The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[tokes99]

So if I shoot with my 50mm 1.8, a F8 would be sharpest? That would negate the bokeh though no?

With newer lenses its very debatable about an f/ stop that high being the sharpest. A lot of zoom lenses are sharpest between f/4 - f/5.6

High quality fast primes as well.

Also keep in mind we're talking about a sharpness difference that you're not going to be able to notice when looking at it on instagram sized replications.

Also keep in mind when you shoot a higher f stop you have to either let in more light through the shutter speed or make your sensor more sensitive to the light by pumping the ISO which could either result in motion blur or added noise. Everything has a trade off.

if max sharpness across the frame is the goal, like for landscapes or shooting street of the hip, that f8-11 range is pretty much where it is at to get the most things in focus & sharp...for portraits that'd probably be unnecessary, you are right though absolute sharpness may indeed by elsewhere (likely lower) in the fstop range...

 

[kdawg]

^ spot on.

Yes. You wouldn't use f8 for a portrait though - the shallow dof is what you want - just tough to be really sharp with a larger aperture.

I disagree that its really tough in portraiture.

Assuming you put as much thought into capturing focus as you do composing the shot, getting a sharp portrait with a wide open aperture really shouldn't be much of an issue.

My widest aperture is only f/1.8 on 85mm but i very often shoot 200mm f/2.8 which has an extremely shallow DOF as well.

EDIT

200mm
1/250
f/2.8
ISO 320

Shot w/ natural light

Tack sharp focus

I'm not disagreeing with you - that shot is sharp but it's falling off outside the centre - just hidden in the blurred background. 2.8 is a lot easier than 1.8 to be that sharp - but 5.6 would be sharper - just a crap portrait.

The main indisputable fact is that any lens is sharpest away from its extremes - at the wide open end due to distortion and at the closed end due to diffraction.

What do I know though, I just studied optics for 4 years?

 

[kdawg]

Today's shot.

 

[djyoung08]

^ spot on.

Yes. You wouldn't use f8 for a portrait though - the shallow dof is what you want - just tough to be really sharp with a larger aperture.

I disagree that its really tough in portraiture.

Assuming you put as much thought into capturing focus as you do composing the shot, getting a sharp portrait with a wide open aperture really shouldn't be much of an issue.

My widest aperture is only f/1.8 on 85mm but i very often shoot 200mm f/2.8 which has an extremely shallow DOF as well.

EDIT

200mm
1/250
f/2.8
ISO 320

Shot w/ natural light

Tack sharp focus

I'm not disagreeing with you - that shot is sharp but it's falling off outside the centre - just hidden in the blurred background. 2.8 is a lot easier than 1.8 to be that sharp - but 5.6 would be sharper - just a crap portrait.

The main indisputable fact is that any lens is sharpest away from its extremes - at the wide open end due to distortion and at the closed end due to diffraction.

What do I know though, I just studied optics for 4 years?

I think we're splitting hairs about "sharpness" versus the original issue my dude posted about w/ missing focus at a high f stop

My whole point was that the sharpness that is lost on the edges from shooting wide open has nothing to do with missing focus and getting a soft image.

I only disagreed about difficulty in catching focus. I know optics are sharper in the middle of frame & fall off @ large f/ stops in the edges.

Also, I firmly believe the sharpness factor & edge falloff for this digital age is not even really a practical issue to discuss. Nobody is printing a f/2.2 landscape as a 16x20 poster... Not to mention a lot of people shoot crop sensor cameras.... its cropping out a large portion of the soft areas.

 

[Fong$tarr]

^ spot on.
I'm not disagreeing with you - that shot is sharp but it's falling off outside the centre - just hidden in the blurred background. 2.8 is a lot easier than 1.8 to be that sharp - but 5.6 would be sharper - just a crap portrait.

The main indisputable fact is that any lens is sharpest away from its extremes - at the wide open end due to distortion and at the closed end due to diffraction.

What do I know though, I just studied optics for 4 years?

I think it's the crop of the photo. If the edges fall off, I think the portrait needs to be tighter. I mean this is my preference but if you have shoulders in frame, I would think the whole head should be in focus to a degree.

Like below, I think it has a nice focal area of sharpness where the cheek can still be soft but the other areas in sharp.

I think if there is more shoulder in frame, it looks best when everything is in focus. Again...this is my preference.

 

[mjbetch]

It really is all preference. As long as the eyes are sharp, that's all that matters.

 

[djyoung08]

It really is all preference. As long as the eyes are sharp, that's all that matters.

 

[picasso swerve]

Whats this extra thing dude taking pics is holding? Also looks like a standing flash to the left?

 

[mjbetch]

Whats this extra thing dude taking pics is holding? Also looks like a standing flash to the left?

Yeah that's a flash on a light stand. As for what the guy is holding, probably some kind of flash diffuser. Can't really tell what kind though.

 

[djyoung08]

Doing what I love.

My assistant is only 4'11 and the softbox dwarfs her

 

[eugenile gts]

whoever is shooting with the canon 50 1.8 on crop, and said sometimes when after you take the shot and check it out and zoom in and it isnt as sharp as what you had expected.. dont worry your not alone. google and youll see many say the same.

dont shoot wide open is what i've learned. i stay 2.8 on the nifty 50 1.8L. ill only shoot wide open if its really something close that im trying to isolate and MF using live view. for street/portrait. ive missed too many shots shooting wide open.

i also tend to agree and listen to what Fongstarr says in this thread and a few times he answered some of my questions in PM. I can say ive improved since! lol. but long way to go. my equipment i think may be limiting me now.

 

[deezy36]

picked up the camera after a long hiatus... a lot to learn.... had fun though.

 

[judeezy36]

just getting my feet wet. had fun shooting with my homie in philly.

8G8C8438 by judizzel36, on Flickr
8G8C8402 by judizzel36, on Flickr

 

[timelessflight]

^^^looks good. 2nd picture can use some cropping

 

[judeezy36]

^^^looks good. 2nd picture can use some cropping

right on.. take out some of that space to the left?

 

[dragicon]

^^^looks good. 2nd picture can use some cropping

right on.. take out some of that space to the left?

If you go to that location again, for the second picture, move to the right more. Have the models back on the edge of the left side of the frame, and make sure her head is under the bridge, not blended in with it. That way, you'll have her in a nice position (she will be sitting into the photo, not trying to leave the photo), and you'll have the bridge nicely framed also. Both photos need separation between the model and the bridge. Nice location though.

 

[judeezy36]

If you go to that location again, for the second picture, move to the right more. Have the models back on the edge of the left side of the frame, and make sure her head is under the bridge, not blended in with it. That way, you'll have her in a nice position (she will be sitting into the photo, not trying to leave the photo), and you'll have the bridge nicely framed also. Both photos need separation between the model and the bridge. Nice location though.

great feedback. thanks for it. are any of these more closely aligned to getting at that separation? this is really helpful for me as I'm just learning the ropes. Race St Pier in Philly for any local folks.

8G8C8433 by judizzel36, on Flickr
8G8C8458 by judizzel36, on Flickr
8G8C8399 by judizzel36, on Flickr
8G8C8430 by judizzel36, on Flickr

 

[mjbetch]

right on.. take out some of that space to the left?

I'm assuming you cropped the second image already, correct? Something about that ratio is off to me.

Maybe it's just my personal taste, but I would have straightened the horizon. Or if you do insist on a slanted horizon, I would have made it a little more severe. In between is kind of awkward. Just my opinion. You do you regardless! Other than that they're looking great my man!

 

[tokes99]

If you go to that location again, for the second picture, move to the right more. Have the models back on the edge of the left side of the frame, and make sure her head is under the bridge, not blended in with it. That way, you'll have her in a nice position (she will be sitting into the photo, not trying to leave the photo), and you'll have the bridge nicely framed also. Both photos need separation between the model and the bridge. Nice location though.

great feedback. thanks for it. are any of these more closely aligned to getting at that separation? this is really helpful for me as I'm just learning the ropes. Race St Pier in Philly for any local folks.

same issue really, being aware of the background is something that takes a few times of doing this before making that mental note to self about where & how you have placed your subject in the frame in relation to the background...definitely as mentioned, the off kilter horizon is noticeable but an easy fix

 

[djyoung08]

I agree w/ all that feedback.

I will add that you did great with the lighting. Very even.. not hot spots on her face or body.

Your exposures are bright & flattering to her

Keep it up!!

 

[picasso swerve]

Either a 24mm or a 10-18...

I have the 50mm 1.8, street photography, urban landscapes (Times Sq, bridges, etc) and musuem close knit quarters is what in aiming at. Read on both rebiews and a 10-18 seems to be a better suite cause its wider but is more expensive.

 

[Fong$tarr]

i also tend to agree and listen to what Fongstarr says in this thread and a few times he answered some of my questions in PM.

Haha. I mean I am just regurgitating what others have told me. But everyone has been spot on with their help. I still wish Quick would post on here. His portraits are dope and he's got a good knowledge of lighting, composition and what not.

 

[djyoung08]

Either a 24mm or a 10-18...

I have the 50mm 1.8, street photography, urban landscapes (Times Sq, bridges, etc) and musuem close knit quarters is what in aiming at. Read on both rebiews and a 10-18 seems to be a better suite cause its wider but is more expensive.

10-18 is more lens because its a zoom lens.

24 will make you work a bit harder because its a prime... which is a good thing.

One indirect downside of zooms is that it tends to prevent the photographer from physically moving to get a better shot.

With either lens, you will be happy.

keep in mind with your crop sensor the true effective focal length would be ~38mm & 16-28mm

 

[picasso swerve]

If you were to a pick, it would be a 24mm then?

I want this to compliment my 50mm more than anythig as of now, so if the 24mm is go na take the same type of pics as the 50nm (but obv I can use it in closer ranges) then maybe the 10-18 would be a better compliment?

 

[djyoung08]

If you were to a pick, it would be a 24mm then?

I want this to compliment my 50mm more than anythig as of now, so if the 24mm is go na take the same type of pics as the 50nm (but obv I can use it in closer ranges) then maybe the 10-18 would be a better compliment?

IMO the 24mm would complement it more.

The 10-18 is a very wide angle zoom which does give you more lens.

If you what you want is a wide angle zoom though i'd recommend canon 10-22mm or even the tamron 10-24mm