Lens focus help please

Sam Edwards

Sam Edwards

Messages
86
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys,

Bought a 50mm f.1.8 II to go with my Canon 7D mark I this week, and took it out this morning to take some photos of my girlfriends dogs.

Not sure if this is purely down to my focusing, or just getting used to the lens, but as you can see in this photo below, the dogs nose is nicely in focus, however his ears are not. Can anyone advise me which settings I should have a play around with so that his entire face is nice and sharp, but the background is blurred?

Both photos were taken at f2.2, should I have maybe used f2.8 or above? I want to keep the 'bokeh' style background, but want all of his face and ears in focus.

Many thanks!

IMG_7612(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr

IMG_7609(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr
 
Getting the face in focus is dependent on what part you focus on as well as aperture. Generally speaking, if the subject eyes are in focus then the subject seems in focus. This works for shallower depth of field than you used here.

It's possible your kit is front focussing, or it may be you just missed focus on the eye and got his nose instead.
 
Its really simple. You have the abature too wide open. A lot depends on various circumstances, distance to subject, depth of subject, distance to background, but you'll probably be wanting f4 as an absolute minimum, probably f5.6 or even more.

Experiment.
 
No physical lens issues here. It's just at that close a distance the DOF just isn't deep enough. I'm not sure it ever would get deep enough.
 
I quite like the focus being on the nose and mouth TBH - it's where a lot of a Retriever's character is! However, the eyes are where the focus should usually be and a smaller aperture would give a bit more DoF, Might bring the background into too sharp a focus though.
 
Thanks for your advice guys.

I guess because his nose and mouth are nearest to me, I've pointed the camera at that rather than looking for his eyes instead. First time using the lens though, so I just need to experiment with different depths of fields etc. Yes it's a very fine line with where I want the background to be too.

I'll have to invest in some more doggy treats to keep him interested for next time! :ROFLMAO:
 
Sam Edwards said:
Thanks for your advice guys.

I guess because his nose and mouth are nearest to me, I've pointed the camera at that rather than looking for his eyes instead. First time using the lens though, so I just need to experiment with different depths of fields etc. Yes it's a very fine line with where I want the background to be too.

I'll have to invest in some more doggy treats to keep him interested for next time! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons why the Sony A7 and A9 series have been so popular - the cameras can select the eye as the point of focus instead of you having to search for it. other makers are starting to catch up now.
 
Took the pups out again this weekend and managed to get abit more practice with the new lens. Happy to say that his face and ears are now completely in focus!

IMG_7895(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr

IMG_7863(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr

Also, following on from one of the earlier comments, I made a conscious effort to focus on her eyes in the below picture, as opposed to the end of her nose, and you're right, it does look in focus with the eyes being in focus. I'll keep practising, but thanks for your advice guys (y)


IMG_8020(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr
 
Sam there is something called a DOF calculator....................https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Have a play with that,it'll help you understand what going on. Try to really notice/absorb how DOF falls off with decreasing subject distance really get that in your head . This is why the lads and lasses that shot macro have so many problems getting the whole of a subject in side the DOF and why they resort to focus stacking, with the lens being so so close the dof is TINY.
Also be aware different lenses have different DOF at the same distance


Mate forgive me, i've just got to ask, you don't work in construction do you? I've got this weird weird feeling I might know you, which is strange considering all I have is your first name and a bike image in the sig,. But yeah I have to ask:LOL:

If not sorry to bother, the DOF master is damn useful though:)

take care

stu
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Sam there is something called a DOF calculator....................https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Have a play with that,it'll help you understand what going on. Try to really notice/absorb how DOF falls off with decreasing subject distance really get that in your head . This is why the lads and lasses that shot macro have so many problems getting the whole of a subject in side the DOF and why they resort to focus stacking, with the lens being so so close the dof is TINY.
Also be aware different lenses have different DOF at the same distance


Mate forgive me, i've just got to ask, you don't work in construction do you? I've got this weird weird feeling I might know you, which is strange considering all I have is your first name and a bike image in the sig,. But yeah I have to ask:LOL:

If not sorry to bother, the DOF master is damn useful though:)

take care

stu
Click to expand...

I'll definately have a look into that. I'm really interested in improving my photography skills, it's amazing how different taking pictures of dogs is to taking pictures of bikes. Atleast with a bike you have an idwa of where it's going to go or what its going to do

Funnily enough, I do work in construction! Do you? I must admit your name doesnt ring any bells, you might have come across me on Linkedin or something?
 
Ha no I can barely cope with a couple of fora so have no idea what linked in is.????? :)

Sam I use a mastic gun, my name is stu that and me wafflin about nature hmm that might be enough for you to know me , or not ,as the case may be ?? , If you are whom I think you have bat boxes in those first 4 bungalows on your site???


Ha I don't ring any bells bro that's the point:LOL:
 
A couple of things you might want to experiment with are (a) when shooting, your camera's depth of field preview button, and (b) when reviewing images, the control in Canon's DPP software that shows you the position of the selected focus point overlayed on your photo (you may need an image straight from the camera, rather than one that has already been processed in other software).
 
Stuart Philpott said:
Ha no I can barely cope with a couple of fora so have no idea what linked in is.????? :)

Sam I use a mastic gun, my name is stu that and me wafflin about nature hmm that might be enough for you to know me , or not ,as the case may be ?? , If you are whom I think you have bat boxes in those first 4 bungalows on your site???


Ha I don't ring any bells bro that's the point:LOL:
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: not me i'm afraid! I do work in construction but I work in an office!
 
Brilliant ha I was really sure !!:LOL: I meet very few image makers on the tools Sam, very few ..........there are the odd gems though, The guy I've mistaken you for has, to me, huge talent with motosport and a viewfinder ( only a young un') ,so I guess it aint all bad:D

Sam that's the thing with wildlife, nature, animals ....................... learning how to predict them is very very hard...............................it IS there to be learnt , though:)





.
 
Sam Edwards said:
Took the pups out again this weekend and managed to get abit more practice with the new lens. Happy to say that his face and ears are now completely in focus!

IMG_7895(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr

IMG_7863(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr

Also, following on from one of the earlier comments, I made a conscious effort to focus on her eyes in the below picture, as opposed to the end of her nose, and you're right, it does look in focus with the eyes being in focus. I'll keep practising, but thanks for your advice guys (y)


IMG_8020(1) by Sam Edwards, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Focusing on the eyes does help as even if the nose isn’t in focus having the eyes in focus makes it much more forgiving when viewing. DOF close up with wide apertures can give quite shallow DOF. In the first image you posted the DOF is probably only 1-2cm. One thing to consider is distance to subject is just as important as aperture. If you were to shoot at f2.8 on a 50mm lens on the 7D with a subject distance of 1m you’d have a DOF around 4cm. If you double the subject distance to 2m you’d have around 17cm DOF.

If you measure the distance between the dog nose and eyes it’s probably 8-10cm. You’d need a DOF of 16-20cm as there is some much in front of the focus point and so much behind it. That’s difficult to get when trying to fill the frame with just the head.

I remember trying to get a puffins head fully in focus from head on with a 200mm lens from a subject distance of 1-2m. It was pretty much impossible as the eyes where too far from the end of the beak.

The DOF calculator Stu posted is worth looking at and having a play with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top