Peoples faces soft?

A

A_S

Messages
576
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Not sure where to post this one. I don't usually take photos of people, mainly machines and cars. While I was doing some rally stuff for an agency a month or 2 ago, I had to do the podium (again not normally something I'd do).

I set my focus to eye tracking but that didn't work well so i used tracking and spot mode on one of the 2 people's faces.

Every photo of every car has come out like this - I am not quite sure what I did wrong. Granted its a big crop but the faces are really really lacking detail and definition while the trophy (in front of them) is so clear you can get read the writing clearly, and the french flag on the car at least at the same distance or further behind the people seems well focused as well.... In fact all the faces look soft where ever they are in the frame in relation to the driver

The image is quite a big crop granted (original 100% crop and overall image below) and was taken on an EOS R5 with a EF 24-105 F4L (original mk1) @ 1/400s, F9 ISO800.

I went F9 to try and ensure I had the DOF in case the focus was slightly missed.

Any advice appreciated!

5G4A8079.jpg5G4A8079.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just used lightroom with my standard preset that I apply to all images

Shot in CRAW (compressed raw)
 
Looks like a really high dynamic range from the sun reflected stonework to the faces under the cap (which are pretty much your deepest shadows in the image)

Is the original image unprocessed? If you had to lift those shadows quite high to get what you've shown above, I'm not surprised the faces looks a little spludgy.
Also, noise reduction can really smudge skin in my experience. The Red Bull on the hats are nice & sharp and around the same distance but brightly lit/coloured.

My guess: It's not a DOF issue, or shutter speed issue. It's a tiny crop of a larger image, where the bit you want to be sharp has been under-exposed (due to the high dynamic range in the scene) and badly corrected by software. Not saying you did a bad correction job, more saying the software didn't have much to work with. This is why people use flashes outside. If you want the car & people to be well exposed, forget about the background and focus on your subject.

Like I said though, it's just a guess.
 
I'm keen to understand also. Taken that a fill in flash would have helped with exposure, if the OP did not have a flash I would have ensured spot metering - possibly even centre weighted? Was this taken with matrix metering?
 
Tulipone said:
I'm keen to understand also. Taken that a fill in flash would have helped with exposure, if the OP did not have a flash I would have ensured spot metering - possibly even centre weighted? Was this taken with matrix metering?
Click to expand...
Exposing for the faces without fill flash would have rendered everything else overexposed
 
Thanks Phil. I just realised that the top picture was a crop of the lower - should have paid more attention to the OP words.
 
Last edited:
No worries thanks for the advice. Interesting point on thr flash - I don’t think many others were using one if any actually. I can’t recall seeing anyone

I’ll dig out the original image and try and post an in processed version.

Shadows have been lifted quite a bit but overall exposure not so much here are the settings
 
Here is the original import and the settings. I must have switched to JPG for these, probably running low on card space.

To answer another question, yes it was taken with evaluative metering and there was 1/3 of a stop exposure correction set as is my default. I guess the moral of the story is use a flash and expose further to the right/change your metering mode

edit: ignore the first image I can't work out how to view a photo in lightroom without my import preset settings so I'll just load the file up in photoshop and save it without any adjustments

IMG_4377.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 5G4A8079.jpg
    5G4A8079.jpg
    179.3 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
right managed to sort the original, you are right they do look quite shadowy

5G4A8079.jpg5G4A8079-2.jpg
 
A_S said:
No worries thanks for the advice. Interesting point on thr flash - I don’t think many others were using one if any actually. I can’t recall seeing anyone
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what anyone else was doing. I'd expect someone on shift for an 'agency' to know what they were doing.
 
Personally I would have just metered for the drivers and fine tuned the exposure in Lightroom.

5G4A8079 copy.jpg
 
DemiLion said:
It doesn't matter what anyone else was doing. I'd expect someone on shift for an 'agency' to know what they were doing.
Click to expand...

all have to learn somewhere mate... hence the post. No need to be arsey about it!
 
On the job is NOT the place to be learning though.
 
I'm not a pro and appreciate this is outside your normal shots. But I'd certainly have chimped the back of the camera to see how it was looking and probably reshot it with a much wider aperture given the lighting conditions. In this instance I'd have preferred to capture the people and worry less about the background blowing out. Realistically, when shooting people, you want the people to be the focus (and in focus) for an event like this.

Other options could have been a bracketed sequence which might have allowed you to combine images in post - this doesn't always work with people though, as they move. But I'd have comped in a properly exposed background to a properly exposed foreground.

The other thing to note is that it's very easy to say all this here with the benefit of some thinking time. Whereas it's very easy to get it wrong on the day if it's not something you don't do often.

I came back the other day from shooting something and realised that I'd somehow switched my camera to JPEG only.

I'd take the advice where it's offered, and ignore the snidy comments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: A_S
Nod said:
On the job is NOT the place to be learning though.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have no choice (applies to many jobs, not just photography) - you know how to do one part of a job, and then your boss tells you to cover another part, that you've not got experience in - so you have to learn as you go.
 
If you don't have the necessary skills to do the job your boss tells you to, tell them rather than perform poorly.
 
You're gonna need a big arsed expensive flash to fill from there.

Maybe upping the ISO with fill in would have worked.
 
All the OP has to do is increase the exposure and then bring the highlights down. It will take all of 30 seconds to do in Lightroom, and he will have a very acceptable image.
 
L320Rio said:
All the OP has to do is increase the exposure and then bring the highlights down. It will take all of 30 seconds to do in Lightroom, and he will have a very acceptable image.
Click to expand...


Apart from the cartoon faces and the inherent noise, you mean?
 
I spent five years running a photo desk.

If you thought that the reception that you got here was rough, try handing those images in to a proper agency. Especially if you are on shift as opposed to 'spec'.
 
I think that some of the (ex)professional photographers on here would do well to remember that not all amateur photographers need to produce photographs to the same exacting standards that they did/do. A club photographer of a non-league football club does not need to use the same equipment and produce the same quality of photographs as a professional photographer photographing the Premier League. Likewise with motorsport, or another genre of photography for that matter.
 
A_S said:
Some people seem to get a kick out of knocking people down,
Click to expand...
While true, the other side of the story is that some people only want to be praised.

If I get excessively annoyed by the responses from someone, I just click the ignore button. Of course, in a technical thread, this can mean missing the response that solves the problem. :(
 
A_S said:
you know what, some of the replys in this thread made me leave the site for a month.

Some people seem to get a kick out of knocking people down, Just not needed to be honest.

Thanks to all those who offered constructive critisism.
Click to expand...
Fair point but . . .
As photographers, we all have specialist interests and specialist skills. For example, I worked for many years as an advertising and commercial photographer and was fairly adept at lighting, but have no interest and no skills in sports, landscape or several other types of photography.

But, as far as the general public is concerned, anyone with a large camera is an expert, or is expected to be, so anyone who takes on any type of shoot that they don't have the skills (or equipment) needed is likely to produce below-par results. Those results may damage the reputation of the individual but they also damage the reputation of all photographers.

I'm NOT suggesting that anyone who takes on a job that's beyond their expertise should wear a tabard with a big red L written on the back, but I do suggest that everyone should have a good grasp of the basics - including when and how to use fill flash - because technical competence should be, and needs to be, a basic starting point.

I still remember one job that I quoted for. A kitchen manufacturer wanted photos of their range, taken in their own showroom, which involved 2 days of work, a large-format camera, a van load of lighting equipment, 2 assistants and very specialised knowledge. After a very long time they got back to me, booked the job and said that it was very urgent. I did the job and was told by one of the workers that it had already been done by another pro photographer, and I later found out that it had been done by a local guy who had a portrait and wedding photography shop. No doubt he had his skills, but walking into a showroom, taking a few shots with a flashgun, in and out in 20 minutes, just wasted everyone's time. And what about the myriad of photography websites of wedding photographers who also claim to be able to do product photography? These people mean no harm, but they damage the reputation of the profession.

So yes, a few people on here (including me) can be a bit blunt, but overall this is a very friendly and helpful forum, and frankly, I don't think that photography is the ideal interest for those who are easily offended.
 
I have no idea what the percentage of pro photographers vs hobby amateur is here, nor the range of skills or ability are of either. Don’t think it matters. I have sought and gained knowledge here and ignored stuff I found I didn’t like. It is generally a nice and supportive community to be part of.

I am not sure why you need to be of a robust nature to have an interest in anything.
 
Last edited:
Tulipone said:
I have no idea what the percentage of pro photographers vs hobby amateur is here, nor the range of skills or ability are of either. Don’t think it matters. I have sought and gained knowledge here and ignored stuff I found I didn’t like. It is generally a nice and supportive community to be part of.

I am not sure why you need to be of a robust nature to have an interest in anything.
Click to expand...
If we're photographing people then we need to be confident and assertive to get the best out of them.
If we ask for advice, we should value that advice, whether critical or supportive, not just value comments that we've done a great job.
 
Those photographers who are as long in the tooth as me, were brought up with the need to understand how to cope with difficult light conditions. Most of us went to photographic college at least on a day release basis, and many served time as an assistant or an apprenticeship... We learnt the trade before being let loose on our own commissions.

The ops shots are not in the least unusual lighting conditions, and good results could have been obtained by better exposure settings and or some fill flash.

I am also of the opinion that they are not as sharp as I would like or expect. This is partly down to the lack of exposure. But also a poor choice of point of focus. However I would suggest that other factors might be involved. As it is not pin sharp anywhere, and is totally lacking in fine detail. Such factors as a dirty lens combined with backlighting, Camera shake. And lens quality could also be contributing factors. As could a too slow shutter speed or to high an ISO setting.

You need to find some similar lighting conditions and do a few test runs to eliminate some of these options,± and find out where things are going wrong for you.

But on first inspection the greatest fault is under exposure. Other factors only contribute to the poor quality.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Those photographers who are as long in the tooth as me, were brought up with the need to understand how to cope with difficult light conditions. Most of us went to photographic college at least on a day release basis, and many served time as an assistant or an apprenticeship... We learnt the trade before being let loose on our own commissions.

The ops shots are not in the least unusual lighting conditions, and good results could have been obtained by better exposure settings and or some fill flash.

I am also of the opinion that they are not as sharp as I would like or expect. This is partly down to the lack of exposure. But also a poor choice of point of focus. However I would suggest that other factors might be involved. As it is not pin sharp anywhere, and is totally lacking in fine detail. Such factors as a dirty lens combined with backlighting, Camera shake. And lens quality could also be contributing factors. As could a too slow shutter speed or to high an ISO setting.

You need to find some similar lighting conditions and do a few test runs to eliminate some of these options,± and find out where things are going wrong for you.

But on first inspection the greatest fault is under exposure. Other factors only contribute to the poor quality.
Click to expand...

People of our generation had to struggle to learn, and we spent years doing it at starvation wages - but the job opportunities were there, if I screwed up I'd be sacked, and sometimes was, but would walk straight into another job. Those job opportunities no longer exist and people have to learn in other ways. There's an enormous amount of info on the web, but a high proportion of it is just wrong, leaving people to learn by the only method that really works - practice, practice and practice. Good, critical advice from members of this forum can be a big help too, but nothing beats practice.
A_S said:
The image is quite a big crop granted (original 100% crop and overall image below) and was taken on an EOS R5 with a EF 24-105 F4L (original mk1) @ 1/400s, F9 ISO800.

I went F9 to try and ensure I had the DOF in case the focus was slightly missed.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with that. Overall, I think it would be a great shot if a fill flash had been used, which it should have been. I'd be extremely critical of that lack of knowledge if I hadn't made so many mistakes myself:) Personally, I'd be happier if people didn't take on (professional) photography jobs that they cannot do properly, for the reasons already given, but they do.

To the OP - you made a beginner mistake. You now know what it is. Learn from it, put it behind you and move on.
 
Garry Edwards said:
People of our generation had to struggle to learn, and we spent years doing it at starvation wages - but the job opportunities were there, if I screwed up I'd be sacked, and sometimes was, but would walk straight into another job. Those job opportunities no longer exist and people have to learn in other ways. There's an enormous amount of info on the web, but a high proportion of it is just wrong, leaving people to learn by the only method that really works - practice, practice and practice. Good, critical advice from members of this forum can be a big help too, but nothing beats practice.

Nothing wrong with that. Overall, I think it would be a great shot if a fill flash had been used, which it should have been. I'd be extremely critical of that lack of knowledge if I hadn't made so many mistakes myself:) Personally, I'd be happier if people didn't take on (professional) photography jobs that they cannot do properly, for the reasons already given, but they do.

To the OP - you made a beginner mistake. You now know what it is. Learn from it, put it behind you and move on.
Click to expand...

A quote from your book, page 25 of the 2nd version.

“This doesn’t mean that correct exposure doesn’t matter at all, and if you need to get the exposure spot-on then you can (should) use the camera histogram to fine-tune the exposure, but what it does mean is that, if the exposure meter in your camera gets it a bit wrong, or is metering the wrong part of the subject because you’ve selected the wrong metering option or have placed the metering sensor on the wrong part of the image, the latitude will normally be enough for it not to matter much, if at all.”

Does that not apply to the OP in this particular instance?
 
L320Rio said:
A quote from your book, page 25 of the 2nd version.

“This doesn’t mean that correct exposure doesn’t matter at all, and if you need to get the exposure spot-on then you can (should) use the camera histogram to fine-tune the exposure, but what it does mean is that, if the exposure meter in your camera gets it a bit wrong, or is metering the wrong part of the subject because you’ve selected the wrong metering option or have placed the metering sensor on the wrong part of the image, the latitude will normally be enough for it not to matter much, if at all.”

Does that not apply to the OP in this particular instance?
Click to expand...
No because the image is strongly backlit and so needed flash. Even if he had used spot instead of evaluative metering the result would have been wrong (and different) because the background would have been overexposed.

My book does have its shortcomings - written as a basic guide for beginners and trying to avoid over-complication. Even so it's reached 87 A4 pages:) It mentions flash but, for simplicity, doesn't cover the subject.
 
L320Rio said:
A quote from your book, page 25 of the 2nd version.

“This doesn’t mean that correct exposure doesn’t matter at all, and if you need to get the exposure spot-on then you can (should) use the camera histogram to fine-tune the exposure, but what it does mean is that, if the exposure meter in your camera gets it a bit wrong, or is metering the wrong part of the subject because you’ve selected the wrong metering option or have placed the metering sensor on the wrong part of the image, the latitude will normally be enough for it not to matter much, if at all.”

Does that not apply to the OP in this particular instance?
Click to expand...
As has already been stated if the OP had exposed for the faces the brighter parts of the image would have been blown out (over exposed).

Fill in from a rather large gun would have lightened the shadow areas in the faces without blowing out the other parts of the image.

There was no "correct" exposure or "wrong" exposure with this job.

It just needed a bit of help which experience would have told him.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
As has already been stated if the OP had exposed for the faces the brighter parts of the image would have been blown out (over exposed).

Fill in from a rather large gun would have lightened the shadow areas in the faces without blowing out the other parts of the image.

There was no "correct" exposure or "wrong" exposure with this job.

It just needed a bit of help which experience would have told him.
Click to expand...

There is always a best exposure for the situation you find yourself in.
This will differ for whether or not you use fill flash. Or for your intended processing.
It is not just something that you can leave to chance. Or indeed your camera's algorithms, with no thought at all.
 
Garry Edwards said:
If we're photographing people then we need to be confident and assertive to get the best out of them.
If we ask for advice, we should value that advice, whether critical or supportive, not just value comments that we've done a great job.
Click to expand...

OP wasn't asking to be told they did a great job, they just asked for specific advice on a very specific topic.

Some people started just being plain rude for no reason.
A blunt advice could have been: "You should have used a fill flash". End of post.

Being rude is saying that OP shouldn't have taken the job and hinting that they probably shouldn't be even trying. This doesn't answer any question OP asked, doesn't give any constructive criticism, and does not bring anything of value to the discussion at all.

Stating that one should be able to take "blunt" criticism is just an excuse to not own the fact that, indeed, some of you have just been plain rude for no reason.

And, by the way, everyone learns "on the job". It's called experience.
 
Last edited:
darquill said:
Being rude is saying that OP shouldn't have taken the job and hinting that they probably shouldn't be even trying. This doesn't answer any question OP asked, doesn't give any constructive criticism, and does not bring anything of value to the discussion at all.

Stating that one should be able to take "blunt" criticism is just an excuse to not own the fact that, indeed, some of you have just been plain rude for no reason.

And, by the way, everyone learns "on the job". It's called experience.
Click to expand...


When someone opens a post stating that they were doing a job for an agency, that entirely changes the nature of the post and therefore the replies.

It implies a level of competence and an ability to provide the required images at a decent standard.

So, yes, if they don't understand how to shoot podium finishes and team celebration shots, then they probably should not have taken the job on in the first place.

Harsh? Yes. But it is business. Shots like this are fleeting moments that you need to understand how to capture.

None of us are perfect and all of us make mistakes - but at least we understand the basics of the job.

And that is the thing - a job.

This is about recording and event in order to make money in some form.

The rules change entirely from casual, amateur photo shoots. And whilst you may gain experience and improve 'on the job', you certainly shouldn't be learning the basics there.


So if my responses have been viewed as harsh, that is the reason.

It is not a practice ground but a working environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top