This is what I did

[MTVision]

Erica - I saw on FB that you got an iPhone right? Download a DOF calculator. There are some free ones. I have iDOF calculator.....

 

[Derrel]

yes.. try any aperture above F4.. as we have mentioned few times...... like maybe F5.6... or maybe even F8. You say you have a Psych degree, right.. so that intimates some intelligence on your part. Why don't you understand that your DOF is inadequate... and this is such an easy problem to fix.

I have posted several times trying to help.. this is the last one!!!!

I was suspecting that you were using the terminology incorrectly. This has become a huge, huge problem in recent years; for example, when cgipson says to use "any aperture above F4"...okay...well, that in my book is the wrong way to use the terminology of aperture AND f/stop nomenclature. Referring to a higher numerical value as an aperture "above F4" [sic] is simply an incorrect way to describe what to do.

The apertures "above" f/4 are the wider apertures, like f/2.8, f/2.5, f/2, f/1.8, and f/1.4 and f/1.2...that's what that "above" means in the parlance of photography in reference to apertures has been used for the last 100 years or so...this is so because when the photographer finds that the light meter indicates MORE light is needed, the lens must be "opened UP"...and above means "MORE" light, and not just a higher numerical value.


The OPPOSITE of "opening UP" the lens is "Stopping the lens DOWN", which means using the smaller, more-narrow apertures like f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8, f/11,etc.

We cannot confuse or mix-up "aperture" and the f/stop numbering system. I do not say this to be dickish, but it really,really is a huge,huge problem that has developed within the last few years as literally millions of people world-wide have bought their first d-slr camera, and are coming to this technology with no background in the vocabulary, or the word usage customs of the past 100 or more years. The easiest thing to write is probably to say, "use a narrower" aperture for deep depth of field needs, or ,"Use a wider aperture," when shallower depth of field is needed. But even there--there is a huge and growing number of people who think that SHALLOW depth of field is "deep" depth of field...

 

[AMOMENT]

cgipson; I tried an aperture of 8 and I had terrible shadows, even when I increased my ISO. I can't use a slower shutter than 1/200 because I suck at keeping the camera still.

 

[cgipson1]

yes.. try any aperture above F4.. as we have mentioned few times...... like maybe F5.6... or maybe even F8. You say you have a Psych degree, right.. so that intimates some intelligence on your part. Why don't you understand that your DOF is inadequate... and this is such an easy problem to fix.

I have posted several times trying to help.. this is the last one!!!!

I was suspecting that you were using the terminology incorrectly. This has become a huge, huge problem in recent years; for example, when cgipson says to use "any aperture above F4"...okay...well, that in my book is the wrong way to use the terminology of aperture AND f/stop nomenclature. Referring to a higher numerical value as an aperture "above F4" [sic] is simply an incorrect way to describe what to do.

The apertures "above" f/4 are the wider apertures, like f/2.8, f/2.5, f/2, f/1.8, and f/1.4 and f/1.2...that's what that "above" means in the parlance of photography in reference to apertures has been used for the last 100 years or so...this is so because when the photographer finds that the light meter indicates MORE light is needed, the lens must be "opened UP"...and above means "MORE" light, and not just a higher numerical value.


The OPPOSITE of "opening UP" the lens is "Stopping the lens DOWN", which means using the smaller, more-narrow apertures like f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8, f/11,etc.

Sorry Derrel, I was trying to DUMB it down..... as in NUMERICALLY above F4....

 

[AMOMENT]

Also, many other people have made suggestions and they said to shoot around a 3.5 with my lens and it would be good. I don't just take your advice

 

[Steve01]

A 50 is fine for a portrait lens.

You can certainly get nice portraits with a 50mm but generally you like a longer lens so you can back up, blur the background, and reduce unfaltering distortions by being to close the the subject.
With a baby you're probably even closer which will also decrease depth of field.

 

[cgipson1]

Also, many other people made suggestions and they said to shoot around a 3.5 with my lens and it would be good. I don't just take your advice

typical psych major!

 

[MTVision]

Cgipson's point was exactly what I've mentioned before. Its harder to nail focus when you have a really shallow depth of field. Since you were trying to nail your focus people were recommending using a smaller aperture like f/5.6 and f/8. If you can nail focus at f/8 but not at f/3.5 then you would know it was because of a razor thin DOF

 

[2WheelPhoto]

AMOMENT if for any reason you can't shoot f8-f11 or whatever stopped down lens setting you wish for more depth of field, perhaps purchase the ND filter for your lens

 

[2WheelPhoto]

AMOMENT if for any reason you can't shoot f8-f11 or whatever stopped down lens setting you wish for more depth of field, perhaps purchase the ND filter for your lens

I meant turn the flash up heh

 

[shootermcgavin]

I think you are over thinking things and probably playing with too many settings on your camera. The first one you posted is under exposed, your exif data says Metering Mode : Center Weight... Ok please correct me if I wrong because I am definitely not a pro but center weighted metering is kind of taking a large area and saying lets put the exposure in the middle, hence the white spot to the right of her being still white and blacks being black. But for this you wanted spot metering because for sure you wanted your daughters face correctly exposed. I think center weighted metering isn't used much. I shoot at f1.8 and get sharp shots at least wherever I am putting the focus on it is sharp. ISO at 400 doesn't seem necessary, but I suppose maybe it was really dark outside.

 

[Derrel]

A lens aperture setting of f/3.5 with a 50mm lens at the CLOSE shooting distance that it takes to get the image size of seated toddler is simply TOO WIDE of an aperture!!!!!!!!!

With her feet coming toward the camera, the soles of the feet are jarringly out of focus. The camera-to-subject distance you are using is very SHORT. THat means the total depth of field is going to be excruciatingly shallow at f/1.8, extremely shallow at f/2.8, very shallow at f/3.5, quite shallow at f/4, moderately shallow at f/5.6, and somewhat shallow at f/8.

I do not want to appear pedantic but: the camera-to-subject distance needed to get the toddler big in the frame with a 50mm lens necessitates a CLOSE camera-to-subject distance. At such a short distance, the depth of field at all of the wider aperture settings, like f/1.8, f/2, f/2.5, f/2.8, f3.2,f3.5,f/4---ALL of those aperture setting will give "shallow" depth of field. If however, you back the camera away, and shoot from 10 to 20 feet away and do a group or family shot, there will be more depth of field in absolute and in relative terms.

When doing individual toddler portraits from close distances, wide apertures like f/3.5 and even f/4, are best left to expert shooters, and flat-plane type poses where there are no limbs or props or toys extending toward the camera, and where ALL subjects are at pretty much the same,identical distance from the camera (meaning NO two-child shots, or kid + house pet shots done from close ranges).

 

[AMOMENT]

Got it I was actually worried that if I backed up 10/20 feet that I would have gotten so much of an unwanted background and that my cropping would have had to of been to severe. My daughter would have been such a small part of the image.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Actually if you stay close stopped down more your subject will be in focus and background will still be pretty

 

[MTVision]

I think you are over thinking things and probably playing with too many settings on your camera. The first one you posted is under exposed, your exif data says Metering Mode : Center Weight... Ok please correct me if I wrong because I am definitely not a pro but center weighted metering is kind of taking a large area and saying lets put the exposure in the middle, hence the white spot to the right of her being still white and blacks being black. But for this you wanted spot metering because for sure you wanted your daughters face correctly exposed. I think center weighted metering isn't used much. I shoot at f1.8 and get sharp shots at least wherever I am putting the focus on it is sharp. ISO at 400 doesn't seem necessary, but I suppose maybe it was really dark outside.

I'd rather shoot at ISO 400 than use the pop-up....IMO