Please tell me this is in focus!

[shannab]

I am always hearing my images are soft really trying to work on it, what is this one like in your honest opinion?

 

[Robin Usagani]

it looks like it is in focus. The DOF is too shallow IMO. Shallow DOF doesnt do anything but hurting your image here.

 

[misstwinklytoes]

Aperture 2.8
Exposure Time 1/100 (0.01 sec)
Focal Length 35.0 mm
ISO 220

What lens were you using? I'm thinking if you'd used something closer to F3.5 you'd have gotten something a bit sharper. Her eyes might be in focus, it looks like they are to me (but focus is something I generally struggle with), but the rest of it seems soft. I'm thinking (cause I'm still trying to figure this all out, too) that if you'd been at a more straight on angle to her (lower, more her level) you'd have more in focus, but because you were kind of diagonal to her (because you were standing with camera angled down diagonally instead of pointing straight at her) that you have a focus area that's probably her eyes and just in front of her. Her eyes, hands, and whatever is in her hands seems in focus while everything else seems kind of soft.

 

[shannab]

I just do this for fun i should post i dont charge people the photos are for my hair accessories website

anywho i just use natural lighting from my window i find if i up my Fstop that i cant use a fast enough shutter speed and i get camera shake so i find that i would like to use f4 as a stop at times but i just dont have enough light to do it...

 

[Derrel]

Looks like the shoulder of the child is in good, sharp focus. The eyes look just slightly out of the zone of best sharpness. f/2.8 at 35mm is a bit risky, a bit tricky, at that image magnification (i.e., at that camera-to-subject distance). Stopping down a bit more, to say f/4 or even a bit smaller, would give a deeper depth of field band.

 

[gsgary]

The 2 things that should be in focus are not, EYES

 

[shannab]

you no that is more rude than helpful i find that lots of you on this forum can be helpful but many of you are just rude! I am working on it but i just playing and i am not a pro why dont you tell me what i can do to get the eyes in focus instead of just telling me they are not in focus and nothing more???

The 2 things that should be in focus are not, EYES

 

[Geaux]

While I don't necessarily disagree with you about rude people on this site, the one comment you pointed out in the thread was not being rude. You never asked HOW to get things in focus, you simply asked "Please tell me this is in focus! I am always hearing my images are soft really trying to work on it, what is this one like in your honest opinion?" [and you mispelled KNOW aka "No"]

To get a focus on the eyes, I use single point focus, focus on the eyes (half press on shutter), then recompose my shot. I've never had issues with out of focus or soft eyes doing this.

 

[ghache]

Dont worry,
Most of the rude people on here can't even get a good shot themselves

Your focus problem might be caused by alot of things.
Camera shake, slow shutter speed, lens problem are the most probable reason why you have soft images.

make sure you hold your camera firm and you shutter is fast enough.

 

[gsgary]

you no that is more rude than helpful i find that lots of you on this forum can be helpful but many of you are just rude! I am working on it but i just playing and i am not a pro why dont you tell me what i can do to get the eyes in focus instead of just telling me they are not in focus and nothing more???

The 2 things that should be in focus are not, EYES

What is rude about that ? this is what you asked "what is this one like in your honest opinion?" I have helped lots of people on here but you have blown your chances of any know

 

[Derrel]

I am always hearing my images are soft really trying to work on it, what is this one like in your honest opinion?

shannab,
If you are indeed "always hearing" that your images are soft, have you thought that maybe there's a repeating issue causing it? Such as: bad lens performance at the aperture(s) you use most often? Or a camera/lens focus misalignment or calibration issue? Or something systemic?

Do you shoot at f/2.8 with frequency in portrait situations? How good is your lens at f/2.8? Many moderate-grade lenses are decidedly lower in resolution, have bad edge performance, and show a marked degree of lowered contrast at f/2.8, as compared against f/4.5 to f/5.6, which is where many lenses hit their optimum optical performance.

Also, MANY lenses show a weird optical defect, a sort of veiling, when shot at their widest open aperture...and this is true of MANY lenses that are otherwise quite good...Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for example, Nikon's 85mm 1.4 AF-D...these are otherwise stellar lenses, but at their wide-open aperture, their images upon really critical examination, have an ever-so-slight loss of quality that goes from edge to edge, across the entire image. A slight veiling as it were. While the images are quite usable, they are nowhere near as impeccably sharp and contrasty and crisp as when the lenses are each stopped down to full f/stops from maximum.

So....if you are indeed, "always hearing" that your images are soft, maybe there's something in your system that needs to be chaged in some way.

 

[MichiganFarts]

What is rude about that ? this is what you asked "what is this one like in your honest opinion?" I have helped lots of people on here but you have blown your chances of any know

Cause you yelled EYES. Caps is yellin' yo!

 

[gsgary]

What is rude about that ? this is what you asked "what is this one like in your honest opinion?" I have helped lots of people on here but you have blown your chances of any know

Cause you yelled EYES. Caps is yellin' yo!

If i hadn't put EYES she may have thought i meant FEET

 

[misstwinklytoes]

the photos are for my hair accessories website

Maybe she wasn't trying to focus on the EYES

 

[shannab]

The reason they are soft is me 100% i am self taught not 100% what i am doing trail and error really thanks to useful advice here i am getting better i think i use to shoot at 1.8 and then someone suggested 2.8 so that is why i tried that... i find when i go to a f4 i just cant get the light i need(dont like flash) and i am just using natural light from my window so my shutter speed is to slow at f4 not sure what i can do about that other than get lighting or use my flash?? Here is one i did last week with suggestions i got the one i posted on the original thread this week better right? Am i on the right track?

I am always hearing my images are soft really trying to work on it, what is this one like in your honest opinion?

shannab,
If you are indeed "always hearing" that your images are soft, have you thought that maybe there's a repeating issue causing it? Such as: bad lens performance at the aperture(s) you use most often? Or a camera/lens focus misalignment or calibration issue? Or something systemic?

Do you shoot at f/2.8 with frequency in portrait situations? How good is your lens at f/2.8? Many moderate-grade lenses are decidedly lower in resolution, have bad edge performance, and show a marked degree of lowered contrast at f/2.8, as compared against f/4.5 to f/5.6, which is where many lenses hit their optimum optical performance.

Also, MANY lenses show a weird optical defect, a sort of veiling, when shot at their widest open aperture...and this is true of MANY lenses that are otherwise quite good...Canon's 50mm f/1.4 for example, Nikon's 85mm 1.4 AF-D...these are otherwise stellar lenses, but at their wide-open aperture, their images upon really critical examination, have an ever-so-slight loss of quality that goes from edge to edge, across the entire image. A slight veiling as it were. While the images are quite usable, they are nowhere near as impeccably sharp and contrasty and crisp as when the lenses are each stopped down to full f/stops from maximum.

So....if you are indeed, "always hearing" that your images are soft, maybe there's something in your system that needs to be chaged in some way.