narrow DOF, and missed focus, this could have been a great shot.

As for the rest, notice how the light source is behind the subject? Your camera is doing the best it can given the scenario you are giving it.

For one, I'm assuming you're using matrix metering mode. This means the camera is looking at the entire scene and trying to expose it so the entire image looks 18% gray. Since there's huge bright light sources behind the subject, it's bascially taking that into account, averaging out the dark subject in the way of the light, and giving you that result.

The only way these would have resulted better for you is if you were using spot/center weighted metering and you exposed for the face. This means the background would have been completely blown out white as the camera would have tried to keep the shutter speed open longer or increase the ISO significantly so that only the area you were metering was 18% gray.

Otherwise, shots 2-3-4 really needed a fill flash.

Also, just because you have have an f/1.8 lens, doesn't mean you should always shoot in it. The DOF is extremely limited the closer you get to subject and you really want to get at least both eyes in focus--unless you're purposely using DOF to only draw focus to the point in focus.


I shot this is a very similar scenario:


Lost Balloon by The Braineack, on Flickr

The window was behind the subject, but I used a flash to bounce off the wall behind me and back onto her to fill in her face. Problem was, I also picked too wide of an aperture and her eyes are out of focus. I actually shot this at f/2.8 (using a 85mm 1.8G) but I probably needed f/3.2-4. Now your focus is really on her lips and nasty drool because that's the main thing you see in focus. Also the bow on her shirt is inside the DOF so you focus more on that as well.


Beyond all this, it doesn't hurt to back-up or zoom out. I used to crop in faces very heavily and see the same results, but you're missing so much of the scene when you do that, and you have nothing to tie it all together.

For example:


Sad Julia by The Braineack, on Flickr

I shot this of my niece who put on a pouty face when my wife was talking to her. It was cute. But I was too close and I think the shot was really missed. Sure I captured a good expression on her face, and it's still cute, but had I zoomed out and captured more of my wife's head so you could see the interaction, I think it would have been more successful.

So, since coming here, I have really tried shooting people further away and cropping in where necessary. This has resulted in more shots like this:


Julia enjoying her new toy by The Braineack, on Flickr

Now the focus isn't just about her smile, but you can see what she's smiling about--Christmas presents!

In all four of your shots you posted, there's nothing tying the subject to the scene and creating any sort of memory/story. In ten years when you look back at your shots, will you even remember when/where they were taken? or even why? In the last I posted, I'll never forget the look of joy on my niece's face after receiving new christmas presents. I might forget that the 2nd shot was as I described. And I'll most likely forget the first I posted was a girl who just left go of her balloon and was watching it climb to the ceiling, but I'll surely forgot it was taking at a birthday party or where it was taking; there's just nothing bringing it all together.