Where To Focus

scottphotography

When focusing on a group of people, where is the best place to focus (af) so all are in focus? Is it just an f/10-11 setting to get all in focus, or do i have to focus lock on a face, then recompose? Also what setting shoud I use for the focus options 1-4 on the d200 as well as what setting do i use on the metering (spot, matrix, or other)?:bow

Icebear

Depends
C'mon . . . you knew that was going to be the answer, didn't you?
It's all about what effect you want. If you don't have a Magic Lantern Guide to your D200, I urge you to buy one. Lots of good hints and answers to questions like you are asking.
If the group is lined up straight across your field of view, focus on the central person and fire away. The composition and shape of your group will dictate what you need for DOF anyway.

Scott_Quier

Conventional wisdom is that you need to consider how the hyperfocal function (it's a math thing, not a camera/lens thing) works.

Examples:

Two rows of people, focus on the front row.
Three rows of people, focus on the second row.
Four rows of people, focus on the second row.
Five rows of people, focus on the third row.

The idea is that your DOF is approximately twice as deep behind the plane of focus as it is in front of that plane.

ccpickre

Scott_Quier wrote:

Conventional wisdom is that you need to consider how the hyperfocal function (it's a math thing, not a camera/lens thing) works.

Examples:

Two rows of people, focus on the front row.
Three rows of people, focus on the second row.
Four rows of people, focus on the second row.
Five rows of people, focus on the third row.

The idea is that your DOF is approximately twice as deep behind the plane of focus as it is in front of that plane.

LiquidAir

I'll see if I can clarify what Scott said. If you have chosen an aperture where you have a 3 foot depth of focus and a focus distance of 6 feet, your distance of closest focus will be about 5 feet (one foot in front of the focus distance) and your distance of furthest focus will be 8 feet (two feet behind the focus distance). What this means in practice is that if you have a range of distances you want in focus you should bias your focus distance slightly in front of the middle of that range. So if you want the range of 5-8 feet distance to be in focus, choose 6 feet as your focus distance rather than 6.5 feet.

Of course when shooting few people get out a tape measure. Rather than that, you eyeball the range of distances and pick a subject in that range that is on the near side of the middle of the range. Hence the guidance about rows.

ccpickre

LiquidAir wrote:

I'll see if I can clarify what Scott said. If you have chosen an aperture where you have a 3 foot depth of focus and a focus distance of 6 feet, your distance of closest focus will be about 5 feet (one foot in front of the focus distance) and your distance of furthest focus will be 8 feet (two feet behind the focus distance). What this means in practice is that if you have a range of distances you want in focus you should bias your focus distance slightly in front of the middle of that range. So if you want the range of 5-8 feet distance to be in focus, choose 6 feet as your focus distance rather than 6.5 feet.

Of course when shooting few people get out a tape measure. Rather than that, you eyeball the range of distances and pick a subject in that range that is on the near side of the middle of the range. Hence the guidance about rows.

No, I kind of had it figured out, it was just the wording And there was no "woozy/dizzy" smiley, so that was th ebest I could find.

Scott_Quier

ccpickre wrote:

No, I kind of had it figured out, it was just the wording And there was no "woozy/dizzy" smiley, so that was th ebest I could find.

Sorry for the confusion - not my intent. To put a finer point on it, you can go to DOF Master (link) and play with the numbers a bit. It will probably drive the point home better than any discussion here.

pyrtek

And, to add to the confusion, it actually is a camera/lens thing. The math
is just a convenient way to describe the physics.

ccpickre

ugggh math AND physics? :cry

pyrtek

ccpickre wrote:

ugggh math AND physics? :cry

They rarely exist alone.

Icebear

Careful
Watch yourself Mitch. When I expressed a similar sentiment in another thread the moderator smacked the s__t out of me:D

scottphotography

Reply to Mitch
Mitch, yes i am a professional, but even professionals need basic help. Im just trying to get some advice from other professionals in the field. Like to know I can count on others here in this forum.

Mitchell

Scott,
Let me apologize for the tone of my original comment. Quite frankly, it was meant more as a compliment to your photography work than anything else.

I've looked at your site and you clearly know your way around the camera. Some of your wedding portrait shots are awesome and were clearly taken by a person with a good eye and camera skills.

You asked several different questions all in one post. It's hard to really address metering, selection of focus modes and selection of aperture settings in a generalized way.

Is there a specific situation that you have a question about?

I can easily answer your question about which of the 4 D200 focus modes to select for portaits. Choose the single focus reticle option. You want to have the most control of where the camera is focusing with these portraits. The other modes really come into play during dynamic situations like sports and wildlife.

Which meter mode to select? I guess it varies with the ambient lighting and what effect you are trying to achieve. Personally, I use the matrix metering 95% of the time with good results. If you are using any of the Nikon flashes, you need to be in matrix mode to take advantage of the awesome Creative Lighting System (CLS) that Nikon has developed. Truly a remarkable system in my opinion.

scottphotography

Focus
Mitch,
Thanks for your complements on my work. I only wanted some opinions re:my questions because personally, I've used all the focus modes and I guess I'm lucky w/my sports photos while focusing. I use dynamic focus there. Portraits I usually use single area w/center weighted.

Yes, I use flash, sb800, and then switch to matrix. I just wanted to get input w/others to confirm my current practice modes of focus and metering.

Thanks for your help.

SitterS

Why is my daughters picture showing on your website under example of your work
Scott,
Tonight I sat down and was reading this thread and decided to take a look at your site and the first picture that came up on your slideshow was my daughter. The picture was entered in a Dgrin yearly contest and shows up in the top bar often here at Dgrin. I am just puzzled how this showed up on your site under example of your work and on the slideshow on your site. Help me out here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The picture stands out against the others on your site because I added a 2 inch white border around the print. None of the others on your example page have this.



Here is the picture I am speaking of. Just add a two inch white border around it and it is exactly what you have on your site.

SitterS

SitterS wrote:

Scott,
Tonight I sat down and was reading this thread and decided to take a look at your site and the first picture that came up on your slideshow was my daughter. The picture was entered in a Dgrin yearly contest and shows up in the top bar often here at Dgrin. I am just puzzled how this showed up on your site under example of your work and on the slideshow on your site. Help me out here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The picture stands out against the others on your site because I added a 2 inch white border around the print. None of the others on your example page have this.



Here is the picture I am speaking of. Just add a two inch white border around it and it is exactly what you have on your site.

111111111111

SitterS

SitterS wrote:

Here is a screen print from your site.




And I also found it on your pricing page again. Why would you use my picture on your site to advertise your work and better yet how did you get the photo?

Andy

Yes, we need an explanation for this.

Scott, how do you explain that this photo http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/3003678#163285081 on your site is claimed to be the property of another SmugMugger:

http://imagesbyshane.smugmug.com/gallery/1152600#112217794

Scott, I need to know how this happened and why.

This photo clearly is of SitterS' daughter, first posted on Dgrin back in December of 2006: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=49278

It is watermarked here
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/3143233



EDIT: For the curious, I have removed the images from Scott's site.

scottphotography

Picture
Andy & "Sitter S",

I can't begin to explain how sorry I am for this mistake. As you already know, I'm new to the site as well as new to using a web site to post pictures. My computer knowledge was in the learning process for uploading pictures when I started so I had a friend who is much more knowledgable in this field help me get started. I asked him to post the pictures I had in the "my pictures" folder on the computer to the web. This picture obviously was in there and honestly, I'm not sure how that happened. I'm not big on excuses, however i do have a young son who is constantly downloading pictures from his favorite sites with his friends which I catch from time to time. I'm sure it was inadvertant and not intentional. How a protected picture was downloaded I really don't know. I realize this isn't much of a reason, but the only one I've got and I will look into this further.

I would NEVER claim work to be mine if I PERSONALLY DIDN'T SHOOT IT!!! Please forgive me as I honestly didn't realize this unfortunate error.

I of course will be happy to remove it. This is embarrassing and please accept my deepest appoligies.

Please let me know what else I can do.

scottphotography

another thought
Andy & "Sitter S",

Just another thought...the computer friend of mine may have used pictures on "his" computer to "help" with getting me started with some starter pictures not realizing his error. I'm not sure, but this just came to mind.

SitterS

Scott,
The reply is appreciated but not quite understood at least by me. How long has your site been up? I have a hard time understanding that my daughters photo was uploaded to your site (whether by you or your friend) and you didn't notice that this particular picture wasn't your work but it is under 'examples', the slideshow, and on the pricing page. The photo was the first one in your slideshow. It pops right in your face. I would think you would take notice that it wasn't your photo!!! I am still just not understanding how this could happen.

Shane

scottphotography

Shane,
I can fully appreciate your question and the simple answer is that I unfortunately don't work my site. I've left it up to the "web professionals," which has obviously caused a problem. They (2) probably did what they thought was best. I can only appologize and as for forgiveness.

I hand over my cf card and didn't question anything. Hands off. I'm obvoiusly at fault for that.

Andy

scottphotography wrote:

Shane,
I can fully appreciate your question and the simple answer is that I unfortunately don't work my site. I've left it up to the "web professionals," which has obviously caused a problem. They (2) probably did what they thought was best. I can only appologize and as for forgiveness.

I hand over my cf card and didn't question anything. Hands off. I'm obvoiusly at fault for that.

I'm having and extremely hard time buying this explanation.

It is the lamest of lame excuses. The photo was on three different prominent places on your website.

To foist this off "web professionals" and "computer friends" is a very sad excuse.

I have deleted the photo from three locations on your website, your prominent pages where it was displayed.

SitterS wrote:

I am still just not understanding how this could happen.

Shane

I'm in the exact same boat.

Andy

Scott, have you checked each and every other image on your site to ensure that they all belong to you?

SitterS

scottphotography wrote:

Shane,
I can fully appreciate your question and the simple answer is that I unfortunately don't work my site. I've left it up to the "web professionals," which has obviously caused a problem. They (2) probably did what they thought was best. I can only appologize and as for forgiveness.

I hand over my cf card and didn't question anything. Hands off. I'm obvoiusly at fault for that.

Didn't Bernie Ebbers (Worldcom) and Joe Nacchio (Qwest) try to use this excuse in the court of law. If I remember correctly they were sentenced to some time, weren't they!!!!!!!!!! Personally I don't think it is going to fly around here for you either.

Shane

SitterS

Andy wrote:

Scott, have you checked each and every other image on your site to ensure that they all belong to you?

I noticed the photography doesn't seem to be consistent or is it just me???

Shane

pyrtek

scottphotography wrote:

I'm not big on excuses, however i do have a young son who is constantly downloading pictures from his favorite sites

Well, if you're going down at least you're taking your son with you.

SitterS

I would like to thank Dgrin as they were quickly all over this. I really appreciate it. As for those that aren't convinced that Dgrin isn't the best forum around, this should help push you over to our side. Thanks Andy and Pathfinder. Hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Shane

ccpickre

I second that, but only cause my dad is here

Andy

Seems that the logo on
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/

was taken from

http://www.scottphotography.net/

I've shut the SmugMug site down until I can get a full explanation from Scott.

caroline

Very interesting ...............

Andy wrote:

Seems that the logo on
http://scottphotography.smugmug.com/

was taken from

http://www.scottphotography.net/

I've shut the SmugMug site down until I can get a full explanation from Scott.

Andy - did this thread start out somewhere else on DGrin ? or am I having delusions Thought it was in technique or something, anyway .....

I spotted this in its earlier stages when I was browsing for SmugMug Monday stuff - and what a story it seems to be. All credit to Andy et al for pursuing this and endeavouring to get to the bottom of it. What will be the truth I wonder, is this guy a photographer at all ?

Caroline