Hannah

Bazza

Bazza

Messages
561
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Really enjoy this type of photography, just don't get the time or the model to do more of it! Introducing the missus' little sister Hannah, she wasn't too sure about the whole thing at the start but think she started to enjoy it and couldn't wait to show the photos off to her mates :)

This is my first proper go at using the flash as well and although I get the general idea of flash, I could do with a lot... a LOT more practice.

Really would appreciate feedback on these. All shot with a 5Diii, most of them 70-200 IS 2.8.

Thanks for looking! :wave:

1.

16319813162_76eed74072_o.jpg



2.

16320683755_94b66f7f64_o.jpg



3.

15700798583_c3e47a20e7_o.jpg



4.

16294746526_70259ddee9_o.jpg



5.

16318902921_9a46d5a248_o.jpg



6.

16134498609_37d6578021_o.jpg



7.

16319824132_4b1c59c220_o.jpg



8.

16133310540_61468e8d7a_o.jpg



(y)
 
Just wanted to check I'm not being paranoid or too fussy here but is there any quality issues at full size here? I understand viewing differences but some shots I've seen from a 5diii are a lot sharper. I really want to make sure it's my processing techniques for sharpening are the issue and not the lens being soft?
 
Well you did ask.......and they don't look that good at full size. Is it how you have uploaded them (are they being compressed) or just over sharpened? They look like they have been shot at a high ISO (I get a similar look using ISO 2000 on a 70D). What does the EXIF data say?
 
I would expect much better quality files from a 5DIII, tbh.
 
I'd be interested to see the RAW files. That looks like the kind of result I'd expect from a D700 at 6400.
 
Well, EXIF data for two of these shows that you shot them at 1/1250 sec at F2.8, with one at ISO 400 and one at ISO 1000. I would have thought that ISO 400 or even 1000 wouldn't be too much of a problem on a 5D iii, so it is I suspect (like you imply) something you have done in PP. F2.8 would give a shallow DOF, not sure if you were trying to sharpen areas which would not be sharp anyway at that DOF? The lens may be sharper at a narrower aperture (not lucky enough to have a EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM so I'm not sure). For portraits, I tend to be at around F3.2 to 4 for single subjects (but this is just personal preference).

To save reducing noise in PP you could try dropping the ISO down to say 100 or 200 and shooting at 1/60 to 1/100 sec (or around this depending on light obviosuly) and reduce the aperture a bit too (you'll get more "keepers") . Unless you are shooting jet fighters you don't really need such a fast shutter speed.

As @The23rdman says, the RAW files would be useful to see what you got SOOC, before PP began.
 
Last edited:
Neither of those ISO settings should ever be an issue on that body. I can't see from my phone, but it's going to be a) lens being soft, b) lens microadjustment issues c) pp issues or d) a combination of those.
 
5 sticks out like a sore thumb to me with a sepia-like tone and really diminishes the rest as a set. That's probably just me though as I like to see consistent editing.

Nice shots otherwise :)
 
Cheers guys. Here's a link to two of the raw files.

I think I've realised a massive mistake which seems like it is the most likely reason these are a bit off at full size. I was playing around with the settings tonight and realised the shooting was on One Shot instead of Servo, she was walking around as I was snapping so thinking this may be where the noob mistake has come about? But willing to listen to other opinions too.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lae9f37r3tvtnou/IMG_2208.CR2?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/okbeww8zgrkrkrb/IMG_2227.CR2?dl=0

Thanks!
 
I've only looked at the second one (pic 6 above), which is OOF (I can't see where it has actually focussed as it all looks soft to me). It doesn't look like she's moving about too much stood there with her hands in her pockets, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I'm sure others will have more helpful input!
 
The first one is fine. It's in focus and about as clean as you can expect in that light. It's not stellar performance from the 5DIII - I expected better - but it's in focus and sharp. It's your PP that's to blame along with the shot being underexposed to begin with. ETTR and go lighter on the PP. :)
 
Had a bit of a play with this in Adobe Camera Raw (it's less noisy, and a little sharper)

Sharpening
Amount: 45
Radius: 3.0
Detail: 100
Masking: 100

Noise Reduction
Luminance: 89
Luminance detail: 64
Luminance contrast: 95
Colour: 67
Colour detail: 100


IMG_2227 copy by Ian J Bradshaw, on Flickr
 
Thank you folks, really appreciate the feedback.

That does look sharper, I would usually do my sharpening outside of RAW but it seems that the setting in there are plenty! Not sure what way I had the noise reduction settings but will definitely take these on board as I seem to lose quality in the detail when I'm finished with it so will use those as a base setting, thank you!

The OOF ones will be OOF because of the One Shot focusing instead of Servo I'm thinking, there were only a couple where she was sitting still, but they were taken on the rocks... the rest I had her walk up and down the 'beach'. Rookie mistake, I'll know for next time though :)

Thanks again (y)
 
I wouldn't use those settings as 'base settings", most of them are maxed out, which you shouldn't need to do if the images are sharp to begin with. Have a play with the settings, start with the default settings the try the 'sharpening amount' and 'luminance' first and take it from there. I've only recently started processing RAW files, and what initially look like soft focus shots just 'pop' when you get the settings right (probably as no sharpening is applied to the RAW file, unlike the JPG). I tend to zoom in on the eyes when doing this.

I'm not 100% convinced one shot vs servo AF would make that much of a difference in this situation, but I may be wrong...
 
Sorry Ian, should have said, the base settings I was talking about would be for the noise but everything you're saying makes perfect sense. I'll have another play with some of the shots and try to reprocess when I get a chance to try and improve on the originals, barring the OOF shots.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top