Help for Xmas Photos! 50mm 1.8G lens

[Derrel]

OP: IN answer to your question, yeah, from farther back, f/2.2 would have given more depth of field. At such close, close distances as the original shot was made at, f/4 to f/5.6 would be a safer bet to get more DOF. Still....his eyes might not be "tack sharp", but overall, the picture is successful I think, and the very shallow depth of field band you had was placed pretty well.

The thing is too, the DOF band can also be thought of as accidentally being "angled" whenever the camera back is angled downward or upward in relation to an absolutely straight-upright target. When the camera is, let's say, angled downward and aimed at a wine bottle placed upright on a table, the DOF may be "angled", and the top and bottom of the bottle will not be equally in-focus. This is why using an aperture like f/2.2 can be even more-problematic than just the slight amount of physical space of the DOF band; that focus band also has to intersect with the actual, in-space placement of objects in the real world. Stop down to f/3.5 with the 50mm lens, and you begin to see fewer serious problems with DOF on closer-range shots; stop down to f/4.5 to f/5.6 and you usually can pull adequate DOF.

YES, these smaller apertures (f/4.5 or f/5.6) create smaller out of focus bokeh balls with the 50mm lens, buuuuut...you get the crisp, sharp focus so many people want to see.

 

[smoke665]

Something not mentioned yet is the ISO 2000. While a higher ISO setting doesn't necessarily affect the sharpness, the post noise reduction will soften the image.

 

[Braineack]

Here the eyes aren’t tack sharp

nothing in that image is tact sharp -- but that looks to be more with the method you saved it with. It's REALLY hard to judge with hat small (size/compression) image.

can you post the original?

 

[beagle100]

Here the eyes aren’t tack sharp

nothing in that image is tact sharp -- but that looks to be more with the method you saved it with. It's REALLY hard to judge with hat small (size/compression) image.

can you post the original?

I agree, it's probably a "depth of field" issue but you need to post a larger pic
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless