One from today's session, trying to learn new lens

[analog.universe]

As far as this photo, I agree the lighting is the primary concern.

So did you run any noise reduction on this shot? Some of the softness I see seems like it could've been as a result of shooting at ISO800. If you want critically sharp photos of living subjects indoors, you will need much brighter lights (but you knew that). Your DOF could stand to be larger in this shot, but the in focus area is still not as sharp as I would expect, leading me to suspect the NR for being partially responsible.

 

[cgipson1]

I think it's more her technique and that's something she has to figure it out on her own. I was at a much closer distance using wider aperture but didn't have focus issues at all. Maybe Nikon equipment are just that good. lol

No - it is technique but that's what I meant by practicing. It's harder to nail focus at shallow DOF's versus a depth of field of 4ft+. It is far from impossible to get sharp focus at wide apertures but more than likely it wouldn't happen after having the lens a couple days.

I shoot at wide apertures a lot but I did practice at it.

Horrible old picture but it's in focus! F/2.0 and really close
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68805931@N02/6257673343/

This was taken outdoors!! This is not at you Megan but to CGipsons comment about natural light photography. Why are you considered a fauxtographer if you choose to do portraits outdoors?

A PHOTOGRAPHER can take a portrait ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANY LIGHT! A fauxtographer cannot! They typically use ambient light only.. calling it NATURAL LIGHT like it has some special quality or something. It is really because they don't know how to use flash properly.. most don't even know how to use a reflector to help with the ambient light.

 

[cgipson1]

Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol. Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.

I NEVER used the term fauxtographer.. until after YOU did!

As faas as the distance thing goes... this lens has a closest focusing distance of about 1.5 ft. So it is capable of being sharp at that distance... to infinity.

I doubt very much the lens is bad.

yes.. cheap contious lighting sucks big time.

 

[luvmyfamily]

Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol. Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.

I NEVER used the term fauxtographer.. until after YOU did!

As faas as the distance thing goes... this lens has a closest focusing distance of about 1.5 ft. So it is capable of being sharp at that distance... to infinity.

I doubt very much the lens is bad.

yes.. cheap contious lighting sucks big time.

Only reason I said that is because I saw it on that website you are nota photographer, and figured that is what you were talking about because you have said it more than once about natural light....

and now you all have me worried the lens might be defective...

 

[luvmyfamily]

So was that PM helpfull, or stuff you already mastered?

I have a slew of photos of children I would dare post on here. So yep....I have mastered how to pose children. I only post the photo's I have the most trouble with, like this one. That link wasn't anything I didn't already know. I can't imagine why I wouldn't post my favorite work....in fear of being discouraged maybe?

 

[luvmyfamily]

Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping. Oh, black background looks very unnatural.

Yep, but it's still better than that crap you posted earlier.
No offense.

That was taken by my 2nd shooter, using a 5Dm2 and his 70-200 VR2! lol


This picture was taken last year using the Nikon version of the 50mm f1.8D, about 5ft away at f2.2 if I remember it correctly. Yes, flat lighting, sharp shadow on her forehead, short sleeves, and weird halo on her chest. Lighting was simple 2-light setup (speed lights). It's not my best work but just a quick example of how close you can get w/o having to stop down that much and still get a sharp image. Given that she was using Canon's version of that lens, she should be able close to the sharpness.

And for Derrel, yes her necklace is centered!

This is a nicely done studio photo but did she have something wrong with her eye....it's red. Also, if she did, why didn't you fix it?

 

[luvmyfamily]

Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping. Oh, black background looks very unnatural.

Yep, but it's still better than that crap you posted earlier.
No offense.

Which crap did I post earlier?

 

[cgipson1]

Wow, you all saw one photo how of the 100 I took, did a tired, quick edit on the one i was having trouble with and I get PM'd on how to pose children lol. Once again, someone please tell me why are you considered a fauxtographer as CGipson says if you choose to take portraits outdoors?? At least I've give this indoor stuff a try.

I NEVER used the term fauxtographer.. until after YOU did!

As faas as the distance thing goes... this lens has a closest focusing distance of about 1.5 ft. So it is capable of being sharp at that distance... to infinity.

I doubt very much the lens is bad.

yes.. cheap contious lighting sucks big time.

Only reason I said that is because I saw it on that website you are nota photographer, and figured that is what you were talking about because you have said it more than once about natural light....

and now you all have me worried the lens might be defective...

THE LENS IS NOT DEFECTIVE! THE choice of aperture was! (and the choice of lighting was not optimal, and neither was the background!)

 

[cgipson1]

I can't imagine why I wouldn't post my favorite work....in fear of being discouraged maybe?

Maybe you like "your favorite work" because you are invested in it... and don't want to post it because we might actually point out mistakes and errors that you don't want to hear? That is very common with new photographers that say they want to learn, but really think they already know what they are doing.


They call those mistakes and errors "STYLE" or "Artistic whatever"!

 

[cgipson1]

Lighting, composition, white balance, sharpness, and cropping. Oh, black background looks very unnatural.

Yep, but it's still better than that crap you posted earlier.
No offense.

Which crap did I post earlier?

Lightspeed was giving VTEC44 a hard time.. not you!

 

[Mot]

I don't understand. I've read the whole thread and you've got all the help you could need. You've said it yourself, the photo is terrible, so why are you getting all defensive when someone is trying to help you improve it?

Instead of responding to the feedback you defend things that, as far as I can see, are totally irrelevant. If you're a master at posing children then why post a badly posed one and then complain when someone tries to help you with it? Why complain about people using natural light when you are using artificial continuous light? Why blame lack of sharpness on your distance from the subject? I just don't understand.

Don't post images that don't reflect the quality of the rest of your work if you've already mastered the issues you are looking to correct. I suggest you read your signature. Maybe your photo is a fish climbing a tree? I just wonder whether this fish can swim.

What's worse is you start on the offensive when someone posts what looks like slightly defective image in your eyes. What would you do if they started posting in a manner similar to yours? It would probably go like "I have hundreds of photos without red in the eye, I just didn't want to get bad comments about my favourite images". In reality I think she has some natural colour imbalance in her eye.

I would love to get as much attention as you on this forum. Maybe I should post worse pictures.

Whoops. Did I rant? Ignore me. I don't know anything.

 

[luvmyfamily]

I don't understand. I've read the whole thread and you've got all the help you could need. You've said it yourself, the photo is terrible, so why are you getting all defensive when someone is trying to help you improve it?

Instead of responding to the feedback you defend things that, as far as I can see, are totally irrelevant. If you're a master at posing children then why post a badly posed one and then complain when someone tries to help you with it? Why complain about people using natural light when you are using artificial continuous light. Why blame lack or sharpness on your distance from the subject? I just don't understand.

I would love to get as much attention as you on this forum.

I wasn't getting defensive. Can you rephrase where I was getting defensive? You would love to get as much attention on here? Huh?

 

[IByte]

It's very "2001", or "Major Tom".

Whooo hooo David Bowie!!! It was needed.

 

[luvmyfamily]

Here is one I took a while back of my son with flash. This is the original, UNEDITED. I have a lot to learn about studio work as well as a lot of other things, but I am trying every single day and very very very determined! The flash makes his face look pale and I know his skin tone because he is my kiddo. So either way i am screwed and I am not made of money to invest in all the equipment I need. I was lucky to get my lens. I do appreciate all the advice. This is the issue I have with flash.

 

[cgipson1]

It's very "2001", or "Major Tom".

Whooo hooo David Bowie!!! It was needed.

Hey, if you mention Bowie, you have to also mention Arthur C. Clarke...