Soft Location Images

bitwise95

Guru's

Just started getting out of the studio to do more location images. Extremely frustrated with the softer focus. I use the same technique as the studio of on focus point, single shot, focus on the nearest eye, reframe and pull the trigger. Some of my softness issues are camera shake but the ones that are not camera shake, the image is in focus but the clarity is not razer sharp like the studio shots. I especially notice it around the eyes. any hints on what i'm missing?

Thanks,
Bit

run_kmc

bitwise95 wrote: »

focus on the nearest eye, reframe and pull the trigger.

That could be it right there. If you're dealing with narrow apertures and shallow depth of field, "focus and recompose" isn't a viable option. Are you using large apertures?

bitwise95

run_kmc wrote: »

That could be it right there. If you're dealing with narrow apertures and shallow depth of field, "focus and recompose" isn't a viable option. Are you using large apertures?

Thanks for your reply...Usually shoot between 4.0 and 8.0 (find i like 5.6 the most) - are there better options than focus-recompose as i don't have the old split screen to help my aging eyes

pathfinder

Focus with center AF point - recompose is not reliable at distances to subject less than 10-12 feet.

What shutter speeds are you using on location? Shooting from a tripod? Or not, maybe?

bitwise95

pathfinder wrote: »

Focus with center AF point - recompose is not reliable at distances to subject less than 10-12 feet.

What shutter speeds are you using on location? Shooting from a tripod? Or not, maybe?

No tripod as I shoot at 250th or above (always shoot at 250th in the studio). More often than not subject is about 10 ft away and I like to change angles often. If af focus and recompose is not reliable, are there Better ways? (manual focus is difficult w/o a split screen) I will do some test shots with a tripod at different speeds and stops and then repeat just holding and then with strobes. I'm probably getting shake and I'm in denial.

Thanks for the feedback.

EatMyShot

if you can post some images next time it would be easier to in point what might have gone wrong....

bitwise95

EatMyShot wrote: »

if you can post some images next time it would be easier to in point what might have gone wrong....

I concur I will post tomorrow as I'm on my laptop. Thanks!

chrisjohnson

Sounds like you are in an awkward zone. You are quite close to your subject and using a relatively large aperture. This is likely to give a soft effect for the background details depending on the lens you are using.

You could try a smaller aperture, eg f16 and see if that gives you more detail.

You have some leeway on shutter speed, especially if you have a stabilized lens like a Canon IS. My hands are shaky and yet I can get an ok landscape even on 1/30 with an IS lens and no tripod. 1/250 is playing very safe. Depending on your camera you could also increase ISO. Together you will gain several stops to compensate.

adbsgicom

Won't the studio strobes at a bit to the sharpness as well if most of the light is from the strobes then the effective stutter speed becomes the strobe period, which will be much higher than 1/250th?

Art Scott

What are you shooting with??? Nothing is listed in your profile and that just might also be of help in determining how to help you out??????

run_kmc

bitwise95 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply...Usually shoot between 4.0 and 8.0 (find i like 5.6 the most) - are there better options than focus-recompose as i don't have the old split screen to help my aging eyes

As Art mentioned, it would help to know what you are shooting with, but most every digital camera should have multiple focus points. I would recommend using a focus point that corresponds with where you want to place the eye (or whatever else you might want to focus on).

bitwise95

run_kmc wrote: »

As Art mentioned, it would help to know what you are shooting with, but most every digital camera should have multiple focus points. I would recommend using a focus point that corresponds with where you want to place the eye (or whatever else you might want to focus on).

I shoot with a Canon 40d with 70-200 F/4L IS USM and 24-105 F/4L IS USM. I use a single focus point and select the one closet to the nearest eye so there is very little recomp needed. I use the single shot mode so I focus and when it 'beeps' I recomp and then fire away. I generally do not just stand and shoot, i kneel, lean against a fence or whatever I have a available. I don't have the images with me but when i get back tomorrow i will post examples.

Thanks!

chrisjohnson

As pathfinder said, locking settings and recomposing is not reliable technique at close range. I use it when there is plenty of DOF around my subject and it does not matter if something moves a little bit. Outdoors everything is moving all the time.

You have two fantastic zoom lenses and a great camera. Zooms are not as sharp as primes especially when you are close. They are in general more designed to give flexibility rather than absolute sharpness.

When you take portraits you need to think about the focal length you use the zoom lens at. Close portraits on a crop are typically around 50-70. Ideally I would like a 60mm prime but I don't think they make one. Longer focal lengths work best when the subject is standing several meters away - 70-200 is a typical photo journalist/wedding lens because they are not normally close to the subject. When you get the focal length wrong you get some weird distortion effects as faces are either flattened or elongated, you start to notice when things are getting "softer"....

I surmise that 70-200 is more-or-less useless for close portrait photography on a crop camera. I hope someone proves me wrong!

The kit you have is rather heavy which makes it difficult to hold completely still. Do you do better with a tripod?

Looking forward to seeing your pictures. It will help understand your question better.

divamum

There is a 60mm prime, actually - the EFS 60mm macro. I've sometimes considered getting one myself for a portrait lens, but it's a 2.8 and I find I like to shoot wider than that.

Agree with the other advice given to the OP.

bitwise95

Thanks everyone for your input and feedback. I was able to take your feedback and do a test this evening. I do believe my issue is the focus-recompose technique I have been imploying.

What I did
To avoid camera shake as the issue for this test, I shoot faster than I normally would (I understand it does not eliminate the chance of shake). I selected the single focus point closest to the camera left eye and did not recompose. Then, at approx 116mm using my f/4 70-200mm, I shot at f/4, f5.6 and f8. The image at f/4 is very consistent to the results I'm having with the focus-recompose method. In this case, I believe my son just moved slightly backward at the time of th shoot. Here are the results of this test images at 100%.


<<focustest_1.jpg>>

On the second test, I repeated the test but with the 25-105mm at approx 73mm. Again, the f/4 shot is consistent with my 'soft location' shots. What I did not post here is the fact I did get a few at f/4 that were crisp but I wanted to demonstrate what I was seeing as i normally shoot location at f/4 (well, not any more!). Here are the results of the second test:


<<focustest_2.jpg>>

I then went to the studio and shot at f/4, f5.6, and f8. I again found if I did a focus-recompose at f/4 the number of soft images skyrocketed. The results of selected a single focus point and not recomposing where much better. Here are results from the studio:


<<focustest_3.jpg>>

This was a great test. I also learned thru this process that my flash meter is callibrated to give me a histogram slightly to the right. I noticed this yeilds better results than the images taken with the meter in the camera which is giving me a histogram to the left which I believe was also contributing tothe fact I didn't like the images.

I also noticed that most lcd monitors are significantly brighter than my callibrated monitor where I do my post work. I wonder if the clients monitors are so bright it makes the images look overexposed and washed out. Does anyone 'darken' the images for viewing online but submit the correct one to the lab?

Thanks again for your input. I will be changing my approach which I'm confident will reduce the number of throw aways for my location shots!

bit

chrisjohnson

Some great shots and glad your problem is solved.

I would read-up on depth of field in case you like more detail than just the eyes.

pathfinder

bitwise95 wrote: »

........

I also noticed that most lcd monitors are significantly brighter than my callibrated monitor where I do my post work. I wonder if the clients monitors are so bright it makes the images look overexposed and washed out. Does anyone 'darken' the images for viewing online but submit the correct one to the lab?

Thanks again for your input. I will be changing my approach which I'm confident will reduce the number of throw aways for my location shots!

bit

Calibrated monitors, indeed, are not as bright nor as contrasty as they are usually delivered uncalibrated. That is why we calibrate them. Calibration is to help us see how the image will look when rendered on paper. With newer, wider gamut monitors, we may not want our monitors to resemble paper, but for now......

And yes, many clients will not have calibrated monitors. One of the sad truths of life. I would not alter your images to how you think they MIGHT look better on an uncalibrated monitor however. That is a pathway to nightmares.