Too Soft??

[DebbyS]

I have had my camera for over a month now and I'm trying so hard to learn to shoot in manual mode. My granddaughters are my "models" and the shooting usually occurs in the back yard during tea parties or just playing.

All my photos seem soft (not sure that's the right way to describe), maybe on the verge of being blurred? They just don't seem crisp. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks!

[IMG][/IMG]


IMG_0938 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

EXIF:

F-Stop - F/2.80
Shutter Speed - 1/80
ISO - 160
Focal Length - 50mm

[Mark Engelhart]

Looking at your EXIF data I would suggest that you set your ISO higher and increase your shutter speed. Between camera shake and a your little subjects that move alot (you know all little children vibrate) this should give you a more stable set up for gaining crisper images.

[Mso]

I had a look at your shots on Flickr, some like this one are underexposed, you can alter this in photoshop and it will make all the difference, especially to this shot.

Also you are shooting at a very low depth of field (2.8) try increasing it a bit to 4 or 4.5, it will help as some of your shots have missed focus, and as as the above poster said you need to bump up your shutter speed to about 1/250.

Hope this helps, some of your shots are really lovely, and could just do with being a bit brighter (at least on my screen - it isn't my home pc so is not calibrated..)

[DebbyS]

Thanks so much to you both! I will your suggestions.

[rachb]

Definitely use a smaller depth of field.... I love shooting with a shallow depth of field for the bokeh, but I am always disappointed in the eyes, they are never as sharp as I want. I have to continuously remind myself to go up to f/8 or so to ensure that everything will look sharp once I see it on my monitor and not the LCD on my camera But I really like the catchlights that you captured, they look crisp and sharp!

[ccting]

Originally Posted by rachb

Definitely use a smaller depth of field.... I love shooting with a shallow depth of field for the bokeh, but I am always disappointed in the eyes, they are never as sharp as I want. I have to continuously remind myself to go up to f/8 or so to ensure that everything will look sharp once I see it on my monitor and not the LCD on my camera But I really like the catchlights that you captured, they look crisp and sharp!

Hmm. looks dangerous to further decrease the f-number..look at her ear is a bit out of focus.. If you further decrease the number, i afraid one of the eyes may out of focus, and critiqued by experts.. ;D. The face plane is not 90 degree to the lens.

I think just use viewnx2 or lightroom to increase the exposure. Are you using flash? I see a small catchlight in the eyes.. beautiful..

see http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6...7d8d2ee3_m.jpg. I know other may comment about the simple principle. Blue vs red which may pop out. But they never consider the itten's contrast (more than 10 elements) between parts, which is higher level principle than simple color theories. Compare both to compare the perspective perception.

I guess she was standing under a tree.. may be next time use silver reflector to bounce more light on her face.. but you need a lightstand and reflector holder if you are shooting alone.. Or simply increase your flash power???

My personal taste is that, i don't like her red color clothes. the cake on bottom right, especially it looks more focus than the right hand.. And, I dislike her hat color, perhaps you can find blue green yellow some sort like with almost same tone with background. I believe she looks more beautiful without the hat.

If i am going to crop, i will cut most of her hat..just above the bottom edge of the hat @ middle...

Look at Susan's website http://www.susanharringtonphotography.com/newborns.html
I see excellent contrast control head-background in the pics of her website..except one.

"I am training my eyes to see"..

[spinmerightround]

Originally Posted by ccting

Hmm. looks dangerous to further decrease the f-number..look at her ear is a bit out of focus.. If you further decrease the number, i afraid one of the eyes may out of focus, and critiqued by experts.. ;D. The face plane is not 90 degree to the lens.

I think just use viewnx2 or lightroom to increase the exposure. Are you using flash? I see a small catchlight in the eyes.. beautiful..

see http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6...7d8d2ee3_m.jpg. I know other may comment about the simple principle. Blue vs red which may pop out. But they never consider the itten's contrast (more than 10 elements) between parts, which is higher level principle than simple color theories. Compare both to compare the perspective perception.

I guess she was standing under a tree.. may be next time use silver reflector to bounce more light on her face.. but you need a lightstand and reflector holder if you are shooting alone.. Or simply increase your flash power???

Going from f/2.8 to something like f/8 is considered a smaller depth of field, even though the number gets larger. I think that's what the previous commenter was referring to. I'd recommend a smaller depth of field (larger f-stop number), and exposing for her face, which is in the shade of the wide-brimmed hat. A reflector could help bounce some light back onto her face, too.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by ccting

see http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7007/6...7d8d2ee3_m.jpg. I know other may comment about the simple principle. Blue vs red which may pop out. But they never consider the itten's contrast (more than 10 elements) between parts, which is higher level principle than simple color theories. Compare both to compare the perspective perception.

You keep using Itten's principle to force your opinion. You don't like red. I get that. As this is not the first photo where you have painted a red/pink shirt blue to prove some kind of point, and again I think it fell short. My opinion is that it flattens the image to the point of virtually no contrast. The two dominant hues in the ops original image is red(pink) and green. These compliment each other. Another part of Itten's principle. The dark blue hat is completely secondary. Also, I'm pretty sure this wasn't a staged shot in which there is little to no control of what to convey from an "artistic" standpoint. It is more of a candid, which is about the moment more than anything else.

To the OP. I agree with Mark's response. Also, for the underexposure issue, try to use spot metering on the brightest part of the face. For light skin you want to show some overexposure on the meter. Try about 1/2 stop over. This will usually get you closer to where you want to be as far as exposure goes.

Originally Posted by spinmerightround

Going from f/2.8 to something like f/8 is considered a smaller depth of field, even though the number gets larger. I think that's what the previous commenter was referring to. I'd recommend a smaller depth of field (larger f-stop number), and exposing for her face, which is in the shade of the wide-brimmed hat. A reflector could help bounce some light back onto her face, too.

Actually, going from f/2.8 to f/8 creates a larger depth of field. The acceptable focus from front to back gets wider. It's a smaller aperture, but the actual depth of field increases.

[graciousness]

Something that hasn't been mentioned is flash.

With children, there are two things that will tremendously improve your photos of moving children - fill flash and fast shutter speed. The wider aperture (smaller f stop) only becomes relevant depending on how much you want your background to be in focus or in blur.

The faster shutter speed (starting around 1/125) ensures that you capture the children in motion and reducing the chances of blur. I always shoot children with shutter speed of around 1/125 minimum and I increase if I want to reduce the amount of ambient light in the background. This is where fill flash comes in. With faster shutter speed, you reduce the amount of light going into your lens so you need help in exposing your subject better. You want to make sure that you compensate the amount of light your flash gives out to make it look as natural as possible. Even if you don't have external flash, your built in flash will be better than none in these types of scenarios.

A reflector is nice and helps, however, with candid shots of children and if you are shooting alone without help, reflectors just don't help. You need to be as mobile with your gear as possible when shooting children.

Regardless of your aperture or depth of field, make sure that the focus falls on the eyes.

If you are not using manual settings, I would highly recommend to start using manual mode when you shoot. You will not get satisfactory results if you leave it to your camera to set your shutter speed when using P mode or AV mode. Sure you can use shutter priority, however, I find that the amount of light the camera lets in is too much.

As a starting point, set your settings to ISO 200, f/4.0, shutter speed of 1/125 next time in manual mode when you shoot the kids next time outdoors. If it's a really bright day and the sky is overpowering, increase your shutter speed. If it's dark due to shade, increase your ISO or flash output when you use fill flash.

I know you've had your camera only for a month, but learn the exposure triangle (ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed) so then you can understand how to balance light with the images.

Hope this helps,

Grace