How to focus on eyes

Status
Not open for further replies.
joescrivens said:
There is no exif in any of these so how do we know it's 1.4? some look a bit shallower to me considering both eyes in perfect focus on an angle, not that I know a lot of what I am talking about but just a little suspicious :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

There is EXIF in the second one - says f/1.4 :)
 
loplyg said:
Actually using the center focus point and recomposing can be hairy if you are going to put the eyes to the far sides of the images, as the rotation of the camera in recomposing will inevitably increase the distance to the subject marginally.
Click to expand...

eh? I rotate the camera before I focus - use the vertical AF button and shutter release. Why would you rotate after you focus - that's making life hard - or am I mis-reading you?
 
use the point that fits nicest in the frame, shoot a wee bit wide and crop to nail your composition.

Focussing and recomposing puts waaaaay too many errors in at wide apertures
 
Referring to all the above banter about centre focus points: maybe if we saw some pics we could see some nice sharp 1.4 pics with different techniques?
Click to expand...

If you click here, it will take you to the 'low light' category of our blog. If you look down it, most of our pics there are taken at f1.4 or f2 (with the exception of a few of the exterior ones). Note EXIF data will not be accurate in many of the pics due to use of some manual lenses.
 
Crofts said:
If you click here, it will take you to the 'low light' category of our blog. If you look down it, most of our pics there are taken at f1.4 or f2 (with the exception of a few of the exterior ones). Note EXIF data will not be accurate in many of the pics due to use of some manual lenses.
Click to expand...

You have some lovely images there

let's see a 100% crop on this one

http://edinburghweddingphotos.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Karen-Jim-228.jpg

looks like the eyes are oof very slightly, probably caused by a centre recompose.
 
Just dashing out for a meeting for an hour or so, will post enlargement etc, when i get back.

Thank you for comment about pics :)
 
p.s. sorry to add, but please could you remove image posted in previous post - I dont want people's wedding pics being passed around forums! will respond properly shortly.
 
Crofts said:
p.s. sorry to add, but please could you remove image posted in previous post - I dont want people's wedding pics being passed around forums! will respond properly shortly.
Click to expand...

I just put a link, I haven't posted the actual image. It's on your public site right?

can remove the link if needed
 
I just put a link, I haven't posted the actual image. It's on your public site right?

can remove the link if needed
Click to expand...

I'm back :)

The link as it is is fine as it is - when I went out the actual image was appearing on this page for some reason, I don't know why.

The picture in question was taken by candlelight - a moving person. In this case the EXIF data in the pic is right (it was an AF lens): ISO 2000, shutter speed 1/20th of a sec, with a 50mm lens at f1.4.

With the above data, you don't necessarily expect the whole image to be crispy sharp, there is always some motion, as well as noise. However, if I blow up the eye to 100% (actual pixels), I think that you can see that the focus is in the right place:-
 
Maybe it's a bit clearer if you see both eyes!:

229.jpg


p.s. image posted on here rather than link as it's (a) by me and (b) only a more or less unrecognisable fraction of an image!

Staff Edit : Image(s) removed. (Link(s) left in place). Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text
 
BTW I think you can take pretty much any of the photos shown on the blog, whether the subject is in the centre or off-centre, and they will pretty much all have nice sharp focus in the right place.
 
Crofts said:
Maybe it's a bit clearer if you see both eyes!:

229.jpg


p.s. image posted on here rather than link as it's (a) by me and (b) only a more or less unrecognisable fraction of an image!

Staff Edit : Image(s) removed. (Link(s) left in place). Pictures must not exceed current forum limits as per the rules.
Please feel free to replace this with a fresh/resized image and remove this text
Click to expand...

Defo looks oof on the eyes to me
 
Good god. Have you seen the specular highlight in the eyes? It is perfectly sharp. What do you think is in focus, the eyelashes, or the bit behind the eyes?

Sorry, but beginning to get a little irritated here.
 
Crofts said:
Good god. Have you seen the specular highlight in the eyes? It is perfectly sharp. What do you think is in focus, the eyelashes, or the bit behind the eyes?

Sorry, but beginning to get a little irritated here.
Click to expand...

No need to get irate, clearly we are not understanding one another - are you claiming the eyes in the shot you have posted are perfectly in focus and free from any form of bluriness?
 
Yes, that photo is not taken at ISO 2000, at 1/20th sec., with motion blur in the surrounding face. Sorry, but if you're trying to compare the two...
 
are you claiming the eyes in the shot you have posted are perfectly in focus and free from any form of bluriness
Click to expand...

Perfectly in focus yes - to the millimetre. Free of bluriness, no of course not. There is a perfectly sharp point in the eyes which for ISO 2000 I would say is pretty impressive. There is motion blur in the surrounding eye.
 
Crofts said:
Perfectly in focus yes - to the millimetre. Free of bluriness, no of course not. There is a perfectly sharp point in the eyes which for ISO 2000 I would say is pretty impressive. There is motion blur in the surrounding eye.
Click to expand...

OK so for arguments sake, lets say you are correct, 100% in focus. Yet it looks out of focus and blurry...surely all you are left with a perfectly focused photo which looks out of focus and / or blurry.

Both the original and the crop to me look out of focus.

Gary.
 
OK so for arguments sake, lets say you are correct, 100% in focus. Yet it looks out of focus and blurry...surely all you are left with a perfectly focused photo which looks out of focus and / or blurry.

Both the original and the crop to me look out of focus.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what else to say except that I'm speechless. The front of the eyeball is in focus, focus drops off towards the back of the eyeball. How accurate do you want?
 
Crofts said:
Well, I don't know what else to say except that I'm speechless.
Click to expand...

I really am not in the business of trying to offend people, never mind leave them speechless !! I am merely forming an opinion I guess, one which I am completely happy to accept as flawed. The photo to ME looks out of focus, it looks just like out of focus photos I have taken, and it looks just like out of focus photos I have seen posted here in the past, and which have had the same crit levelled at them.

Remember this is all subjective, the last thing you should do is take the hump. A thick skin is required in this game :D

Anyway, no ill feelings from me - it's just a photo :)

Gary.
 
Crofts said:
The front of the eyeball is in focus, focus drops off towards the back of the eyeball. How accurate do you want?
Click to expand...

I would imagine the distance from the front of the visible part of the eyeball and the furthest back visible part of the eyeball is absolutely tiny. Not a doctor, but surely you must be talking a mil at most?

Would the distance you shot from even at f1.4 have that much fall over say 1mm?

Gary.
 
I've just had to pinch myself to see if I was dreaming.

Simon (I think that's your name) - the images on your website are very impressive. But all of this is beginning to remind me of Monty Pythons "Dead Parrot" sketch.
 
I'm guessing you've never taken a photo at ISO 2000. Here's a blow up of the specular highlight in the eye to around 500%. Personally I would say the sharpness is remarkable, given the technical parameters:-

230.jpg
 
Crofts said:
I'm guessing you've never taken a photo at ISO 2000. Here's a blow up of the specular highlight in the eye to around 500%. Personally I would say the sharpness is remarkable, given the technical parameters:-

230.jpg
Click to expand...

I've taken many photo's at ISO2000, and regurarly use images ISO 6400.

I am not a pixel peeper, EVER. If a photo looks out of focus to me, I bin it, end of story. If it looks out of focus at 800 pixels wide, I dunno what blowing it up is going to achieve.

Again happy to accept this is a completely flawed approach.

Gary.
 
How can it be in focus if it is blurry ? Was it an in focus blurry shot due to high iso ?

I'm struggling to understand what is going on here.

I also find it hard to see how the original shot, even at 1.4, could have a depth of field of 5-10mm, which I gather is what is being said by insisting that " The front of the eyeball is in focus, focus drops off towards the back of the eyeball."

Please don't take this as criticism, the shot looks out of focus to me and I am struggling to see which part is in focus.
 
Would the distance you shot from even at f1.4 have that much fall over say 1mm?
Click to expand...

Looking at the eyeball of my wife sitting opposite, my guess it's more like 6 or 7mm difference - there's a lot of curvature on the eyeball.

It's hard to distinguish where focus fall off ends, and motion blur begins, but I think a fall-off in focus can start to occur over an eyeball. The back of the eyeball in the socket is def less sharp than the specular highlight at the front.

In practise, the shot was a bit lucky - no one and no camera autofocus can focus with absolute certainty to 2 or 3 millimetres, no matter what focus point is selected. Most lenses have their focus out for starters, often by a matter of centimetres and need calibrating, whatever focus point you use.
 
bomberman said:
I was wonderng, how do people get their subjects eyes bang on focus when using f/1.8? If the eyes fall naturally on a focus point then ok fine, but what do you do if the eyes aren't on a focus point? My 400d has 9 af points. Do people have to re-compose the shot or is there another way around this?
Click to expand...

Why F1.8? Is the model posed or moving? Just use manual focus or use auto focus then tweak the focus manually after re-composing the shot or change the focus point on camera :shrug: I'm sure that there are many experts on here who have their own methods, but they have probably got years of experience and very expensive cameras :thinking: and to those knocking the rock the camera method! There are plenty of macro togs who do something very similar :cool:
 
How can it be in focus if it is blurry ? Was it an in focus blurry shot due to high iso ?
Click to expand...

Images can be blurry for a variety of reasons. Motion blur. High ISO reduces sharpness.

The nose and feature on the face forward of the eyes are very blurry. So are the facial features behind them. The peak of sharpness is right on the eyes, which is where the focus is.

At ISO 2000, taken in low light, blown up to 5x 100%, at 1/20th of a sec. this is pretty remarkably sharp, believe me.
 
Can I suggest if you are trying to post an image to show perfect focus you choose one without motion blur? It may well be in focus but unless I was specifically going for motion blur then that shot would have been a bin job for me straight off.
 
Crofts said:
Images can be blurry for a variety of reasons. Motion blur. High ISO reduces sharpness.

The nose and feature on the face forward of the eyes are very blurry. So are the facial features behind them. The peak of sharpness is right on the eyes, which is where the focus is.

At ISO 2000, taken in low light, blown up to 5x 100% this is pretty remarkably sharp, believe me.
Click to expand...

OK, so you have a perfectly focused photo which is suffering from Motion Blur and "High ISO blur :shrug: "?

Without wanting to sound rude, is that not still technically a poor shot?

Gary.
 
How can that be ???

Play along with me for a bit, humour me ... Now I am going to make a whole heap of assumptions here so please shoot me down in flames if this is total tripe :-)

Let's say you were using a 1.5 crop sensor camera, 2m from the subject, if you used a 30mm lens at 1.4 your depth of field would be 250mm, hence front to back of eye would all be in focus. If you were using an 85mm it would be 20mm, either way still more depth of field than the size of an eye ball, or even half of one because most of the eye ball is within the eye socket. I would guess that no more than 10mm of the eye protrudes in front of the eyelid.
 
Can I suggest if you are trying to post an image to show perfect focus you choose one without motion blur?
Click to expand...

It wasn't chosen by me - it was a picture that Joe chose from my blog to try to prove that it was out of focus. In fact, it's perfectly in focus. So it wasn't chosen by me. I posted it to show that even a random picture not selected by me, taken in the most difficult possible conditions, is still in focus.

I have hundreds of others that I could choose from...
 
Crofts said:
It wasn't chosen by me - it was a picture that Joe chose from my blog to try to prove that it was out of focus. In fact, it's perfectly in focus. So it wasn't chosen by me. I posted it to show that even a random picture not selected by me, taken in the most difficult possible conditions, is still in focus.

I have hundreds of others that I could choose from...
Click to expand...

I think the crux is this. If it looks soft for whatever reason...call it out of focus, blurry due to movement, ISO degradation, whatever....if people here feel the photo suffers as a result, they are going to say it.

The photo Joe picked to ME looks soft. It may well be perfectly focused, it LOOKS soft.

Don't loose any sleep over it.

G.
 
I was giving an example of sharpness you might normally expect at that ISO at that magnification.
 
Maybe someone should have gone to specsavers.:D
 
I've just deleted those 2 posts because the image was ridiculously large. You've already been warned it this thread about image sizes crofts. Post properly or not at all.
Click to expand...

86k and 111k respectively. What's the limit here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top