Looking for technical CC

[gsgary]

First thing have you tried using back button focus ? you won't have to worry about half pressing the shutter button second your settings for the shot where they are stood on the steps are way off, why o why were you shooting at F1.8 ? and using iso400 1/2000 if i have got my maths right you could have shot at ISO100, F8, 1/125 and it would have been much sharper

 

[JeffieLove]

Stop the lens down a couple of stops from wide open. That's part of your sharpness issue.

What metering mode are you using?
These were all shot in evaluative

Why did you use ISO 400 in all 3?
Because I forgot that my ISO was set at 400 and didn't change it...

#1 you used strobed light. Why did you use ISO 400? Do you know how to calculate the correct lens aperture based on the light's GN number and the subject distance?
Ummm, you completely lost me to be completely honest....

In #2, because they are so close to the background (and there is plenty of light), there was no way to do selective focus (shallow DOF), so there was no need for f/1.8. Why did you use that aperture?
I wanted the background to be more blurred so it didn't look like it was in focus with them...

In #3 you used f/4, but your subjects eyes are at different distances from the image sensor. Consequently they girls eyes are not as sharply focused as his eyes are because even at f/4 the DOF is so shallow (mostly because the subjects are so close to the image sensor) there was no way to have both sets of eyes sharply focused. That's a common mistake made trying to use shallow DOF and a 50 mm prime.
So what would you have suggested? I've heard that f/4 is the "sweet spot" for the 50mm, is that wrong? Should I have stopped down to f/8?

For a 50 mm focal length and a Canon crop sensor camera and the focal point distance 5 ft from the image sensor:

Depth of field

Near limit 4.79 ft
Far limit 5.23 ft
Total - 0.45 ft (5.4 inches)

In front of focal point - 0.21 ft (48%) (2.5 inches)
Behind focal point - 0.23 ft (52%) (2.76 inches)

Hyperfocal distance 108.1 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

I'm completely confused by the last bit of that. I can tell it is from some type of calculator thing, but that's about it...

Just in case you miss it, my answers to your other questions are in bold inside the quote.

 

[tirediron]

I'm completely confused by the last bit of that. I can tell it is from some type of calculator thing, but that's about it...

Some type of calculator indeed!

 

[enzodm]

For a 50 mm focal length and a Canon crop sensor camera and the focal point distance 5 ft from the image sensor:

Depth of field

Near limit 4.79 ft
Far limit 5.23 ft
Total - 0.45 ft (5.4 inches)

In front of focal point - 0.21 ft (48%) (2.5 inches)
Behind focal point - 0.23 ft (52%) (2.76 inches)

Hyperfocal distance 108.1 ft
Circle of confusion 0.019 mm

I'm completely confused by the last bit of that. I can tell it is from some type of calculator thing, but that's about it...

Simply put: with that aperture and at 5 feets from the subjects, you image will be in focus between 4.79 and 5.23 feet only. Only if both person eyes stay in the range, they will be in focus.

 

[gsgary]

C&C per req: Most of the issues regarding the lighting have been addressed, however there are some other things which I view as technical - you may or may not.

My biggest concern with these is composition and posing. #1, 2: "Up the nose shots" are rarely attractive. Elevating yourself another 12 - 18" here would have really helped. As well, note the crop on his left hand. ALWAYS try and avoid cropping off little bits of limbs.

#3,4: This is a classic case of "Discuss wardrobe with the clients ahead of time". I don't think the BDUs are appropriate, however if that's what they want, then the girl needs to ajust her wardrobe. Bright pink, dark grey and black are not helping the image. Additionally, being a fuller-figured lady, this pose and this outfit REALLY do not work. Try and have her at more of an angle so as to minimize the emphasis on her attributes.

As well, in general, watch your perspective, ESPECIALLY when you have so many horizontal/verical lines.

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

You were told not to comment on composition

 

[tirediron]

You were told not to comment on composition

Noooooooooooo... she said she "wasn't really looking for comment on composition".

 

[JeffieLove]

C&C per req: Most of the issues regarding the lighting have been addressed, however there are some other things which I view as technical - you may or may not.

My biggest concern with these is composition and posing. #1, 2: "Up the nose shots" are rarely attractive. Elevating yourself another 12 - 18" here would have really helped. As well, note the crop on his left hand. ALWAYS try and avoid cropping off little bits of limbs.

#3,4: This is a classic case of "Discuss wardrobe with the clients ahead of time". I don't think the BDUs are appropriate, however if that's what they want, then the girl needs to ajust her wardrobe. Bright pink, dark grey and black are not helping the image. Additionally, being a fuller-figured lady, this pose and this outfit REALLY do not work. Try and have her at more of an angle so as to minimize the emphasis on her attributes.

As well, in general, watch your perspective, ESPECIALLY when you have so many horizontal/verical lines.

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

You were told not to comment on composition

haha I wasn't going to say anything It was still helpful

You were told not to comment on composition

Noooooooooooo... she said she "wasn't really looking for comment on composition".

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

As for the "sweet spot", that may be true what you heard but if your subject is not in that window of focus, using a "sweet spot" f/stop does more harm than good.

 

[kundalini]

#1, I was on the same level as them, I'm just shorter

I keep a two-step in my car, you know, the kind some vertically challenged (me included) need from time to time to reach the top shelves. It folds up quite thin.

 

[KmH]

I'm completely confused by the last bit of that.

That is exactly why you are having focus issues with eyes. You have gaps in your understanding of depth-of-field.

Evaluative is not a good metering mode for doing portraiture.


Does the viewfinder of your camera display the current ISO setting? I recommend you develope a check list to follow for every shot. Write it down. Use it till you have it memorized and can run down the checklist mentally.

1. check the shooting mode
2. check the metering mode
3. check the ISO
4. check the focus mode
5. check the focus area mode
6. check the focus point
7. etc.

Once memorized, in practice it takes about 3 seconds to do the checks.


If you're using strobed light you can use your lowest native ISO. When using strobed light the in-camera meter is useless for metering the flash of light. It is an instantaneous reflected light meter and cannot meter flash. That's one of the reasons why pros use hand held meters. But if you know the strobe light's GN number and the distance to what you want to light, you can do some simple 5th grade math and determine the lens aperture to use for a properly exposed strobed light photograph. If there is a specific aperture you want to use, the same simple equation can be re-written using basic algebra to determine what GN number you need at that aperture, or to determine the distance to whatever it is you want to light using a specific GN and lens aperture.


With them being right up against the background in #2, it would be within the DOF. There was no hope of blurring the background. What Peterson called a 'don't care' lens aperture situation in Understanding Exposure.

DOF is controlled by more than just the lens aperture. In addition to the lens aperture you also have to account for:

• lens focal length
• subject to image sensor distance
• subject to background distance.

DOF is more involved than just using a wide aperture.

Another critical point about depth-of-field.

The sharpness of focus starts dropping off immediately as distance increases from the focal point. The range of focus doesn't mean the entire range of DOF is sharply focused, just the center of the range, but within the range focus sharpness MAY be sufficient.

In #3 I would suggest the 50 mm focal length lens was the wrong choice. The 'sweet spot' of a lens is a range of apertures' like f/4 to F/8 or f/11. In any event, how sharp focus is, is directly tied to DOF and the 4 factors that determine the DOF.

Does your camera have a depth-of-field preview function?

 

[DerekSalem]

This is somewhat off-topic, but everyone keeps referring to his uniform as "BDUs" which they're not...Battle Dress Uniforms aren't used anymore in the Air Force. Those are ACUs (Air Combat Uniform). Not a big deal but everybody seems to be mislabeling them.

Tell him to wear his Blues if you're going to be taking shots of them. Make him dress up.

 

[JeffieLove]

Keith, it does have that little on the side of the mount... I guess I don't really understand what it does either because whenever I push it, it just seems to make the picture darker through the viewfinder...

 

[JeffieLove]

This is somewhat off-topic, but everyone keeps referring to his uniform as "BDUs" which they're not...Battle Dress Uniforms aren't used anymore in the Air Force. Those are ACUs (Air Combat Uniform). Not a big deal but everybody seems to be mislabeling them.

Tell him to wear his Blues if you're going to be taking shots of them. Make him dress up.

He'll be wearing his blues for their wedding which I am second shooting

 

[enzodm]

Keith, it does have that little on the side of the mount... I guess I don't really understand what it does either because whenever I push it, it just seems to make the picture darker through the viewfinder...

not only darker, but also and specifically with the real depth of field you are obtaining with the aperture you chose (this because autofocus and metering are done at wide open, aperture is set only when shooting). So, if you compose having in mind also the depth of the picture (foreground, background etc), you may check it with that little button. Darker because... well, you know why.

 

[OrionsByte]

I do seem to still be missing focus on the eyes somehow still even if I set the focus (using the one shot setting). I read back through my manual and I had been using AI Focus but then realized that if I want the eyes to be in focus, I need the focus to not change when I move the camera around. I need to focus on the eyes and have the focus locked on the eyes. So if I push the button down half way with the eyes in focus, and then move the camera down in order to adjust the crop, the eyes should still be in focus. If I'm wrong in that train of thought, let me know PLEASE! If anyone has any suggestions for nailing eye focus in EVERY shot, please let me know! I'm under the impression that better lighting alone will help with that.

No one seems to have commented on this specifically, but if you focus on the eyes and then recompose, there's no guarantee the eyes will still be in focus, especially when your DOF is as shallow as has been pointed out.

Your focus plane is always precisely parallel to your sensor plane, so when you move the camera to recompose, you're moving the focus plane, so if you're focusing on their eyes and then moving the camera, the focus plane is most likely going to end up slightly behind their eyes. I'm not familiar with the XSi but I'm positive it has a way to manually select which part of the frame it uses to focus - your best bet is to compose the frame and then select a focus point that is near an eye - that way you don't have to move the camera much.