70-200 f4- soft photos
- Thread starter gercam
- Start date
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Post a pic, with exposure details.
Impossible to say without, but it is either miss-focusing or movement blur - either camera or subject movement, or possibly both. Assuming the light was good, I would guess at miss-focus. Servo AF can be prone to it if you're not careful.
Impossible to say without, but it is either miss-focusing or movement blur - either camera or subject movement, or possibly both. Assuming the light was good, I would guess at miss-focus. Servo AF can be prone to it if you're not careful.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Hard to tell, they look ok-ish at that size. What do you think is wrong with them, specifically?
It's not camera or subject movement, and the focus can't be far out. Need a link to a full size image to check that. What lens is it? Depth of field at f/5.6 is going to be marginal on the top one, and unless you're very precise, you'll run out of DoF at either the front or back of the group.
What I'm thinking is maybe it's just flat, dull day syndrome. A dash of fill-in flash would have lifted those faces a lot, but you could probably get a much better result with a few tweak in post processing. Push up the saturation a bit, and sharpen.
It's not camera or subject movement, and the focus can't be far out. Need a link to a full size image to check that. What lens is it? Depth of field at f/5.6 is going to be marginal on the top one, and unless you're very precise, you'll run out of DoF at either the front or back of the group.
What I'm thinking is maybe it's just flat, dull day syndrome. A dash of fill-in flash would have lifted those faces a lot, but you could probably get a much better result with a few tweak in post processing. Push up the saturation a bit, and sharpen.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I think the focus is probably just a bit off, plus the dull day malarky. You haven't got much DoF at those f/numbers, so you've got to be precise - or rather, shoot at a higher f/number with higher ISO to get it at a safe shutter speed. Avoid servo-AF unless you are tracking a moving subject, and use focus-recompose technique, using the centre AF point only.
Focus should be in the centre of the zone of DoF, basically in a shot like that about one-third into the group. Say your DoF is 3ft, then focus 1ft in, with 2ft behind - that should just cover the group.
Check your DoF here http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Just guessing, but you need at least 3ft of DoF for those shots and I reckon (not knowing your shooting distance) that it's likely to be less than that.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Top pic, the distance from the nearest subject (girl left) to the furthest (guy at back). What was your shooting distance, to the nearest foot or so, and I'll work that DoF calculator for you
- Messages
- 1,818
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
If you base the above shots as being taken say from 12 feet (based on the exif data of each shot)then shot 1 has 1.8 ft of focus depth and shot 2 has 0.9 ft . That's not much focus area for the group to be in focus front to back. However they don't look too bad but as already said, its hard to tell accurately at that size.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think its partially lacking punch because its a little under exposed - when you look at the histogram its very much to the left.
I hope you don't mind but i had a little play with one and tweaked the levels and saturation and gave it a bit of unsharp mask - it still isnt perfect (you'll be able to do better editing the original file) and its a bit punchier - the girl with dark hair and denim shorts still isnt entirely sharp - but I think thats beyond sharpening in post to resolve.
I hope you don't mind but i had a little play with one and tweaked the levels and saturation and gave it a bit of unsharp mask - it still isnt perfect (you'll be able to do better editing the original file) and its a bit punchier - the girl with dark hair and denim shorts still isnt entirely sharp - but I think thats beyond sharpening in post to resolve.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,157
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Even at these sizes it does look as if it's missed focus for some reason.
OP. Are you a Canon user? If so have a look at the shot in DPP and see where the focus point is, that might give some further cluse as to what's going on.
OP. Are you a Canon user? If so have a look at the shot in DPP and see where the focus point is, that might give some further cluse as to what's going on.
OP
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes canon 40d - sorry what is dpp?
OP
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't have DPP - how do I get it?
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Link to original
i think you meant this http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5450/7389060820_12d9a0fae7_k.jpg
you need to link to the url of ther actual picture - which usually ends in .jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
it'll be on the Cds that came with your camera
if you can't find them you can download it here http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0029161.asp?model=
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 44,157
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
It comes with the camera. I don't know if you can download it but it might be worth Googling to see if you can... if you shoot RAW.
In DPP under "view" when viewing a RAW file you can select "AF point" and it shows you where the AF point is, you can also see it by doing Alt+L.
In DPP under "view" when viewing a RAW file you can select "AF point" and it shows you where the AF point is, you can also see it by doing Alt+L.
OP
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't shoot them in raw - is that a problem?
- Messages
- 1,818
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
- Messages
- 420
- Name
- Gerry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Amended my info
Thanks
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
O/T. Gaza, can I ask what Exif reader you're using? I couldn't get focusing distance with mine. Cheers.
There's not much wrong with this shot. I've just looked at the big image on Flickr and you can see every stitch. There's something going on with what we're seeing posted here, quite common with some hosts I think.
The girl at the front and guy at the back are just a smidge out of focus, in line with the DoF being too shallow, but the ones inbetween are pin sharp. It just needs a little tweaking in post processing.
- Messages
- 442
- Name
- Dave (Who'da thunk it!)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Assuming it's about three feet of DoF that you need, use f/11 (raise the ISO so the shutter speed doesn't fall too low, if you don't have IS) and focus one third-in, ie one foot - as previously described
Prolly on the blond girl.Looks like you'd have got away with f/8 with that shot as you maybe don't need quite three feet, but unless it's important for the background to be as out of focus as possible, going to f/11 just gives you a little margin for error.
Check that link to DoFmaster I posted earlier. You need to understabnd how depth of field works, it's fundamental stuff.
Edit: OR, if you're pushed for light in a shot like this, arrange the group so they're all roughly in line and the same distance from the camera. Then you can get away with much less DoF and a lower f/number. Also as mentioned before, dash of fill-in flash really helps to lift things on dull days - a very small dash. Pop-up is perfect for that, and easily moderated on auto with the flash compensation control.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
One third into the depth of field zone (depth of focus is technically something different).
- Messages
- 26,499
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
A shorter lens, and then the aperture would have been fine, I never shoot smaller than f8 unless I'm using it as a tool to lower shutter speed.
magicaxeman
An Idiot
- Messages
- 3,097
- Edit My Images
- No
One of the issues I haven't seen mentioned (I might be blind so forgive me if its been brought up already) is using AI servo.
I would use one shot AF on this type of shot as AI servo is designed to be used on moving subject and has a predictive element to its operation, it will also be constantly looking for movement or a change in the distance between you and the subject, thus I have found when using it for static subjects it can get it wrong and give you a slightly oof image.
So try shooting in one shot AF mode when you aren't shooting moving subjects, I think you'll find it will help.
I would use one shot AF on this type of shot as AI servo is designed to be used on moving subject and has a predictive element to its operation, it will also be constantly looking for movement or a change in the distance between you and the subject, thus I have found when using it for static subjects it can get it wrong and give you a slightly oof image.
So try shooting in one shot AF mode when you aren't shooting moving subjects, I think you'll find it will help.