How Do I Get the Subject In Focus On Wide Angle?

[ten1437]

How can I get the subject in focus on this wide angle shot? I want the bridal party to be in focus but they do not appear to be too sharp in this pic? Higher f/stop maybe?

EDIT: Direct Link Posted Below

[psycorpse]

I would say make this shot landscape and get closer to them to fill the frame a little more with them. They also look underexposed to me.

I am not a pro by any means.

[In2Photos]

I checked the EXIF on the shot and see that you used a 5DMKII and your lens was at 34mm and f/8. Guessing that you were 20 feet from your subject the DOF is roughly 9 feet to infinity. So I doubt your aperture was the problem. it is likely that for some reason you either missed focus altogether or there is something wrong with your lens. It is dificult to tell with the image you posted though. 100% crops would help.

[ryant35]

I would say make this shot landscape and get closer to them to fill the frame a little more with them. They also look underexposed to me.

I am not a pro by any means.

^^+1 there is too much dead space at the top of the shot, shoot landscape and if your problem was a missed focus it would solve your problem. I shoot like this to capture more sky if it's interesting, but it just doesn't work here.

[PhotosGuy]

And you used, "Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)", (without EC)?, which is why the people are underexposed.
Post #47 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5191658&postcount=47)

[joe mama]

I checked the EXIF on the shot and see that you used a 5DMKII and your lens was at 34mm and f/8. Guessing that you were 20 feet from your subject the DOF is roughly 9 feet to infinity. So I doubt your aperture was the problem. it is likely that for some reason you either missed focus altogether or there is something wrong with your lens. It is dificult to tell with the image you posted though. 100% crops would help.


+1

However, I have a possible alternative explanation. Perhaps your downsizing method needs work. While downsized images are sharper when properly done, I've seen more than one example of a soft downsized image when the original was sharp. So, if you could post a link to the original, or a 100% crop, that would be of immense help. However, the underexposure is still an issue, although that shouldn't be hard to fix on a 5DII at ISO 100.

[ten1437]

Here is a direct link to original file.

http://www.campbellball.org/IMG_4077.JPG

Now I remember zooming out to get this shot with the lens, and then I kinda pointed the camera down to get the girls on one of the AF spots...and then I slightly tilted it back up. Is there a better way to get them in focus without doing manual?

I mean, I could have picked the AF spot closest to them, but when I zoom out that far...there is not a spot close to them at all.

[joe mama]

Here is a direct link to original file.

http://www.campbellball.org/IMG_4077.JPG

Now I remember zooming out to get this shot with the lens, and then I kinda pointed the camera down to get the girls on one of the AF spots...and then I slightly tilted it back up. Is there a better way to get them in focus without doing manual?

I mean, I could have picked the AF spot closest to them, but when I zoom out that far...there is not a spot close to them at all.


Thanks for the link! I'm no expert at diagnosing defective lenses, but I think that's the case with yours. The reason I say this is check out the leaves at the very top of the tree on the left. Not razor sharp, but not that bad, either. However, as we pan down the tree, the leaves, and everything else turns to mush. Since the leaves are all essentially the same distance from the camera, and the fact you were using f/9, this puts DOF out as a possible culprit, and, methinks, missed focus as well.

However, my guess is that you've taken more than that one pic with the lens and most of those came out all right. So if the lens were defective to this degree, why was it not noticed before now? That implies that my diagnosis is incorrect, unless this is an issue that only happens at a particular focal range and you rarely shoot that range.

Clearly, it was no false modesty when I said I was no expert at diagnosing defective lenses. I will be very interested to hear what others have to say about this.

[tdodd]

Here is a direct link to original file.

http://www.campbellball.org/IMG_4077.JPG

Now I remember zooming out to get this shot with the lens, and then I kinda pointed the camera down to get the girls on one of the AF spots...and then I slightly tilted it back up. Is there a better way to get them in focus without doing manual?

I mean, I could have picked the AF spot closest to them, but when I zoom out that far...there is not a spot close to them at all.
You have a focus point exactly over the bride's face but you chose to use a point that is covering the sky. See attached image. Why did you not simply change to the more appropriate focus point?

I'm also not sure about your expression above about "zooming" to focus. I would recommend always adjusting your zoom and then focusing. Do not zoom again after focusing. Did you zoom after setting focus? I'm not completely clear from your description.

At 34mm and f/8 you should have had no problems with focus/recompose. The women look very soft though. The treeline in the distance looks sharper. Are you sure you did not accidentally lose focus lock and end up focusing on the sky without noticing? Do you have focus beep on? If it was off you may well have not noticed a brief moment of losing lock and the camera refocusing. Even with beep on, in the rush of the moment you might have overlooked it.

As for the exposure, in Av mode and evaluative metering the exposure is biased towards the area around the active focus point, so I'm wondering whether your exposure was thrown off by the focus point in the wrong place within the scene. The answer to that depends on when you locked the exposure. If you did accidentally release the shutter button for a split second and then ended up focusing on the sky it would have thrown off your metering.

[tzalman]

Are you sure you did not accidentally lose focus lock and end up focusing on the sky without noticing? Do you have focus beep on? If it was off you may well have not noticed a brief moment of losing lock and the camera refocusing. Even with beep on, in the rush of the moment you might have overlooked it.

As for the exposure, in Av mode and evaluative metering the exposure is biased towards the area around the active focus point, so I'm wondering whether your exposure was thrown off by the focus point in the wrong place within the scene. The answer to that depends on when you locked the exposure. If you did accidentally release the shutter button for a split second and then ended up focusing on the sky it would have thrown off your metering.
I agree with Tim. It is easy (especially with a new camera) to inadvertently let up on the shutter button and then press again, thus causing everything to reset. That is why I: (a) use mostly M - the exposure can change only when I tell it to; (b) have the AF-On button set so that only it initiates focusing, not the shutter release - until I push the button again the focus will not change.

[In2Photos]

I agree with both posts above, but would also like to ask if you used a filter on your lens for this shot?

[ten1437]

I agree with both posts above, but would also like to ask if you used a filter on your lens for this shot?

I do use a UV filter

[In2Photos]

I do use a UV filter
Try some shots with and without the filter then to see if there is a drastic difference in image quality. Do a controlled test, use a tripod, remote release or timer, and the same lighting.

[ten1437]

Try some shots with and without the filter then to see if there is a drastic difference in image quality. Do a controlled test, use a tripod, remote release or timer, and the same lighting.
ok...will do...I will post what I get.

[Wilt]

You have a focus point exactly over the bride's face but you chose to use a point that is covering the sky. See attached image. Why did you not simply change to the more appropriate focus point?


The focus point indicator of some programs does NOT show the point in the scene which was used to lock focus, it merely shows which FOCUS POINT in the frame was used...it could have been on top of a subject for focusing, and then reframed for shooting.

[Wilt]

I don't think the lens is 'at fault', I think the shot is merely misfocus. I took the JPG and corrected the exposure brightness to examine the shot better. You can see, at the right edge of the shot down lower, that there are things floating in the water that are pretty well in focus...the lower-tree-not-focused issue identified by Joe I think is nothing other than the lower leaves of the tree being not at the same plane of focus as the top of the tree (trees are 3 dimensional, after all! ;))

[tdodd]

Now I remember zooming out to get this shot with the lens, and then I kinda pointed the camera down to get the girls on one of the AF spots...and then I slightly tilted it back up. Is there a better way to get them in focus without doing manual?

I mean, I could have picked the AF spot closest to them, but when I zoom out that far...there is not a spot close to them at all.

The focus point indicator of some programs does NOT show the point in the scene which was used to lock focus, it merely shows which FOCUS POINT in the frame was used...it could have been on top of a subject for focusing, and then reframed for shooting.
I know he focused/recomposed. He told us that. I also know the active/highlighted FP can be moved after focus is locked, but the evidence here suggests to me that he lost lock and refocused, by accident, somewhere in the scene other than the subject. Now, I don't think focus/recompose would have been the end of the world here, but if you download the image and view at 100% you will see just how soft the line of women is. IMHO the softness is well beyond and margin of error for focus/recompose, especially at this distance, aperture and focal length. The tree line appears much sharper. That tells me that focus was well off into the distance.

I'd estimate shooting distance to be around 15', which at 34mm and f/8 on a 5D would give a DOF covering from 7.7' to 251', admittedly not at 100% mag. Even so, to fall outside that range is is a hell of a focus/recompose error. Here is a 100% crop...

[joe mama]

But if the focus were way off, how come the top of the tree on the left is reasonably sharp, whereas the other sections of the tree at basically the same focus distance (and certainly *well* within the DOF of the shot) are mush? The shot was taken at 34mm f/8. If we assume a subject distance of 20 ft, then the DOF is infinite with a hyperfocal distance of 16 ft. So, again, I don't see how the top of the tree on the left can be reasonably sharp and not the rest of the tree, at the very least, not to mention the background.

[Thalagyrt]

The focus point indicator of some programs does NOT show the point in the scene which was used to lock focus, it merely shows which FOCUS POINT in the frame was used...it could have been on top of a subject for focusing, and then reframed for shooting.

Tilting the camera that far can shift focus significantly, though I wouldn't imagine as much of a slipup as in that shot. Looks like an accidental refocusing, or zooming after focusing.

http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

[Wilt]

My estimation...head is about 8" tall, measures on my monitor as 10mm and the short dimesion of the photo is 16cm on my monitor, so about 10.6' of scene across the frame. 34mm lens on a 5DII means a shooting distance of 15' just like jdodd estimated. The DOF calculator I use says 8' - 69' within DOF. A different DOF program says 6.15' - 40' within DOF. Yet another DOF calculator says 7.7' -259' (which is close to jtodd results). Which do you believe?! In any event, with focus recompose, there would have been just under 9 degrees of angle shift, and that means it certainly was well under what normal DOF would mask from visibility! There was some major screw up, no blame to the lens or blame to focus-recompose, that put the point of focus so far to the rear of the ladies.