DSLRUsers.com

Here's my first portrait shot - this is my office team for our Christmas card. I used my 85/1.8 stopped at 2.2 in hopes the photo would be sharper than shooting wide open. I'm far less than impressed with how sharp the image turned out. Is it a focusing thing? Too shallow DOF? Comments appreciated..

Oh, that's me on the far right with the IR remote in my hand! Doh..



Original: http://ScottVD.smugmug.com/photos/229340426-O.jpg

`S

Scott, sharp enough for a card. Was the camera on a tripod? It is also hard to get everything in focus with such a shallow DOF.

Scott,

as Glen says, it should still come out fine in a card. I suspect it is mainly due to the shallow DOF. Have a look here:

http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

That will show you what your DOF was, so if you focused on the the front person, which is what it looks like, you will see that is what explains why the back row is not as sharp.

When using a narrow DOF, it is also very important to have the people aligned with the plane of the "film", ie sensor.

f5.6 probably would have given you enough DOF for the people while still blurring the trees in the background. I find the web site above very useful in calculating those things.


HTH,

André

At f2.2, it's going to be hard to get everyone sharp for a group shot as Glen mentioned.

If you want the background to be OOF and have everyone sharp, then increase the distance b/ween the subject and the background more.

Also everyone seems to be very pink? Might have to tweak the WB a bit more.

Scott, sharp enough for a card. Was the camera on a tripod?

Glen, yes this was mounted on a tripod, about 12 meters away.

That will show you what your DOF was, so if you focused on the the front person, which is what it looks like, you will see that is what explains why the back row is not as sharp.

Andre, thanks for the link - that's really helpful. I'd agree that f5.6 or maybe even 4 would have been more appropriate. The chart seems very precise with all the camera make/models in there, although given the difference in sensor size I don't see why the D300 and D200 are in the same category? Odd?

When using a narrow DOF, it is also very important to have the people aligned with the plane of the "film", ie sensor.

Huh, can you expand on this a bit? I think what you mean is if the camera was tipped down like / toward the subject that was straight like | then the in focus area would be very limited?

Also everyone seems to be very pink? Might have to tweak the WB a bit more.

Piro, thanks for the comment - I went back and moved that WB and tint around a bit. Thanks for the tip of moving the camera back some.

(: Thanks for the comments..

`S

Scott, move the subjects as well and not just the camera

scottvd wrote:

When using a narrow DOF, it is also very important to have the people aligned with the plane of the "film", ie sensor.

Huh, can you expand on this a bit? I think what you mean is if the camera was tipped down like / toward the subject that was straight like | then the in focus area would be very limited?

I think what Andre means is that if you draw a straight line which represents the sensor/"film" plane in the camera and then draw another straight line representing the group of people, the two lines will need to be parallel to ensure that none of the people fall outside of the range of sharp focus. I will try to illustrate:

Good:

----------- far limit of sharp focus
88888888 good looking people }DOF
----------- near limit of sharp focus

--^-- camera

Bad:

--------888 some people outside limit of focus
...888 some people in focus }DOF
88--------- some people too close to be in focus

--^-- camera

Hope that makes sense

Scott,

scottvd wrote: The chart seems very precise with all the camera make/models in there, although given the difference in sensor size I don't see why the D300 and D200 are in the same category? Odd?

Sensor size on the D300 and D200 is the same physical size (or close enough), as is D80, ... I think he just groups the cameras that way, Pro, Semi-pro, ...

If you look at the measurements, you will notice that they are the same for those cameras. However, you move to the D3 and the values change.

It's to do with the circle of confusion that is quoted at the bottom of each chart.

When using a narrow DOF, it is also very important to have the people aligned with the plane of the "film", ie sensor.

Huh, can you expand on this a bit? I think what you mean is if the camera was tipped down like / toward the subject that was straight like | then the in focus area would be very limited?

Patrick (Reschsmooth) explained it well

Cheers,

André

I was thinking on my screen the skin tones looked a bit blue??

yeah i thought the same skin tones a bit blue (white balance out )

thanks zsolt

Hi Scott,

Your are off to a great start if this is only your first portrait image. My only suggestion is watch the background. I find the bright background at the bottom right of the picture a bit distracting, maybe a tighter crop would be in order.

My 2 cents
Mak

heehee, the guy on the far left looks like he's taking a leak...




...well, kind of...

Thanks everyone for the responses.. this forum is a great resource for me! (: Happy Holidays..

`S

PiroStitch wrote:Also everyone seems to be very pink? Might have to tweak the WB a bit more.

JeffGlue wrote:I was thinking on my screen the skin tones looked a bit blue??

Whom, amongst us, is using a calibrated monitor?

My initial impression was that the wb is pretty close. But as I looked at two people in particular - the tall gentleman, third from the left, and the lady in front of him, in the pink top, I do see a slight blue or cyan cast.

Very slight, and blue is exactly what I'm expecting to see in this sort of situation - open shade on a sunny day.


On the issue of DoF, you need to also be aware that the longer the lens, the less the DoF will be at a given distance/aperture setting. Perhaps a 50mm, or a 35mm would also have been a choice of lens for this image, but that also would have changed the perspective and DoF of the background.

I think your choice of 85mm was the right one though, and bringing the lens down to about f/5.6 would probably have helped bring everyone into critical focus. That said, for a Christmas card, I think you're fine.

All told, I think you've done very well with this image.

Scott- I have a question for you - is the guy second from the left called Tony ?????

Whom, amongst us, is using a calibrated monitor?

Actually mine is (sypder 2) but in all honesty after some of the comments I did tweak the WB a little (very little) and the tint a bit - what you're seeing here is the second revision as I accidentally deleted the original. (:

I think your choice of 85mm was the right one though, and bringing the lens down to about f/5.6 would probably have helped bring everyone into critical focus. That said, for a Christmas card, I think you're fine.

All told, I think you've done very well with this image.

Wow, thanks for the compliments! (: From what I've read (http://photo.net/learn/portraits/) portraits are sometimes more flattering when a long lens is used - something about making the nose look flatter or something? So I choose the 85, although I have a 50mm wrapped up under the tree right now.. (:

Scott- I have a question for you - is the guy second from the left called Tony ?????

? Close, Tom.. (: You know him?

`S

Scott, in all honesty, for your first portrait shoot, I think you have done really well. It will look great on a card and I am sure your colleagues will love it.

Well done.