People help... (updated 3-27)

[Nwcid]

Apparently I am really struggling with the people thing of photography. I have read tons online and watched a ton of Youtube stuff about shooting this kind of content.

In my opinion my people are still coming out soft. I am using same equipment with same settings and getting good results with anything but people.

Any thoughts, I am here to learn.

Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G

 

[Designer]

You have probably already done this, but here are some enlarged crops of the two photos you posted:

I guess I'm not seeing the issue that you are. Aren't they about the same?

 

[Designer]

These two shots are with two different lenses, at different distances, and with different shutter speeds. So how can you compare them equally?

 

[Nwcid]

These two shots are with two different lenses, at different distances, and with different shutter speeds. So how can you compare them equally?

I clicked on the wrong pic to upload. I bought both a 50mm and an 85. I will fix that right now.

 

[Nwcid]

You have probably already done this, but here are some enlarged crops of the two photos you posted:


I guess I'm not seeing the issue that you are. Aren't they about the same?

While the eyes are close, I am mostly looking at skin texture. Not that Bufford has skin, but I feel like the skin on her face is, grainy, for lack of a better word.

I only used a dog for comparison since it was the same equipment.

 

[Derrel]

I looked at the photo of the young woman...you uploaded a 1.2 MB JPEG, which is only average in sharpness...I would expect a higher-quality image from a JPEG of that size. One issue: it was shot at f/1.8, which is wide-open, which is NEVER the best f/stop for sharpness. It was at ISO 100, and at 1/3200 second. The total DOF band is listed at 0.35 meters, or about one foot. I can see that the picture is fairly well-focused, but again, wide-open at f/1.8, I would _NOT_ expect the lens to be performing anywhere near its optimum level. For optimum performance, I think you'd see that at f/4 or so, due to diffraction's effects, and a bit deeper DOF at f/4.5 to f/5.6.

Anyway...I have no idea how the image was sharpened, from the RAW file; that step is critical when making a large JPEG, or a small one, for that matter.

If you have VC (Vibration Control) set to ON, at 1/3200 second, that could easily have affected the overall sharpness in a negative way. At speeds faster than about 1/500, VC should almost certainly be switched to OFF.

 

[Designer]

Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G

Yes, I got that. Dog photo was with the 50mm, the girl was taken with the Tamron 85mm.

The difference in lenses and distances, shutter speeds, lighting, and all the rest make for an unreliable test.

Try the same subject with different lenses, or different subjects with as close to the same equipment as you can get, including lighting and camera settings.

 

[Nwcid]

I looked at the photo of the young woman...you uploaded a 1.2 MB JPEG, which is only average in sharpness...I would expect a higher-quality image from a JPEG of that size. One issue: it was shot at f/1.8, which is wide-open, which is NEVER the best f/stop for sharpness. It was at ISO 100, and at 1/3200 second. The total DOF band is listed at 0.35 meters, or about one foot. I can see that the picture is fairly well-focused, but again, wide-open at f/1.8, I would _NOT_ expect the lens to be performing anywhere near its optimum level. For optimum performance, I think you'd see that at f/4 or so, due to diffraction's effects, and a bit deeper DOF at f/4.5 to f/5.6.

Anyway...I have no idea how the image was sharpened, from the RAW file; that step is critical when making a large JPEG, or a small one, for that matter.

If you have VC (Vibration Control) set to ON, at 1/3200 second, that could easily have affected the overall sharpness in a negative way. At speeds faster than about 1/500, VC should almost certainly be switched to OFF.

Anytime I try and upload a file over 1.5 MB I get a warning box that says the file is too large. I have been exporting to this site in the "limit file size to 1,500 K.

DOF with people is where I think part of my struggle comes in. I thought the point of having faster lenses was to shoot with wider apertures so you can get more bokeh. If I am moving to higher f stops, won't more of my background be coming into focus?

I will keep that in mind about the VC.

 

[Nwcid]

Sorry, this one was shot with the Nikon 50mm 1.8G

Yes, I got that. Dog photo was with the 50mm, the girl was taken with the Tamron 85mm.

The difference in lenses and distances, shutter speeds, lighting, and all the rest make for an unreliable test.

Try the same subject with different lenses, or different subjects with as close to the same equipment as you can get, including lighting and camera settings.

I did upload the original pic shot with the same lens and same f stop. The shutter speed and lighting was different for sure.

I will have another chance to shoot this weekend and I will try some of that. This style of shooting is new to me.

 

[Designer]

DOF with people is where I think part of my struggle comes in. I thought the point of having faster lenses was to shoot with wider apertures so you can get more bokeh. If I am moving to higher f stops, won't more of my background be coming into focus?

Well, yes, but there are other factors in play as well.

For maximum background (and foreground) blur, you need to optimize one or more of these factors:

Lens focal length
Aperture
distance to subject
distance behind subject
area of your sensor

If you optimize all of them, you will optimize your OOF blur.

I will have another chance to shoot this weekend and I will try some of that. This style of shooting is new to me.

I had not thought of portraiture as a "style".

As you try this exercise again, use the same lens for both subjects. It won't matter which lens you choose to evaluate, just use the same one for both. Also try to use the same settings for both. Same distance, same aperture, same shutter speed, same light, same everything.

 

[Derrel]

I would suggest closing down the f-stop from 1.8 to f/2.2 or f/2.5 if you want to shoot close to wide open, and improve the image quality.

 

[Braineack]

We all have our preference. I'm too much of a detailed person to leave anything up to luck on a paid shoots, so I generally prefer posed photos. Each photographer will pose people differently. I just tell people to do the things that they always do and observe Here are some of my posed photos. I call these posed candids

these are so bad I may need to write in my LiveJournal.

 

[Vtec44]

these are so bad I may need to write in my LiveJournal.

Well crap... I'm all butt hurt now

 

[Nwcid]

I have been following this thread, but been too busy to respond. I only worked 76hr last week, plus taking a class and working on my website.

Sunday I got out for a re-shoot and think I did much better this time. I am much happier with the results.

Still looking for any input.

 

[birdbonkers84]

I have been following this thread, but been too busy to respond. I only worked 76hr last week, plus taking a class and working on my website.

Sunday I got out for a re-shoot and think I did much better this time. I am much happier with the results.

Still looking for any input.

View attachment 155607

I don't really photograph people, but I do enjoy reading threads on this site and learning about it. Couple of things I picked up were backgrounds. Pick your backgrounds wisely. i.e no horizontal lines going through the head or vertical lines coming out of the head. While the first image is quite nice, those bars popping out of her head are quite distracting