Help! Conquering Crisp Focus

[creativelyfive]

Well without EXIF data it's hard to be certain but my guess is on #1 your DOF isn't quite sufficient so that everyone in the photo is in sharp focus. For group shots like that it's generally best to stop down the lens based on your distance from the group, which will give you more DOF and that way the folks in the back row will still be in sharp focus even if your focus point is set on the folks in the front row.

I'm new to all of this...I know how to look at the EXIF on my images in my personal files but is there a way to look at it through this forum? Do I need to download something differently to make it viewable?

 

[weepete]

No.

Problem: Motion blur
Solution: Faster shutter speed
To make solution work: increase your shutter speed.

Problem: Camera Shake
Solution: Faster shutter speed
To make solution work: increase your shutter speed
Solution (2): Tripod with remote shutter release or stabilise your camera and use the timer. Enable mirror lock up.
To make solution work: make sure the camera is not shaking. (even a small amount by people waking by on a wooden floor etc)


Problem: Closer than minimum focal distance.
Solution: Move back
To make solution work: Move back.

Problem: dof error
Solution: don't foucus recompose
Solution 2: increase aperture

Problem: missed focus
Solution: check focus in camera and retake. (see focus recompose issue)
Solution 2: check lens focus us accurate, adjust microfocusing in camera.(only if you have eliminated all other factors)

 

[robbins.photo]

Well without EXIF data it's hard to be certain but my guess is on #1 your DOF isn't quite sufficient so that everyone in the photo is in sharp focus. For group shots like that it's generally best to stop down the lens based on your distance from the group, which will give you more DOF and that way the folks in the back row will still be in sharp focus even if your focus point is set on the folks in the front row.

I'm new to all of this...I know how to look at the EXIF on my images in my personal files but is there a way to look at it through this forum? Do I need to download something differently to make it viewable?

I use a utility called IEXIF myself, it's a freebie but it gets the job done:

Exif viewer : Opanda IExif - Professional EXIF Viewer & Editor in Windows / IE / Firefox

 

[JerryLove]

No.

Problem: Motion blur
Solution: Faster shutter speed
To make solution work: increase your shutter speed.

Problem: Camera Shake
Solution: Faster shutter speed
To make solution work: increase your shutter speed

Doesn't that risk underexposing the image (unless you can also lower the aperture)?

Problem: dof error
Solution: don't foucus recompose
Solution 2: increase aperture

Agreed. If a higher aperture number is available on the lens. I didn't cover the DoF problem in my summary because I was mostly thinking of the second photo.

If I understand correctly, moving closer while lowering the zoom would have a similar effect (assuming a lower zoom is available).

 

[robbins.photo]

One other quick thought, not sure what ISO the second photo was shot at, but one thing I often tell people is if you need more shutter speed or you need to stop down the lens to get your desired DOF, don't be afraid of increasing the ISO. I know a lot of websites and tutorials will tell you not to go above ISO 200, sometimes ISO 400, etc - but you can usually go much higher than this before you start introducing a noticeable amount of noise into the image. It will vary a bit based on the camera, and I would recommend you take some test shots yourself gradually increasing the ISO until you find out at what point the noise level reaches a level you find unacceptable.

 

[weepete]

Robbins photo has it correct, you need to either:

A- increase ISO
B- Use a flash

You shouldn't be underexposing images, but a common paranoia is to use a slower shutter speed and low iso because people are afraid of noise. You can fix a moderate amount of noise but you can never fix blur. you absolutley need to use an apeture that is small enough to get your subject(s) in focus and a fast enough shutter speed to get rid of camera shake and motion blur. You balence that with control over your ISO (the new film speed equivalent)

Oh and in the DOF error I should have put increase f stop as that actually closes the aperture.

 

[creativelyfive]

to make sure I'm processing everything correctly....

To start the process of elimination:

If part of my image is in focus but not as much of the image as I desire or if none of it is as sharp as I desire first check my f stop and see if lowering my aperture solves the possible DoF problem.

If I still see slight blur (and I know that I am not too close to acquire sharp focus and assuming it might be either motion blur or camera shake) then I should try increasing my shutter speed.

If this causes underexposure I should then increase my ISO?

Am I following correctly?

 

[weepete]

Allmost. I'd check the shutter speed first as that's the thing most people seem to struggle with. Then I'd check my f stop. I tend to control my exposure more by adjusting the ISO than anything else.

For on the fly portraits of my mates my go to settings at 28-50mm are 1/200th sec, f7.1 and I'll set my ISO by metering using the cameras internal meter on CWA. Background blur I'll control by seperating them from the background. When I first started it suprised me to learn just how fast my shutter speed needed to be and how big my f stop needed to be.

Of course you can play about with it, that's why dof tables are so handy

 

[Derrel]

I will give you just a quick, basic rule to follow. You want "SHARP" pictures? Every time? You need to have enough depth of field for the subject matter at hand. And you need a FAST enough shutter speed to stop subject motion; camera movement; and camera vibration, or a combination of those things.

Years ago, I used to shoot hand-held pictures at speeds like 1/60 second to 1/125 second. My pictures were good. But an old-time commercial photo pro had told me if I wanted REALLY sharp pictures, I needed to shoot at 1/400 to 1/500 second. I thought, for literally years, that the old fart must've been off his rocker.

So...maybe 8 years later, I decide to follow his advice and try it out. I shot everything that week at 1/500 second on my Nikon FM and 50mm f/2 Nikkor lens, and my 85mm f/5 lens and my 105/f2.5 lens.

OMG...I can still recall looking at some of the slides for the first time, and seeing what stopping ALL motion blurring, and moderately-wide f/stops, actually looked like.

When you can, shoot at 1/350 to 1/500 second, and from f/4.5 to f/6.3, at WHATEVER ISO IS NEEDED to ensure you have those kinds of settings.

Forget the whole "lowest ISO" nonsense...that's very 2002...shoot at whatever ISO will give a FAST speed, and an f/stop that is NOT,. I repeat which is NOT f/1.8 or f/2 or f/2.5 or even f/3.5 or f/4, but which is in the zone from f/4.5 to f/6.3.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't usually use a shutter speed slower than 1/125 of a sec. (unless I'm in low light and it's necessary, but I get set and brace myself as needed). I'll go with a faster shutter speed of 1/250 or 1/500 as appropriate to what I'm shooting and what lighting I'm in. My starting point for aperture and where I keep the camera set is typically f8 because it's then at a midrange setting; then I can open up the lens a couple of stops to f5.6 or f4, or shut it down to f11 or f16, fairly quickly. And I adjust as needed to larger or smaller apertures, usually if I want a close up and don't want too much depth of field and want the background out of focus, or if I want most of everything in view in focus.

I use the meter to let me know if I'm getting a proper exposure, and adjust settings as needed. I'm a film photographer so I usually start out with an ISO of 400 indoors and 100/200 outdoors and adjust from there when I'm using my digital camera (obviously with a film camera the ISO is determined by the film speed I use which I need to determine when I load film).

It sounds like you'd benefit from learning more about how to set your camera for various situations and keep getting plenty of practice to help you eventually be ready to get into doing portraits or any paid photography.

 

[KmH]

+1 to what Derrel is saying, though I advocate using supplemental lighting rather than cranking up the ISO.
Using supplemental light gives you a lot more control of light quality and light direction which are both important to doing portraiture

Keep the shutter speed up.
Use a mid-range lens aperture.

If you want the background blurry, get the subject further in front of the background.

 

[creativelyfive]

Thank you everyone. This is all really helpful. After taking all comments into consideration and knowing what I'm usually putting my settings at I think the majority of the time the reason for my blur, as slight as it might be, is that I have my shutter speed set too low. (not necessarily the direct cause with the 2 pictures I posted) I am also definitely at times setting my aperture too high and need to dial that down. Thanks again!

 

[apaflo]

I didn't look much at the first image, but the shot of the baby is interesting. First, you shot it at ISO 200, a shutter speed of 1/200 and an f/stop of 1.8 using a 50mm f/1.8 lens. There are three limiting factors there, as first it is under exposed by more than 1 fstop, and the DOF at f/1.8 is pretty narrow. Worst of all the sharpness of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens when wide open is not all that good.

I'm not familiar with the camera, so I have no idea how much higher you could have gone with the ISO, but certainly ISO 1200 and maybe 1600 would have been doable. The shutter speed of 1/200 is nice, but 1/100 on a tripod would have been sufficient. The main significance is being able to stop the lens down to at least f/2.8, perhaps f/4 while still getting proper exposure.

Looking at the histogram will show how close exposure is. You will have to be the judge of how high an ISO you can tolerate with your camera. Think about a tripod!

Past that, it isn't really a bad shot! It needs to be edited some. The color balance is way off, as you don't want babies to look anything but pink. Unfortunately in this case I though it required one adjustment for the baby, another for the arm holding it, and even a third for the background. I tried to make the baby pink, and the arm holding it much less saturated and more towards washed out white. The background was simple enough, I just desaturated it to BW!

I increased brightness and contrast to where a histogram showed the darkest areas at about 30 and the brightest areas at about 245.

And then I gave it a dash of Sharpen and a good little bit of Unsharp Mask.

Note that due to DOF at f/1.8 there are areas which aren't in focus. The baby's feet for example. However that avoids distraction from its face and upper torso, and might be considered a good thing artistically. If you are into that sort of selective focus, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is not the right lens though. Try an 85mm f/1.4 to get better results.

Here's what I came up with in the editor:

 

[creativelyfive]

I didn't look much at the first image, but the shot of the baby is interesting. First, you shot it at ISO 200, a shutter speed of 1/200 and an f/stop of 1.8 using a 50mm f/1.8 lens. There are three limiting factors there, as first it is under exposed by more than 1 fstop, and the DOF at f/1.8 is pretty narrow. Worst of all the sharpness of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens when wide open is not all that good.

I'm not familiar with the camera, so I have no idea how much higher you could have gone with the ISO, but certainly ISO 1200 and maybe 1600 would have been doable. The shutter speed of 1/200 is nice, but 1/100 on a tripod would have been sufficient. The main significance is being able to stop the lens down to at least f/2.8, perhaps f/4 while still getting proper exposure.

Looking at the histogram will show how close exposure is. You will have to be the judge of how high an ISO you can tolerate with your camera. Think about a tripod!

Past that, it isn't really a bad shot! It needs to be edited some. The color balance is way off, as you don't want babies to look anything but pink. Unfortunately in this case I though it required one adjustment for the baby, another for the arm holding it, and even a third for the background. I tried to make the baby pink, and the arm holding it much less saturated and more towards washed out white. The background was simple enough, I just desaturated it to BW!

I increased brightness and contrast to where a histogram showed the darkest areas at about 30 and the brightest areas at about 245.

And then I gave it a dash of Sharpen and a good little bit of Unsharp Mask.

Note that due to DOF at f/1.8 there are areas which aren't in focus. The baby's feet for example. However that avoids distraction from its face and upper torso, and might be considered a good thing artistically. If you are into that sort of selective focus, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is not the right lens though. Try an 85mm f/1.4 to get better results.

Here's what I came up with in the editor:

Here are my edited versions. I had already done edits to the image before I posted the original on the thread but wanted to see if I could get feedback on the original issue. Even with the edits I don't feel wowed at all by the images but its definitely an improvement from the original. I have been trying to use a tripod when I can to eliminate the camera shake but often I find it impractical to use because of how much I am moving around to get a different view.

 

[robbins.photo]

I didn't look much at the first image, but the shot of the baby is interesting. First, you shot it at ISO 200, a shutter speed of 1/200 and an f/stop of 1.8 using a 50mm f/1.8 lens. There are three limiting factors there, as first it is under exposed by more than 1 fstop, and the DOF at f/1.8 is pretty narrow. Worst of all the sharpness of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens when wide open is not all that good.

I'm not familiar with the camera, so I have no idea how much higher you could have gone with the ISO, but certainly ISO 1200 and maybe 1600 would have been doable. The shutter speed of 1/200 is nice, but 1/100 on a tripod would have been sufficient. The main significance is being able to stop the lens down to at least f/2.8, perhaps f/4 while still getting proper exposure.

Looking at the histogram will show how close exposure is. You will have to be the judge of how high an ISO you can tolerate with your camera. Think about a tripod!

Past that, it isn't really a bad shot! It needs to be edited some. The color balance is way off, as you don't want babies to look anything but pink. Unfortunately in this case I though it required one adjustment for the baby, another for the arm holding it, and even a third for the background. I tried to make the baby pink, and the arm holding it much less saturated and more towards washed out white. The background was simple enough, I just desaturated it to BW!

I increased brightness and contrast to where a histogram showed the darkest areas at about 30 and the brightest areas at about 245.

And then I gave it a dash of Sharpen and a good little bit of Unsharp Mask.

Note that due to DOF at f/1.8 there are areas which aren't in focus. The baby's feet for example. However that avoids distraction from its face and upper torso, and might be considered a good thing artistically. If you are into that sort of selective focus, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is not the right lens though. Try an 85mm f/1.4 to get better results.

Here's what I came up with in the editor:

Here are my edited versions. I had already done edits to the image before I posted the original on the thread but wanted to see if I could get feedback on the original issue. Even with the edits I don't feel wowed at all by the images but its definitely an improvement from the original. I have been trying to use a tripod when I can to eliminate the camera shake but often I find it impractical to use because of how much I am moving around to get a different view.

A monopod might not be a bad investment for you then, I use one occasionally for wildlife photography though admittedly much of my own stuff is shot handheld anymore. It's much easier to manipulate than a tripod and whole lot easier to switch around, pretty much a pick it up, drop it, pick it up again sort of affair.