Why is this photo soft?

[JRMott]

Taken with Rebel XS, 50mm, f/2.8, 1/800, resized with flickr for web use. Not sure why these are soft, but they are.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4452166213_4059003d3e_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4452941378_55efc7aa97_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2768/4452941300_143a36a027_o.jpg

[krb]

Too little light on her face would be my guess. A little fill light would have made a huge difference.

[zachbreaux]

Yep, low light. Should have stopped down to about 2.2

[poloman]

There are parts in focus in each frame. I think you are just missing focus. If you used the nifty fifty to take these, that lens is great but is notorious for being a little compromised in terms of focus. Take two or three frames. The depth of field is extremely shallow. If you are focusing and recomposing... don't. Focus on one of her eyes.

[zachbreaux]

What was the iso at?

[JRMott]

What was the iso at?

ISO 400

[RRocket]

probably lack of light. my nifty is really sharp with good DOF at 2.8 with good light.

[scubthebub]

my nifty is really sharp with good DOF at 2.8 with good light.

I have a good copy that is sharp at f/1.8, but making sure i don't move while pressing the shutter release is the hard part. f/2.8 is definitely shallow enough to be touchy.

[poloman]

probably lack of light. my nifty is really sharp with good DOF at 2.8 with good light.

Lack of Light?

[Roy Mathers]

Yep, low light. Should have stopped down to about 2.2

I don't know what you mean, as these were taken at f/2.8. Using f/2.2 isn't 'stopping down'!

In any case, I think it's more likely that the focus was missed.

[Domwolf]

I think it has more to do with the Rebel XS than the lens or settings.

I have a Rebel XS and it is very very hard to get sharp images straight from the camera... i use a canon 50 f1.8 a canon 18-55mm and a sigma 25-70 and i get the best from all @ around f/8 to f/11 and i am still not that happy.

But as i learn more i will upgrade the cam.

[zachbreaux]

I don't know what you mean, as these were taken at f/2.8. Using f/2.2 isn't 'stopping down'!

In any case, I think it's more likely that the focus was missed.

You are correct. My bad in using the wrong terminology on that one. I would have bumped up the iso and shot at 2.2. Probably would have yielded much better results. User error > gear

[Roy Mathers]

I still don't understand why you think 2.2 would have given better results than 2.8 - I would have thought that the reverse was true.

[zachbreaux]

So you are thinking letting in more light would create an even softer photo? (I am thinking in terms of light and i think you are thinking in terms of focus)

This is what im trying to get across:

Bump the iso to say 600 - f/2.2 = faster shutter speed = less chance for soft photo

[poloman]

The OP was shooting at 1/800. Drop shutter speed to 1/100, stop down a bit (higher number) and lower the ISO is what would have improved sharpness. Not likely that camera shake was the problem at 1/800.

[Telemudcat]

I think it's front focusing. In the 2nd picture the hand is clearly more in focus than the face.

[Roy Mathers]

So you are thinking letting in more light would create an even softer photo? (I am thinking in terms of light and i think you are thinking in terms of focus)

This is what im trying to get across:

Bump the iso to say 600 - f/2.2 = faster shutter speed = less chance for soft photo

I think you're on the wrong track. More light doesn't necessarily mean a sharper picture. These shots were taken at 1/800th sec, more than enough to stop camera shake, especially with a 50mm lens. If the shots were taken at f/2.2, the dof would have been even narrower, and the focusing more critical. My money is still on the misfocusing (the stitching on the dress by her right breast seems to be sharper than the eyes) - either that or a duff lens.

What poloman has just suggested would also make sense.

[poloman]

I think missed focus is the real key here too. The suggestions I offered would offer a better chance of a clear shot.

[zachbreaux]

I think you're on the wrong track. More light doesn't necessarily mean a sharper picture. These shots were taken at 1/800th sec, more than enough to stop camera shake, especially with a 50mm lens. If the shots were taken at f/2.2, the dof would have been even narrower, and the focusing more critical. My money is still on the misfocusing (the stitching on the dress by her right breast seems to be sharper than the eyes) - either that or a duff lens.

What poloman has just suggested would also make sense.

I gotcha.

[Tomi Hawk]

Yep, low light. Should have stopped down to about 2.2
Hmm, considering he shot at 2.8 .. 2.2 would not be "stopping down" ..

[joedlh]

In the first one, her belt buckle seems to have the focus. I second the strategy of using one focal point and focusing on the eye.

[zachbreaux]

Hmm, considering he shot at 2.8 .. 2.2 would not be "stopping down" ..

We covered this already.

[Tomi Hawk]

We covered this already.
oops .. mah bad .. :oops:

[Celtic Tiger]

My money is still on the misfocusing (the stitching on the dress by her right breast seems to be sharper than the eyes)

Hmmm...we may be narrowing in on the problem. After all the shooter is only human.;)

[gibbit1]

I believe Celtic Tiger has nailed it. After all this discussion, we've come to the conclusion that the shooter is a healthy, heterosexual male. My focus would have been right where his was, too.