Getting sharper focus on the face?

[tirediron]

With respect to the OP, pretty simple. DoF in this case was 4-5". The shirt is in sharp focus, the face is further away, ergo....

 

[Tomasko]

With respect to the OP, pretty simple. DoF in this case was 4-5". The shirt is in sharp focus, the face is further away, ergo....

Sure, but OP claims she had AF point on subject's eye and mirrorless usually don't tend to front/back focus for obvious reasons...

 

[Derrel]

The jersey looks sharp, but it is all low-frequency detail, with crisp, clearly delineated edges on the decals/letters/numerals. I can see the eyelashes are rendered individually, but they are not well-defined, so there was good focus at the eye distance, but not much definition of the detail, so my feeling is that mostly, the ISO 5,000 is what hurt this shot the most. The shirt looks sharp because it relies on color-contrast, not fine details, but the skin and hair and eyes lack finely-rendered high-frequency details, so those things appear a bit soft.

Eye detection has become astoundingly good...there's a computer and software underlying and supporting the focusing system in modern cameras; switching various camera operating system features to OFF is at times, counter-productive, and slows us down. There's a rather pervasive on-line photo forum bias against using all of the technology modern cameras offer, with the underlying premise being that a human can perform complex,precise,critical functions faster and better than a dedicated computer can. Sometimes it makes sense to go it by hand-and-eye, while at other times, the computer, the software, and the hardware can out-perform the human.

 

[SquarePeg]

Many thanks to all for your thoughts on this. Really appreciate you guys taking the time to add details and suggestions for improvement. I’m thinking it’s a combination of that one setting being off and too high ISO and maybe poor technique on my part. Always something new to work on or relearn.

Since Princess is grounded today she’ll be around for me to try again. It’s raining so will need to improvise some lighting. I don’t even have off camera flash for the Fuji yet but I may try some kind of window and ambient light combination.

 

[vintagesnaps]

The settings to me sounded off so yeah, the exposure might be off, although it can be more challenging if you're losing light to get a proper exposure.

I wouldn't necessarily go with a large-ish aperture to blur backgrounds; even when people do that, whatever is in the background is still there (just ends up being a blurry blob of color or shape). Of course with the lens more open you'd get more light coming into the camera, but then it's going to be harder to get all of her in focus with more shallow depth.

You might do better with manual settings. Supposedly in low light we can actually see better than a camera is able to focus. I think a camera in trying to adjust for one setting or mode can end up getting off track with exposure. You might get better results controlling and adjusting the settings yourself.

It sounds like you'd benefit from getting out and practicing with your camera to be able to get a slower shutter speed, even 1/250 is pretty fast. You probably want to get so you can hand hold at 1/125 at least. I developed a stance over time that I don't know if I could describe, but I have to brace myself even more if I'm losing light and trying to go lower than 1/80. I basically have my shoulders back a little and shift my weight over my hips, with heels slightly outward and toes slightly inward. Make yourself into a human tripod!

 

[SquarePeg]

The settings to me sounded off so yeah, the exposure might be off, although it can be more challenging if you're losing light to get a proper exposure.

I wouldn't necessarily go with a large-ish aperture to blur backgrounds; even when people do that, whatever is in the background is still there (just ends up being a blurry blob of color or shape). Of course with the lens more open you'd get more light coming into the camera, but then it's going to be harder to get all of her in focus with more shallow depth.

You might do better with manual settings. Supposedly in low light we can actually see better than a camera is able to focus. I think a camera in trying to adjust for one setting or mode can end up getting off track with exposure. You might get better results controlling and adjusting the settings yourself.

It sounds like you'd benefit from getting out and practicing with your camera to be able to get a slower shutter speed, even 1/250 is pretty fast. You probably want to get so you can hand hold at 1/125 at least. I developed a stance over time that I don't know if I could describe, but I have to brace myself even more if I'm losing light and trying to go lower than 1/80. I basically have my shoulders back a little and shift my weight over my hips, with heels slightly outward and toes slightly inward. Make yourself into a human tripod!

The only auto setting I was using was auto ISO. Sounds like a funky stance, I’ll see if I can find something that works for me with the Xt2. What worked for the Nikon is not working for me any longer.

 

[Designer]

It seems I'm always in the wrong setting somehow. Either I forget the AF, or WB, or something else before I take the shot. I usually remember long after the opportunity has passed.

 

[Designer]

BTW: I think you'll find that you can make a nice portrait with window light. Use a tripod, and ask your model to see how long she can hold still. 1/30 of a second should be easy.

 

[Derrel]

I have no issue with AUTO ISO in Manual exposure mode being used, but 1/500 second seems awfully fast, and almost guaranteed to "run up" the ISO level quite high. My main issue is not the sharpness of this portrait, but rather the somewhat magenta-tinged skin tones, and the rather dark shadow tones in the hair.

 

[Designer]

I'm always in the wrong WB setting. I need to work on thinking of everything and check all the settings BEFORE I start making exposures. Sometimes I catch myself before I take the final shot.

 

[SquarePeg]

BTW: I think you'll find that you can make a nice portrait with window light. Use a tripod, and ask your model to see how long she can hold still. 1/30 of a second should be easy.

Well Princess fell asleep on me (must have been a fun sleepover) so I had to recruit my very shy nephew. I knew he’d hate having the camera pointed at him so we improvised. I’ll post that below.

I have no issue with AUTO ISO in Manual exposure mode being used, but 1/500 second seems awfully fast, and almost guaranteed to "run up" the ISO level quite high. My main issue is not the sharpness of this portrait, but rather the somewhat magenta-tinged skin tones, and the rather dark shadow tones in the hair.

Now those two things I can fix since I have the raw file!

 

[SquarePeg]

Now this time I had the face detection on and single point and kept ISO to 320.

 

[SquarePeg]

Hard to tell on a phone but he’s looking out rainy window. Even with that it’s so much sharper.

 

[Designer]

What is your editing process? How did you do that texture? I like it, but I probably shouldn't say this, but it looks like an old oil painting on which is spattered black paint.

We used to do that with the children. Dip a toothbrush in black paint, whisked over a piece of window screen.

I think the technique is called "spatter painting, and we would put down found objects such as leaves, spools, popsicle sticks, and spatter over the paper. Pick up the objects and view your creation.

 

[SquarePeg]

This technique is called me outside in rain, lol. And lots of contrast.