My 1st RAW shots, C&C appreciated

[birdfish]

I decided to give shooting RAW a try. Some specifics I would like C&C on, white balance and exposure. I did edit them all in PSE 9. I left the WB in auto while shooting, and then changed it to what I thought was appropriate while editing. Thanks for any input.


1. Settings: f/2.2, 1/2500, ISO 400

2. f/2.2, 1/2500, ISO 400

3. f/2.2, 1/2500, ISO 400

4. f/2.2, 1/1000, ISO 400

5. f/2.2, 1/320, ISO 100

 

[ph0enix]

See this post:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...gallery/269060-attempting-portraiture-cc.html

 

[cannpope]

I am no expert at all, but you shot all the images @ f2.2. Don't do that!! Stopping down that aperture (larger #) could have helped you get some sharper images. Always focus on the closest eye when photographing a face.

 

[BastiaanImages]

Why did you choose to shoot at ISO 400? Judging the shuttertimes that wasn't really nescessary?

 

[birdfish]

See this post:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...gallery/269060-attempting-portraiture-cc.html

Thanks ph0enix. So basically I just need to stop down my aperture about 2 stops or so to get more crisp images?

 

[birdfish]

I am no expert at all, but you shot all the images @ f2.2. Don't do that!! Stopping down that aperture (larger #) could have helped you get some sharper images. Always focus on the closest eye when photographing a face.

I realize that now cannpope, thanks!! I don't know why, but I've almost always shot my Canon 50mm 1.8 at 1.8. Kinda sick to my stomach now knowing that it was a simple fix to get sharper images. Is it best to use evaluative metering when trying to focus on the closest eye??

 

[birdfish]

Why did you choose to shoot at ISO 400? Judging the shuttertimes that wasn't really nescessary?

It was really cloudy out so I bumped up the ISO a bit.

 

[birdfish]

So besides the focusing issues, does my WB look okay? Do they look properly exposed?

 

[Raian-san]

Using wide open aperture can give you creativity in some shots. Some lens are not as sharp wide open, some lens are. Every lens has a sweet spot, like the 50mm 1.8, I think at around 2.8-5.6 is where it's sharper. Don't quote me on that, just remember from the top of my head.

 

[JamieFox]

I did the same thing for the longest time..i would always have my apeture at a low number shooting portraits and they weren't very sharp.

 

[Compaq]

While sharpness is an issue, I'd be willing to accept less sharp images if I needed a shallow depth of field.The composition, lighting and separation of the subject should, at least to me, come above sharpness. I'd look at sharpness as an added bonus, so to speak.

That said, if you didn't need the DOF, then I'd stop down (keeping an eye on the shutter speed, ofc)

Food for thought: a lot of good portraits that are taken aren't sharp at all. It just shows the person in very good lighting, being moody, or otherwise very compelling.

Another tip: watch out for your background - it's as important as your subject. That car, for example, does not belong in a portrait. Also, portrait orientation will most of the times be better than horizontal shots if you're leaving a lot of empty space on either side of the person.

/opinion

edit: about the sharpness, you should always nail the focus. Most lenses today are plenty sharp at all apertures (read: probably not cheap zooms with a big focal range), nail the focus, and you're most likely getting a sharp image.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

First off...cute kid! I think it would be worth your time to check out this thread. Pay special attention to the exposure triangle piece. You're shooting at an aperture of f/2.2, which is quite shallow. The 4 photos you posted have some focus issues, and tack sharp focus is only made more difficult for entry level cameras when your aperture is so large. As a general rule, somewhere around f/8 - f/9 is considered the "sweet spot", where the sharpness and color rendition is its finest. You generally only want such a wide aperture when you're dealing with poor lighting situations, trying to manipulate the exposure triangle so you can kick up the shutter speed for stop motion (like for sports or dance)...or you're wanting to separate a subject from the background to create bokeh.

I think you'll find that first link very helpful. I got a lot out of it as a refresher. Good luck out there!

 

[KmH]

Raw image data files are not actually images we can see. They have to be converted.
By necessity, what you have posted here are JPEGs and not the Raw files.

A Raw file actually has no white balance, though whatever Raw converter is used will usually display the 'As Shot' white balance it is best adjusted using the Raw converter.
He is quite 'warm' in all but the 1st and of course the B&W.

They all have focus issues, likely because you don't yet understand how Depth-Of-Field DoF works - Understanding Depth of Field in Photography
You will want to have a good understanding of most of the tutorials on that web site, like - Tutorials – The RAW File Format

 

[KmH]

2. f/2.2, 1/2500, ISO 400

if you're going to shoot Raw, you have to edit pretty much every photo.
I cropped a little off the left side, cooled him off a tad, locally sharpened his eyes, nose, mouth, and cleaned up his iris' some:

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I am a fan of #1 and #3....Keep at it with the reading referenes others have provided!