Doing Something Wrong - Help!

[Murphy66]

I have had my Digital Rebel XT for about two weeks now and I'm finding that one out of three shoots are in great focus, the others are just ok.

This is with the kits lens, a 28-105 and a 75-300 lenses (all Canon).

Check out my first attempt at product photography. To me, it seems soft.

This is with one light and a reflector. Both were right on top of the bottle and I had to shoot at ISO 1600!

I removed the skylight filter.

Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks for your help.

[Murphy66]

Took another whack at it.

C&C most welcome!

[Murphy66]

If anyone is reading this, here is what I did to help.

I have a 580EX that I set down one full f stop as front light while using the softbox as a sidelight and a gold reflector.

Oh yeah, I also cleaned some big thumb prints off of two out of three of my lenses.

Can we all spell loser?

Still would like C&C if you have any ideas.

Thanks

[Murphy66]

Well, based on your comments, I made the following changes.

Enjoy!

[Murphy66]

BTW, Saintsbury is very good Pinot, you should try it despite my photographs.

In fact, all of you who left a comment will be receiving a free bottle via email.

No, don't thank me, it's just my way of saying 'thank you'.

(Watch your emailboxes!)

[Cleo199]

You cut off the bottle on the first two pictures. But other than that, I think they're nice shots.

---tapping foot on floor and waiting patiently for the 'you have wine' email......

[Carzee]

Hi, looks like you've had some fun with the Pinot. I can see the main light reflection in most shots. As for the ISO setting, I am guessing your tripod was u/s or something. All of them seem in need of sharpening.

Pls back up and give us the full exif details. Something in the method is wrong here.

[Carzee]

And we got more Pinot here than anywhere. So don't send it. Also, I drinks beer.

[Murphy66]

Thanks guys for the replies!

Carzee: (info on the first shot) 1/60 , ISO 400, f 5.6, 46mm, no flash metering mode: Pattern.

That shot was taken in full Auto I believe.

My frustration comes in some pix being in beautiful focus and some being 'soft'. What conditions cause a 'soft' focus? My guess is not enough light for the camera to judge, or trying to focus on something round (versus a flat perspective).

I'll happily take your C&C and thanks for any help.

BTW, been to Austraia three times. From what I can remember, Fosters, Emu and XXXX were all VERY good beers. If America had good beer, I may never have tried Pinot!

[Maureen Souza]

I like the 3rd and 4th pictures best. They look like they should be framed and mounted in a nice restaurant. I especially love the mask in the 3rd one.... It really works the imagination. I also like the reflection best in that 3rd photo.
Keep playing, you're doing a great job.

[Murphy66]

Another shot with a different wine in case you were getting tired of Saintsbury!

[Carzee]

1/60 is okay on a tripod & release... but not handheld. You haven't mentioned a tripod.

[GSHodg]

I like the 3rd one best, but wish there was a tad more space at the top of the shot. They all look v. professional.

Re your question about focus - are you focussing manually? If not, I think you should - after doing such exquisite setups, it only takes a few more moments to think about what depth of field you want and choose your focus point. And did you really take the shot on 'Full Auto' i.e. green box mode - after such careful setup?

[Murphy66]

Carzee, all of these shots were hand held. I do have a tripod but wanted the freedom to move around and experiment with the different elements.

GSHodg, yes I do fire off one or two on full auto just to have something to compare the rest of my work to. Sometime I get a genius idea that just doesn't work and I want to be able to see what the camera was doign when it got a better shot than me.

Overall, I'm starting to get this focal length thing. I think of it as people. At f2 you'd get a depth of field to fit about two people. At f11 you get more, f22, the whole crowd.

I still am puzzled at times where the auto focus is really looking. I swear that it looks in focus through the lens but comes out soft later. I have experimented with switching between focal points but occasionally still get 'softies'.

[embdude]

. I think of it as people. At f2 you'd get a depth of field to fit about two people. At f11 you get more, f22, the whole crowd.

I still am puzzled at times where the auto focus is really looking. I swear that it looks in focus through the lens but comes out soft later. I have experimented with switching between focal points but occasionally still get 'softies'.

Well the best way to improve is just pracriceing, which you are doing.

Careful with the Depth of Field, sure at 15ft f2 might be as wide as 2 people but at the relative close distances you are shooting it is only a matter of inches!

The canon photo viewer utility that came with the camera has a feature that will display the exact spot the camera focused on.

One way to get more consistent autofocus is to change your camera to a single AF point. This way if say the center is slected, you will always be assured if you aim the camera dead on, it will focus its best on that point.

Looking through the viewfinder to verify focus on the EOS cameras in not a very accurate way to judge focus. Unfortunatly the frosted plastic screen is too dark and lacking in any aids like a split-image or microprism. I do a lot of manual focus work and even when it looks good in the screen to me they can be out of focus, so I compensate with lots of exposures, to make up for the bad ones. A replacement screen (with manual focus aids)can be made or aquired for around $100.

Shooting in RAW mode and using Canon's free program(and easy to use) DPP (digital photo professional) I am able to get much sharper looking photos than by shooting in jpeg.

Keep at it,

-Chris

[Atomic79]

You didn't mention how close you were to the subject plane or at what zoom you used however if set the focus at an object 5 feet away and the 18-55 set at 55 (taking crop factor into account) it would give you a Field of View (FoV) of about 2' 2" on the verticle and your DoF would be about .75 of an inch.
A couple o' good articles on Depth of Field.
http://www.dofmaster.com/articles.html
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dof.shtml

[boomer1959]

Carzee, all of these shots were hand held. I do have a tripod but wanted the freedom to move around and experiment with the different elements.


Very nice photos But I think you will be happier with them if you take the time to use a tripod and a cable remote. Your photos will be even better.

[embdude]

Carzee, all of these shots were hand held. I do have a tripod but wanted the freedom to move around and experiment with the different elements....but occasionally still get 'softies'.

When you handhold you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos...

When you shoot at slower shutter speeds you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos...:confused:

When you shoot at longer focal legnths you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos.....:confused:

When you shoot at wider apeatures you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos (or at least the zone of sharpness).....:confused:

When you drink a bottle of wine you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos.......:lol:

I still do all of the above myself, I just understand I am putting myself in a very challenging situation if I do. A few softies are par for the course....

-Chris

[jfrancho]

When you drink a bottle of wine you increase your odds of not getting sharp photos.......:lol:You also decrease your chances of caring about it...
But seriously, you really do want to stop the camera down, and use a tripod and shutter release. This, combined with some high pass sharpening will yeild amazing results - even when viewed at 100%. Two tools that may help: DOFMaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)and TLR Sharpening Scripts (http://www.thelightsright.com/TLRProfessionalSharpeningToolkit.htm). You can also try CurtisN's DOF Calc for Excel (http://boonecounty.info/photocalc.htm).