The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[jodeva89]

some great info on the past couple pages about the the 50 & 35. relocated and moved into my new job and definitely getting a 50mm as soon as i get my first pay. have been using a 28mm since i upgraded in december. a few from a recent trip to hang out in SG.

 

[djyoung08]

What's the best way to get the sharpest image handheld shooting wide open?

- Single point autofocus

- DONT focus & recompose... Focus and take the shot.

- Make sure you and your subject are not swaying back and forth

know only what you focused on will be in focus.

Thats the reason why you shoot at f/1.8, 2, 2,2, 2,8 etc etc etc... you shoot that to isolate your subject and to blur out everything closer and further away.

It really isnt that difficult to achieve tack sharp focus with standard portraits. Obviously shooting wide open at a concert or for sports you're going to have a bad time

All these shots were taken at 85mm 1.8. Shallower depth of field than 50mm

 

[romcadoo]

djyoung08 I love those.
Now when you shoot do you choose your focus points or do you focus and recompose?

 

[djyoung08]

djyoung08 I love those.
Now when you shoot do you choose your focus points or do you focus and recompose?

I edited my post some.

I do not focus recompose.

Depth of field is achieved by the subject in relation to the background and foreground relative to the image sensor... you're changing the depth of field by moving your camera.

 

[romcadoo]

I edited my post some.

I do not focus recompose.

Depth of field is achieved by the subject in relation to the background and foreground relative to the image sensor... you're changing the depth of field by moving your camera.

Maybe I need to give myself more room to shoot or try different shots.
For awhile id choose my focal points but when I edit and zoom in I'd notice that they aren't as sharp.
Since the middle is the sharpest is in the middle I started to focus on the closest eye then recompose but vertically I never moved closer or further back

 

[djyoung08]

I edited my post some.

I do not focus recompose.

Depth of field is achieved by the subject in relation to the background and foreground relative to the image sensor... you're changing the depth of field by moving your camera.

Maybe I need to give myself more room to shoot or try different shots.
For awhile id choose my focal points but when I edit and zoom in I'd notice that they aren't as sharp.
Since the middle is the sharpest is in the middle I started to focus on the closest eye then recompose but vertically I never moved closer or further back

You're using the 50mm 1.8g on a crop sensor arent you?

The optics on that lens are pretty good and remember w/ the crop sensor you're getting less of the edges of that lens than you normally would with a full frame camera. Meaning you have more effective sharp "sweet spot" than on a full frame camera.

I used to shoot that lens on my nikon d7000 before moving to canon.

Either your lens is jacked up, your cameras focusing system is jacked up, or you/your subject is moving in & out of the focus plane.

Remember, you dont HAVE to shoot at 1.8 with a 1.8 lens. You'll still get depth of field / background blur / bokeh shooting at f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4.

If you get sharp images are f/4 then it isnt the camera or the lens.

 

[Fong$tarr]

Maybe I need to give myself more room to shoot or try different shots.
For awhile id choose my focal points but when I edit and zoom in I'd notice that they aren't as sharp.
Since the middle is the sharpest is in the middle I started to focus on the closest eye then recompose but vertically I never moved closer or further back

It's tough shooting people at 1.8. I think for the most part, people tend to shoot at 2.0 just to make sure everything is in focus. I think the 1.8 is good when the situation suits itself like doing street photography, concerts, night shots, etc. If you are doing posed shots, shoot at a less open f-stop so you can get a solid photo. At most, you will have less bokeh but honestly that is a decent trade of considering. Clear photo > Bokeh.

 

[tokes99]

Nawzlew right on for the vid I watched it earlier but I was half sleep so I'll check it out later.
I primarily take portraits, mainly models
I'll put that into consideration. I have a 50mm 1.8 and was thinking about getting an 1.4 but it almost seems pointless in a sense.
I don't see why make a lense at 1.4-1.2 and it's nearly impossible to get very sharp shooting wide open

More light when you absolutely need it and not need things perfectly sharp. A 1.2 lens will be sharper at 1.4 than a 1.4 at 1.4. That's what you're paying for. You're also paying for differences in color rendition, bokeh, chromatic aberration, etc.

it is important to note that while this has been generally true, it isn't always true & is probably less true for modern lenses and maybe especially when comparing newer lenses to older lenses...as noted fast lenses are more about gathering light (and subject isolation as well as less tangible/harder to discern things like character, color, micro-contrast, out of focus rendering, etc.) than sharpness, and while even lenses that are optimized to be sharp wide open tend to be even sharper stopped down it isn't always the case that a faster lens stopped down will necessarily be sharper than a slower lens at the same aperture.

if portraits are your thing, the increased ability to get a shallower depth of field at the expense of absolute sharpness wide open with a faster lens may be worth it?

 

[romcadoo]

You're using the 50mm 1.8g on a crop sensor arent you?

The optics on that lens are pretty good and remember w/ the crop sensor you're getting less of the edges of that lens than you normally would with a full frame camera. Meaning you have more effective sharp "sweet spot" than on a full frame camera.

I used to shoot that lens on my nikon d7000 before moving to canon.

Either your lens is jacked up, your cameras focusing system is jacked up, or you/your subject is moving in & out of the focus plane.

Remember, you dont HAVE to shoot at 1.8 with a 1.8 lens. You'll still get depth of field / background blur / bokeh shooting at f/3.2, f/3.5, f/4.

If you get sharp images are f/4 then it isnt the camera or the lens.

When shooting head shots I use my 50mm for full body 35mm. It could be my subject moving too much I notice I have to tell them not to so much. Could be camera shake some time I like to shoot in live view
I normally shoot 2.8 for head shots and full body about f 4.0 to make sure a good majority is in focus

 

[bjamez20]

some great info on the past couple pages about the the 50 & 35. relocated and moved into my new job and definitely getting a 50mm as soon as i get my first pay. have been using a 28mm since i upgraded in december. a few from a recent trip to hang out in SG.

Really like these. The last one has kind of a similar feel to Alexey Titarenko's work 

 

[romcadoo]

It's tough shooting people at 1.8. I think for the most part, people tend to shoot at 2.0 just to make sure everything is in focus. I think the 1.8 is good when the situation suits itself like doing street photography, concerts, night shots, etc. If you are doing posed shots, shoot at a less open f-stop so you can get a solid photo. At most, you will have less bokeh but honestly that is a decent trade of considering. Clear photo > Bokeh.

It's rare I shoot at 1.8
I feel a lot of the shots aren't as super clear because I used to move the focus point where my subject was all of the time.
I don't know how great the D320p focus system but they just don't seem as sharp. At the same time I can't expect to zoom in 1:1 and not see grain or Blur like I'm shooting up close


Ultimately what I'm going to do one day is grab a friend and take some shots at different F stops and the average distance I shoot to learn which is better in certain situations.
Something I probably should've learned awhile ago

 

[mjbetch]

it is important to note that while this has been generally true, it isn't always true & is probably less true for modern lenses and maybe especially when comparing newer lenses to older lenses...as noted fast lenses are more about gathering light (and subject isolation as well as less tangible/harder to discern things like character, color, micro-contrast, out of focus rendering, etc.) than sharpness, and while even lenses that are optimized to be sharp wide open tend to be even sharper stopped down it isn't always the case that a faster lens stopped down will necessarily be sharper than a slower lens at the same aperture.

if portraits are your thing, the increased ability to get a shallower depth of field at the expense of absolute sharpness wide open with a faster lens may be worth it?

I agree with you 100%. It really depends what you're comparing as not all instances are true. A regular Canon 50mm 1.4 at 1.8 probably isn't going to be as sharp as the Sony/Zeiss 55mm at 1.8. I just wanted to give him a reason as why some people will pick a 1.2 or 1.4 over 1.8 lens.


OP, if your thing is portraits, might want to look into getting a longer lens. You can have crazy subject isolation at even f/4 and higher.

 

[nikefiend68]

Thanks man! I used HC 110 formula B. Shot on 120 so I think that helps with the grain. Going to try pushing a roll to 1600 next.

I love grain and Ilford 3200 is my favorite.

 

[Fong$tarr]

Alright....here is a dumb question. I think I said it a couple of pages back, but I am trying to do a photobooth style shoot for my sister's engagement party since they figured they could save some dough and I have a camera. I am pretty much trying to emulate the photo below:

So far I have the backdrop, 2 Yonguo flashes and some light stands. Is it necessary for me to get some softboxes? Since I don't necessarily want soft light, wouldn't it be better just to shoot with the flashes bare? At most, I am might be shooting about 5-6 people in photo. I want to make sure everyone is lit rather than having only the sides with the stronger light.

I plan on setting it up as so:

Was thinking about getting this cheap $35 softbox but don't want to get it if it is unnecessary.

 

[djyoung08]

I almost exclusively shoot wide open on all of my lenses unless i have a reason not to

 

[kdawg]

At the Titanic exhibition in Belfast, Northern Ireland today.



Now that I scrutinize it it annoys me a bit - I was going for symmetry and liked how the building was in the middle there - but it's not quite square and one of the beams at the front is slightly taller than the other one. It's close though.

 

[Nawzlew]

some great info on the past couple pages about the the 50 & 35. relocated and moved into my new job and definitely getting a 50mm as soon as i get my first pay. have been using a 28mm since i upgraded in december. a few from a recent trip to hang out in SG.

I love your processing. Really dig the uniform looks.

 

[HankHill]

 

[kdawg]

With landscapes too, I also use live view if you really want thinks tack sharp. Just shoot in live view, zoom in on your focus area and then manually adjust till it's clear. Sometimes when shooting even in f/22, you will get some soft areas depending on your subject matter. So some people shoot 2-3 photos and focus on all areas and then blend them altogether in photoshop to get one clear photo.

when shooting at f22, some of the softness is maybe due to diffraction...most lenses max sharpness is somewhere in the middle of its f-stop range, this is usually around f8-f11, not always of course and you get a little more leeway with full frame but you don't get much more sharpness across the frame by stopping down much more, unless the goal is to cut light I read it is best to avoid stopping down that far if max sharpness is important...

Single point, back button AF for me.

yes, I was blanking out on #technicalterm, back button focusing is so useful once you get the hang of it!!

The softness is definitely diffraction in that scenario. Even a great lens will be sharpest around f8-10. The only reason to go smaller would be the light just being brutal.

If you're shooting landscapes you want to use hyper focal focus. If you focus at infinity then anything close will be blurred. The theory behind it is that there is a depth of field where everything is acceptably in focus so you want to be focused there. Sure, if you blow it up to the size of a wall it won't be perfect - but it never will be - partly due to the atmosphere and partly the limitations of optics.

The only time I would consider blending shots would be for a macro where the depth of field is too shallow to do it any other way.

If there's nothing in the foreground that you want sharp then hyper focal focus is pointless too.

 

[picasso swerve]

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

 

[kdawg]

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.

 

[djyoung08]

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.

 

[djyoung08]

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

 

[dragicon]

I've been practicing with things at home shooting at 1.8 and zoomed out it looks fine but zooming in you can tell its not super sharp.

Leads to my next question, if I have a 1.4 vs 1.8.

If I'm shooting 1.8 on a 1.4 lens will it be sharper or let more light in at 1.8 vs a lens that only goes to 1.8

The 1.4 lens will be sharper at 1.8 than the 1.8 will be at 1.8.

Depending on the lens, nothing is usually very sharp wide open. Even stop it down 1/3 of a stop, it'll be much sharper wide open without sacrificing much light.

The exception to this though is the nikon 50 1.4 versus the nikon 50 1.8. The 50 1.4 @ 1.8 is practically identical in terms of sharpness as the 50 1.8. If you own nikon 50's, the extra $100 to get the 1.4 is rather pointless, with reference to sharpness.

 

[dragicon]

Alright....here is a dumb question. I think I said it a couple of pages back, but I am trying to do a photobooth style shoot for my sister's engagement party since they figured they could save some dough and I have a camera. I am pretty much trying to emulate the photo below:

So far I have the backdrop, 2 Yonguo flashes and some light stands. Is it necessary for me to get some softboxes? Since I don't necessarily want soft light, wouldn't it be better just to shoot with the flashes bare? At most, I am might be shooting about 5-6 people in photo. I want to make sure everyone is lit rather than having only the sides with the stronger light.

I plan on setting it up as so:

Was thinking about getting this cheap $35 softbox but don't want to get it if it is unnecessary.

If you already have stands, I would just get some cheap umbrellas such as these, they will make a difference:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423625-REG/Impact_UBBW45_45_Convertible_Umbrella.html

You'll need a bracket though to hold them. I bought this umbrella in the past, and it has worked really well.