Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-21-2012, 10:26 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
sharpness does not suffer with distance from the subject otherwise there would be no sharp landscapes.
No, there really is an extent to which sharpness diminishes with distance, due to atmospheric effects. It's just the effect isn't very large, so it takes a *lot* of distance before it starts kicking in noticeably. And its also very dependent on humidity, particulate levels, sun position, etc. But try taking pictures of large distant objects (say, several miles away) on a humid day. For the apparent size in the image, there will be *much* less detail than in a smaller closer object.

06-21-2012, 10:29 AM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,235
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
No, there really is an extent to which sharpness diminishes with distance, due to atmospheric effects. It's just the effect isn't very large, so it takes a *lot* of distance before it starts kicking in noticeably. And its also very dependent on humidity, particulate levels, sun position, etc. But try taking pictures of large distant objects (say, several miles away) on a humid day. For the apparent size in the image, there will be *much* less detail than in a smaller closer object.
Ok on that I agree, but in context of a person 10 feet or 20 feet away nope it is pretty irrelevant. shooting a 1000mm lens to take a picture of a persom a half mile off it is an issue
06-21-2012, 01:59 PM   #33
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
Can you highlight which ones you are unsatisfied with? Because that first shot is pretty damn good, especially shooting at 1/13s. You chose F4.5, but the Tammy is good at F2.8. Why didn't you choose F2.8 in that shot?
i'm really not happy with shots 1,2,3,4,6,10,11.
i didn't choose f2.8 cause i wanted to have both eyes in focus but was afraid only one would end up being sharp.
06-21-2012, 02:03 PM   #34
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Ok looking at the shots. Exposure wise they all look fine . the one you shot on the Helios at 1/10 is also pretty sharp. From a technical standpoint (exposure focus) I don't see any reall issue. Com positionally and artistically they all suffer a bit (but assuming they are just casual shots that is not always an issue)
The backgrounds in most shots detract from the image. Pose wise they lack life for the most part (this is where professional models make shots for people). I think this one is probably the best overall, but it could use a little post (which can't really give a quick example of since I'm at work but a little fill, boost the clarity in LR, maybe bump vibrance a bit. Shooting posed portraits takes a lot of practice. using some lighting you could have shot this at a higher shutter speed. given the backgraound you wouldn't want to shoot it stopped down any more as it would become more distracting than it already is. When you shoot any portrait of people (whether posed or spontaneous) the background needs to be taken into account, a poor background can ruin an otherwise good shot




If you really want to move your talent in this direction aside form practice with lots of different models, it's worthwhile to read a book or two that will cover all the basics and rules of portrait photography. once you have those down you can throw them out the window and put your own style on it.

these are pretty good books the first is actually a university text

The Portrait Photography Course: Principles, practice, and techniques: The essential guide for photographers: Amazon.ca: Mark Jenkinson: Books

Portrait Photography: Secrets of Posing & Lighting (A Lark Photography Book) by Cleghorn, Mark: Pixiq 4/28/2004 9781579905484 Paperback - Your Online Bookstore
thanks a lot for all the info. um those shots do not hold any artistic value.it was more of a lab experiment with the lab being my room)
i know portraits are pretty tought to master that's why i tend to shoot more static objects at this stage.
i really do enjoy shooting people but i'm just not good at it yet.
none of the images has been PP on purpose so you see everything untouched.
i still wonder if anyone could unzip the file and magnify the photos to really see the lack of detail i'm talking about.
or am i simply going crazy about sharpness?

06-21-2012, 02:57 PM   #35
Pentaxian
cmohr's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Brisbane. Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,085
I'm thinking its a bit to do with the focal plane and what you are looking at. With shallow DoF, the focal plane (the actual area of sharpnes in your picture) it is exactly parrellel to your sensor, and unless the exact features you want to be "In Focus" are situated in that parrellel focal plane you will start to see "problems"in your pictures. Some people don't get this, as its not about the distance from you, as a rule, you are generally shooting a subject with your camera slighty tilted up or down, left or right, so the focal plane cuts thru your subject at that same angle, these things can then be exaggerated by the subjuct being again tilted to the enviroment. Looking at the Pics, from what I can tell, there is a good sharpness, but maybe DoF a little too thin sometimes causing features you want to be sharp, to appear softer, also the parrellel focal plane is playing tricks at times, as when you look at one of the pics, her hair seem quite in focus on top of her head, forhead, nose and one eye is sharp, but the other eye and cheek is soft, thats because, although, it seems like they are all the same distance from you, your camera is tilted slightly downwards and to the left, and the focal plane is cutting thru her at that angle.

I've taken pics, that peple think are photo shopped, because the focal plane cutting thru the image shows manny areas in focus and out of focus, and thse areas from first glance at the photo look like things further away are in focus, then areas mid distant out of focus, then things obviously closer back in focus, thats because the camera is pointing downwards and the focal plane is cutting thru the image at an angle, although when we veiw a picture we dont get the sense that we are looking down, only that things "should" be further away, so the illusion in there that focus is not right.

In the shot eddie has linked to in the post above, the focus is clearly too far infront of her face, her hand and wrist is the focus plane. Sometimes we hear too much about how others shoot wide open and still get everything in focus, and it rarely actually happens that way, too shallow DoF in most head and shoulder portraits can sometimes not be best for the shot, coming back to f8 or so can give a better result, subject isolotion in these shots is achieved by having little to nothing in your backgrounds, or have things so far away they are obsured, or, with correct lighting so as the subject is light well and the background so dark it hardly shows up. In your small room there everything is close, and even light throughout so your pushing it uphill a little do either. With greater subject isolation your focal point will have more impact and appear sharper as an image, (not pixel peeping - but as a whole)

Try shooting with greater DoF for a bit, and more localised lighting directly on your subject, and when happy with the results, start playing with shallower DoF.
06-21-2012, 03:13 PM   #36
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by cmohr Quote
I'm thinking its a bit to do with the focal plane and what you are looking at. With shallow DoF, the focal plane (the actual area of sharpnes in your picture) it is exactly parrellel to your sensor, and unless the exact features you want to be "In Focus" are situated in that parrellel focal plane you will start to see "problems"in your pictures. Some people don't get this, as its not about the distance from you, as a rule, you are generally shooting a subject with your camera slighty tilted up or down, left or right, so the focal plane cuts thru your subject at that same angle, these things can then be exaggerated by the subjuct being again tilted to the enviroment. Looking at the Pics, from what I can tell, there is a good sharpness, but maybe DoF a little too thin sometimes causing features you want to be sharp, to appear softer, also the parrellel focal plane is playing tricks at times, as when you look at one of the pics, her hair seem quite in focus on top of her head, forhead, nose and one eye is sharp, but the other eye and cheek is soft, thats because, although, it seems like they are all the same distance from you, your camera is tilted slightly downwards and to the left, and the focal plane is cutting thru her at that angle.

I've taken pics, that peple think are photo shopped, because the focal plane cutting thru the image shows manny areas in focus and out of focus, and thse areas from first glance at the photo look like things further away are in focus, then areas mid distant out of focus, then things obviously closer back in focus, thats because the camera is pointing downwards and the focal plane is cutting thru the image at an angle, although when we veiw a picture we dont get the sense that we are looking down, only that things "should" be further away, so the illusion in there that focus is not right.

In the shot eddie has linked to in the post above, the focus is clearly too far infront of her face, her hand and wrist is the focus plane. Sometimes we hear too much about how others shoot wide open and still get everything in focus, and it rarely actually happens that way, too shallow DoF in most head and shoulder portraits can sometimes not be best for the shot, coming back to f8 or so can give a better result, subject isolotion in these shots is achieved by having little to nothing in your backgrounds, or have things so far away they are obsured, or, with correct lighting so as the subject is light well and the background so dark it hardly shows up. In your small room there everything is close, and even light throughout so your pushing it uphill a little do either. With greater subject isolation your focal point will have more impact and appear sharper as an image, (not pixel peeping - but as a whole)

Try shooting with greater DoF for a bit, and more localised lighting directly on your subject, and when happy with the results, start playing with shallower DoF.
that's some great info.
on the side note i'd like to show some porttraits that i think turned out well from my point of view.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/themaxim/7262957458/
???????????-7 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
06-23-2012, 07:35 AM   #37
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
thanks so much for all the input and replies guys.
i'm not gonna go ahead and remove the photos from flickr to preserve some space for the good shots.
once again thanks to all of you.
06-23-2012, 09:51 AM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
Your shots look fine in terms of tech skills - I find that portraits are tricky if you're not used to them. The biggest thing for me is that I still have a long way to go to figure out what makes a good background for portraits. We always have things to work on. Just keep on shooting and keep your eyes open to the world around you.

06-23-2012, 09:54 AM   #39
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by icywindow Quote
Your shots look fine in terms of tech skills - I find that portraits are tricky if you're not used to them. The biggest thing for me is that I still have a long way to go to figure out what makes a good background for portraits. We always have things to work on. Just keep on shooting and keep your eyes open to the world around you.
thanks for encouragement!
there's no way i'm giving up on shooting)))
that's like me little get away without actually getting away.
there's just too much beauty to quit (that's actually a quote but i wish i came up with that myself))))
06-25-2012, 11:02 PM   #40
New Member
AUTISTICWEREWOLF's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Towson, Maryland
Posts: 4
I know how easy it is to delete an entire bunch of bad shots out of frustration and rage but doing so does not help you figure out the issue causing your less than perfect shots. You must apply logic, common sense and deductive reasoning to each failure. You must use the skills of forensics to uncover the thing you are doing that causes less than perfect results. If the issue is not in your equipment then the answer is somewhere in your procedure or technique. Logic would suggest you go back to a point where your pictures were acceptable even good. Then apply each of your upgraded skill sets in successive layers until your get your first set of uniformly bad images. That latest (most recently applied) skill set upgrade is the most likely cause of any less than great pictures. Looking into every aspect of your technique holds the key finding the element or elements in your photography skills requiring a more careful review.

I might be out of line here but am only trying to help.
06-26-2012, 05:48 AM   #41
Pentaxian
racingsnake's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 368
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by AUTISTICWEREWOLF Quote
I know how easy it is to delete an entire bunch of bad shots out of frustration and rage but doing so does not help you figure out the issue causing your less than perfect shots. You must apply logic, common sense and deductive reasoning to each failure. You must use the skills of forensics to uncover the thing you are doing that causes less than perfect results. If the issue is not in your equipment then the answer is somewhere in your procedure or technique. Logic would suggest you go back to a point where your pictures were acceptable even good. Then apply each of your upgraded skill sets in successive layers until your get your first set of uniformly bad images. That latest (most recently applied) skill set upgrade is the most likely cause of any less than great pictures. Looking into every aspect of your technique holds the key finding the element or elements in your photography skills requiring a more careful review.

I might be out of line here but am only trying to help.
you are spot on here!
i don't delete the shots any more until i get them thoroughly inspected.
i do seem to have found the issue with that batch and i think it has to do with the plane of focus and the angle i was approaching the shots with.
so yeah, you are far away from being out of line. it is indeed my technique which i'm still working on.

thanks for your input.
06-26-2012, 06:36 AM   #42
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by magkelly Quote
I have major issues with that myself. My normal shots can all look great but I can really be off with MF lenses sometimes even with a diopter. I'm seriously thinking of getting a magnifier. Even the diopter just isn't quite enough sometimes

I'm guessing that any vision issue also depends on whether one is far sighted or near sighter; and also possibly what type of methods that one might use to correct this - for instance; just one prescription lens, bifocal, etc...

I've seen a majority of people who do have glasses/contacts; that are able to use a pentaprism or evf (preferably the first option) and then even without glasses that they are able to focus perfectly - even without using any of the viewscreen enhanced focusing assists (lines).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, guys, pentax help, photography, shot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I finally found the camera that suits my skills farhagh General Talk 4 04-27-2012 01:18 PM
How Do You Advertise Your Skills? mr.b.snowden Photographic Technique 6 07-20-2011 09:06 PM
...But you really need to work on your post processing and retouching skills! Noob Photographic Technique 21 05-03-2011 06:04 AM
Anyone have photoshop skills? jct us101 General Talk 5 06-01-2009 02:48 AM
Hummingbird with skills... Bud Post Your Photos! 14 07-15-2008 10:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top