where am I going wrong?!

C

campergirl

Messages
82
Name
Liz
Edit My Images
Yes
why are all of my shots slightly out of focus? I am using the Canon 50 1.8 and just cant get it right. I like photos that are light/almost slightly blown - I know this isn't nessessarily a 'correct' style of photo but its what I quite like. But I just cant get them pin sharp. What can I do to help?

I can afford to buy a new lens but I think its probably my lack of knowledge/skill that is the issue rather than the lens? Please help!!

In principle I like this photo, its just not very sharp.

Please be gentle I am only a beginner!View attachment 11063
 
Are you shooting at f1.8 or another wide aperture? The portion of your subject that will be in focus is pretty thin, especially if they are not square on to you.
 
What are you shooting at Liz? What camera settings are you using? I have to be honest, from here, these don't look too bad at all...
 
Yeah, dont get me wrong Liz, I think youve got the important bits in focus (eyes), but the focus drops off the further back you look.

She a little cutie too :)
 
Nothing much wrong with these sharpness wise as far as I can see. Shallow depth of field, which most people aim for with portraits anyway, but the traditionally "important" parts for a portrait (eyes mainly) look good.

Why do you think they're not sharp?
 
Without seeing any exif data I will hazard a guess that you have shot the images wide open af F1.8
The fall off in the DOF is so narrow that even the slightest movement can move your focus point to somewhere you didn't intend it to be. With portraits it is natural to focus on the eyes, at F1.8 you need to be extremely precise.

The canon 50 F1.8 is also sharper when stopped down. I reckon you should try it again at say F2.8 and see if there is a vast improvement.

Like I say this is all submising until the data is revealed
 
first one is f2.2, 1/80, ISO 400
second one is f4.5, 1/50, ISO 400
used camera flash, against a plain wall in my house with quite a bit of natural light, haven't done anything with them they are straight from camera (wouldn't know how to edit anyway!):oops: :$
When I zoom in even the eyes are not pin sharp I just don't know if the photos look a bit soft all over?
 
Last edited:
The shutter speed is skirting around the slowest you can go with that lens to be confident of avoiding blur from camera shake.
Ideally you'd want it quicker than that, but like I said they don't look bad
 
The low f numbers gives you a shallow depth of field, meaning you really need to get the focus bang on (on the eyes normally!) or increase it.

The shutter speed is slightly slow. Normal advice is at least equal to the focal length (I.e. 50mm lens needs 1/50 speed). If its a crop sensor then you probably want to take that into account.

Those numbers all suggest its a bit dark where you're shooting. My first bit of advice would be to try a few shots in a better lit environment and see if you have the same issues.
 
campergirl said:
first one is f2.2, 1/80, ISO 400
second one is f4.5, 1/50, ISO 400
used camera flash, against a plain wall in my house with quite a bit of natural light, haven't done anything with them they are straight from camera (wouldn't know how to edit anyway!):oops: :$
When I zoom in even the eyes are not pin sharp I just don't know if the photos look a bit soft all over?
Click to expand...


What camera please ?
 
The lens isn't particlarly sharp when it's shot with a shallow DOF. That's the case for most lenses.

If you're shooting on a cropped sensor, your shutter is a bit slow which can cause lack of sharpness.

At a shallow DOF like 2.2 you don't have much room to miss focus, to throw what you want from being sharp. If you're using centre point to focus and then recompose, this could cause you to get it wrong.

The body could be struggling with the light.
 
are you using a pop up flash or a speed light attached to the camera.

If pop up slip a smal bit of white card in front to bounce the light around and not direct.

If speedlight bounce of a ceiling and from the direction the baby is facing.

Use a wider aperture ie 2.2 2.8

Use a faster SS ie 1/100

set ISO to suit.

check you havent got ai focus on and if using centre focus take care of focusing and recomposing as the babies movements (wriggly litle things) wont help matters.
 
At the size you've posted them, it's hard to tell if they're sharp or not.

gpc1 said:
use a wider aperture ie 2.2 2.8
Click to expand...

How would that help with sharpness? Stopping down would be preferable, not opening up wider.

gpc1 said:
Use a faster SS ie 1/100
Click to expand...

If flash is the only light source here, shutter speed is irrelevant so long as it's not so long as to let ambient intrude, or so fast as to cause sync problems.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
At the size you've posted them, it's hard to tell if they're sharp or not.



How would that help with sharpness? Stopping down would be preferable, not opening up wider.



If flash is the only light source here, shutter speed is irrelevant so long as it's not so long as to let ambient intrude, or so fast as to cause sync problems.
Click to expand...
2.8 would give a bit more wriggle room larger aperture was wrong phrase. Larger f no was what I meant.

Faster ss would be needed as kids move a lot!
 
gpc1 said:
2.8 would give a bit more wriggle room larger aperture was wrong phrase. Larger f no was what I meant.

Faster ss would be needed as kids move a lot!
Click to expand...

As David said, shutter speed is relatively unimportant using flash as the flash exposure will freeze the subject.
 
. Sometimes a photo needs a little help to get what you want, so instead of getting another lens think about getting an easy to use editing suite like adobe elements

sharpened only in elements 10



yours for comparison

img_7112-jpg.11063
 
Last edited:
You must be in pretty dim lit room if you're shooting at 1/40 with flash... Try shooting outside in bright sunlight and see if your results differ.
 
The23rdman said:
As David said, shutter speed is relatively unimportant using flash as the flash exposure will freeze the subject.
Click to expand...


depends on how much ambient is required, and it wasnt necessarily connected to the flash. ie all other things being equal try a high SS.

So - let me rephrase my whole post for you,

Aperture - babies wriggle. use i higher Fstop (stopping down / smaller aperture) maybe f2.8. Larger DOF will give you a bit more play in terms of sharpness / dof
Shutter speed - higher SS will freeze the action so may help if there is motion blur.

lighting - using a flash,bounced, will give you a softer light as well as freezing the subject, to a point.

Tripod.
 
When it comes to kids and flash I generally kill the ambient completely. Better to get the light off the camera though.
 
As per Dean I do the same for my children's portraits

My go to settings are usually 1/125 or 1/160 a F10 ISO 100 and let the off camera flash do the work.

Life is somewhat easier when you don'y have to factor in ambient especially when shooting kids.
 
gpc1 said:
Faster ss would be needed as kids move a lot!
Click to expand...

If he's using flash as a sole lightsource, shutter speed is irrelevant, providing it is not faster than the camera's maximum flash sync speed, or so slow that ambient light effects the exposure. With flash, the flash IS the shutter speed... flash is VERY fast typically. WHen using flash, and metering for flash, only the aperture is important... unless you are MIXING flash and ambient... then you need to consider both.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If he's using flash as a sole lightsource, shutter speed is irrelevant, providing it is not faster than the camera's maximum flash sync speed, or so slow that ambient light effects the exposure. With flash, the flash IS the shutter speed... flash is VERY fast typically. WHen using flash, and metering for flash, only the aperture is important... unless you are MIXING flash and ambient... then you need to consider both.
Click to expand...

why are you quoting me on this...read the later post and as i said faster ss is needed with kids depending on how much ambient is required. if solely flash then ss is somewhat irrelevant to a point...however the op said there is quite a lot of natural light. therefor ss does come into play.


thats my last post in this thread as i think we are saying the same thing here...
 
gpc1 said:
why are you quoting me on this...read the later post
Click to expand...

I'm not , I'm re-iterating what I said way back in post #16.

In THESE shots, they appear to be flashlit only... so in THESE shots, shutter speed is not the issue. Only when mixing the two is it an issue. If there is natural light, then it's too low to be causing an issue.

I did make it very clear in post #16.

gpc1 said:
thats my last post in this thread as i think we are saying the same thing here...
Click to expand...

LOL. You appear to be a little upset. Something I said?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I'm not , I'm re-iterating what I said way back in post #16.

In THESE shots, they appear to be flashlit only... so in THESE shots, shutter speed is not the issue. Only when mixing the two is it an issue.

I did make it very clear in post #16.



LOL.
Click to expand...
Care to borrow a wall? ;)
 
Where you're going wrong?

Get the subject further from the background
Get your flash off camera and softened
When you shoot people, ignore the fact you can handhold at 1/60, people show movement at low shutter speeds.
When using flash as the sole or primary light source, use Manual
Have a think about your framing / composition / posing.
 
gpc1 said:
...however the op said there is quite a lot of natural light. therefor ss does come into play.
...
Click to expand...
He says there's plenty of natural light, the shadows say the natural light is about 2 stops less than the flash.
 
Phil V said:
Where you're going wrong?

Get the subject further from the background
Get your flash off camera and softened
When you shoot people, ignore the fact you can handhold at 1/60, people show movement at low shutter speeds.
When using flash as the sole or primary light source, use Manual
Have a think about your framing / composition / posing.
Click to expand...


All good advice... so far we're trying to work out why it may be soft... if it is soft... but Phil is right... there are much bigger issues with the photography. If you're using only flash in a darkened room however.... shutter speed is not really a factor. I think I've said that enough though now. If anyone doesn't get that, then they need to go do some research on flash photography. In ambient light... I'd not be shooting kids at such a slow speed, no... they're slippery little buggers, and can be surprisingly quick with arm, hand and head gestures.


Phil V said:
He says there's plenty of natural light, the shadows say the natural light is about 2 stops less than the flash.
Click to expand...


Assuming tha shadow isn;t being filled by the light bouncing off an adjacent wall etc. Using flash in a white room can give surprising (or not if you think about it) levels of diffusion if there are white surfaces nearby. Catchlights suggest there's a window nearby, but shadows suggest flash is dominant by at least 4 times the luminance if there's no bounce going on.

If these are soft, it's more than likely a focus issue than anything else... as even if there is daylight, or something 2 stops under, the dominant exposure of the flash would have still rendered sharply, and close inspection would reveal the tell tale double image signs of blurred ambient, and sharp flash... of which there is no sign in these shots (at this size).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top