[Wasp]

My daughter is an aspiring model. She is currently working her way through a training course. Whether she will get much work out of it remains to be seen, but I digress.

The model school recently held a fashion show for all their students. They had to provide their own outfits to fit some sort of denim theme and were assessed for all the things that models should do.

The audience were prohibited from taking pictures or videos. There was a pro on duty and he would do all the picture taking. I did see quite a few phone cameras in use on the day but so it goes. A Pentax would have been booted out I suppose.


We got a couple of pictures out of it for a few dollars. They were sent as JPEG files. Upon opening the first one something seemed odd. I zoomed in and sure enough, the eyes were out of focus! The hands and detail on dress was OK but the eyes were definitely on the soft side. The other picture was perfect, so I can't complain too much. I just wish that a bit of QA was done on IQ before releasing the pictures...


I have attached a 100% crop for fellow pixel peepers.


The EXIF data shows that a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV with a 200mm lens was used. The exposure was 1/250 sec. f/4.0 at ISO 500. Not much depth of field to work with, especially when shooting a model walking towards you on a cat walk.

I am not sure which model lens was used. I think it was a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L, but it might have been the f/2.8 L. I believe that autofocus was in use. That is probably where things went south. The camera's predictive autofocus algorithm doesn't always nail it.


How would the best and brightest here have handled a shoot like this? Smaller aperture, more depth of field, yes. But how much smaller? Would f/5.6 be enough or would f/8.0 be needed? That would mean a slower speed. Would the image stabilization keep thing sharp at 1/125 or 1/60 sec? Or crank up the ISO, but how much more is OK before noise gets noticeable? Or just do what this guy did - shoot lots of pics and at least one will make the grade?

Attached Images

 

[CarlJF]

It looks like movement blur. IMHO, 1/250 is a bit slow at 200mm for a walking model. I would have use at least 1/500, even if it meant setting the ISO up to 1000, which should not be a problem on a FF camera. But I'm not a pro...

[AstroDave]

There's clearly motion blur in there (almost up/down). I guess from your comments, you can't tell for sure what lens was used. Wonder if it had IS. (Canon bodies don't - points for Pentax!)

Was the "pro" using flash? There are catchlights, so he was using something - but not enough to stop motion.

We got a couple of pictures out of it for a few dollars.

That tells you something - I don't think this guy was working very hard!

[RonHendriks1966]

For this a Sony with eye finder af is the future.

[skierd]

Eye finder AF will stop motion blur from subject movement+shutter speed?

I agree with Carl, they should have chosen a faster shutter speed for starters. F4 should have enough DOF, and the camera can certainly handle something higher than ISO 500.

And in the end it’s the photographer using the camera that matters, not the equipment

[victormeldrew]

Shutter too slow. Simple as that.

A model on a catwalk doesn't walk like a normal human...they strut. Lost of bouncy up and down movements...I'd want at least 1/1000. Flash would be preferable, but a higher ISO would do if that's not possible. They might be earning money...but that's no pro.

[LensBeginner]

I'd +1 the blur; if it's also out of focus, it's in addition to the motion blur.

[stevebrot]

For this a Sony with eye finder af is the future.

Then the complaint would be that the eyes and one wrist were the only things in focus. However, due to the motion blur on this one, it is hard to see what was in focus. Focus might have been on the eyes for all we know.

A big question might be whether full-resolution evaluation of this image is appropriate. After all, it is a runway, not a studio shot. There is an additional question, that being expectations regarding pro (being paid) photographer and pro gear. I have a friend who shoots for pay (environmental portraits and engagement stuff mostly), but exclusively posed work. She intends focus on the face, but does not sweat the eyes. She shoots 5D III and will admit to never trusting a single shot for a particular composition. She does good work, though hates to do events due to lack of control over light and subject and the lack of ability to do a retake. If a particular pose is done with five exposures and two of those have sub-optimal focus, does that make her less of a pro and/or an indication that a change of tools is in order? Is the 60% keeper rate a clear indication of poor technique? The answer is no, no, and no.

I won't provide a suggestion of what I might have done better, because I am neither one of the best, nor one of the brightest and because I have no idea what the photographer's constraints were.


Steve

[AstroDave]

I won't provide a suggestion of what I might have done better, because I am neither one of the best, nor one of the brightest and because I have no idea what the photographer's constraints were.

He should have known what he was getting into! and, what equipment to bring.

I'm no pro, either, but a few years ago I shot a Scottish-American Military Society (SAMS) dinner for a friend on a few days notice. Probably a worse situation than this one - lots of candids: couples and groups (in motion!) with drinks before dinner, an entrance procession with a bag piper, the guest speaker, ambience, etc. I had never seen the location before. My trusty K-5 and '540 flash did me well. Out of some 200 shots, there was ONLY one that was almost as bad as this one. My only pay was a free dinner.

This guy was no pro, or didn't care!

[K-Three]

This guy was no pro

Unfortunately there is no licensure for photographers, pro just means you accept money for your work. The thing that lets people get away with this more and more is the standards of imagery are slipping so much. When most are satisfied with whatever come off their phones, anything from a larger sensor looks better.

It's unfair to your daughter, I'm sure she worked at learning to walk/strut and pose, she should have some good images she can use to go further. If you/she is paying for the training and you have to pay more for lousy images you could not get otherwise, that's not fair.

[LaurenOE]

If there was a catwalk, I'd try and be either parallel or perpendicular to the walking and I'd setup my camera on a tripod (framed/setup shot) with a remote. I'd place a small bit of gaffer tape on the runway right at the edge. That would be my "mark/trap" and if I was going to shoot at F4 or less, I'd have my camera ready to grab images as the person walked through my zone. Even with a slow camera, I'd get at least 5-10 as the person walked through. Only an amateur relies on autofocus. I wouldn't even be looking through the viewfinder, as I would be watching the zone as my subject walked through it. I might have a second camera ready, ready to grab some candid shots. When you are paid to get results, you get results.

[Sandy Hancock]

I reckon the shutter speed is simply too low for a moving subject and a 200mm lens. Light in these venues is usually pretty reasonable, so I would probably have selected TAv at around 500/5.6 and let the ISO float. Maybe even manual depending on the lighting.

Unlike Lauren, I probably would have used autofocus, with the top centre AF point selected (in portrait orientation). I like to move around, and would have found a tripod very restrictive in this situation.

With my K-1 + grip and the DFA*70-200 I'm certain better results could be had. And I did fluff a shot this badly, I certainly wouldn't let anyone else see it

[LaurenOE]

I reckon the shutter speed is simply too low for a moving subject and a 200mm lens. Light in these venues is usually pretty reasonable, so I would probably have selected TAv at around 500/5.6 and let the ISO float. Maybe even manual depending on the lighting.

Unlike Lauren, I probably would have used autofocus, with the top centre AF point selected (in portrait orientation). I like to move around, and would have found a tripod very restrictive in this situation.

With my K-1 + grip and the DFA*70-200 I'm certain better results could be had. And I did fluff a shot this badly, I certainly wouldn't let anyone else see it

Good points.

However, this pro was hired to shoot *all* of the runway models, and he was the only one allowed to shoot? Right? So in essence for him it was a "cookie cutter" setup. Almost like a studio shoot. So why wouldn't he try and make it a assembly line?

When you do a gig like this, where you have committed to shooting *everything* you need to make sure you can get what you're being paid for. Otherwise, well...you get sub-par results. It only takes one or two shots to be off for his reputation to be ruined.

It's why on so many of my shoots, for the bread and butter shots, I keep things locked down. B-Roll is where the creativity happens, but I am starting to digress into cinema techniques.

Now, if I was there among other photogs, then yes, I would definitely have a dynamic setup and be moving around so *my* shots were unique and saleable.

Moving into the hardware recommends... F/4 and at least 1/500...as people are walking. The focal length depends on how far you're away. 70-200mm in the original post? 1/250 is not fast enough at 200mm to do much motion stopping.

With Pentax gear, it would be a challenge...and I would probably bring my Sony A7S along for the ride just to make sure I got what I needed (and sweet 4K/1080p 60/120 if needed).

The Sony A7S is an insurance policy for terrible light and possible video...but I digress again.

PLEASE Pentax/Ricoh...give me a reason to leave my Sony stuff at home!

[victormeldrew]

I won't provide a suggestion of what I might have done better, because I am neither one of the best, nor one of the brightest

I don't subscribe to the 'if you can't do better, you can't criticise' argument. If that were true there would be no film or restaurant critics because they would all be running eateries or studios. And I might not be a great aircraft engineer, but if my plane falls from the sky because someone forgets to tighten a bolt, I will certainly have something to (briefly) say about it!

[Wasp]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys. I didn't consider motion blur - it could well have contributed to the result seen.

As for flash, it was not used.


In the guys defense, the other picture we got was perfect. Not a great composition but that is just me nitpicking, hehehehe.