Sharp Eye Focus, How?

Dear Pros

How do you guys achieve such sharp focuses? Some pictures here are so sharp around the eyes, the focus it just mind-blowingly sharp.
I can't achieve such sharp focus.
Some of reason that i think might cause it but I need your suggestions if I actually assume right, or anything I miss?

1) Better lenses? (I have only kit lens)
2) manual focus? (I do use one focus point and focus on eyes, but maybe using LCD, zooming in and focusing manually produces more precise focus than autofocus?)
3) Tripod (I do make sure I use shutter of 100+ but even than maybe I need to use tripod so that no camera shake at all and focus is super sharp? Any ideas if this is true?)
4) Post-Processing? (Maybe using sharpening tools in post-processing?)

Any idea if any of my above asumptions for my lack of sharp focus on eyes is true? Any other ideas for the causes for the lack of sharp focus?

Thanks for any tips !!!

1. Better lenses can certainly help, but a kit lens should be capable of sharp results stopped down a couple of stops. They may be a bit soft wide open.

2. AF should do a good job, unless your camera or lens is miscalibrated. Of course you need to use it correctly, using a single point placed over the eye should do the job nicely. Whatever you do, don't leave it up to the camera by using "all-points".

3. A tripod wouldn't hurt, but I rarely use one as long as I can get a decent shutter speed without hiking the ISO up much. 1/100th may not be enough though, depending on focal length used, how steady you can hold the camera etc.

4. Yes, sharpening is required to counteract the anti-alias filter in the camera, which softens things a little. In addition, resizing will soften an image a little too, so you need to sharpen after resizing for web sized images. If you aren't doing any sharpening, then that will be the likely cause of you not getting really sharp images.

sandpiper wrote in post #16140589
1. Better lenses can certainly help, but a kit lens should be capable of sharp results stopped down a couple of stops. They may be a bit soft wide open.

2. AF should do a good job, unless your camera or lens is miscalibrated. Of course you need to use it correctly, using a single point placed over the eye should do the job nicely. Whatever you do, don't leave it up to the camera by using "all-points".

3. A tripod wouldn't hurt, but I rarely use one as long as I can get a decent shutter speed without hiking the ISO up much. 1/100th may not be enough though, depending on focal length used, how steady you can hold the camera etc.

4. Yes, sharpening is required to counteract the anti-alias filter in the camera, which softens things a little. In addition, resizing will soften an image a little too, so you need to sharpen after resizing for web sized images. If you aren't doing any sharpening, then that will be the likely cause of you not getting really sharp images.

Interesting, know quiet a lot about post-processing, but I never really touched any of the sharpening tools to get sharper focus on eyes.

I guess i have to select eyes and play around with sharpening tools, maybe even clarity and contrast. But first have to learn how sharpening is done, don't know much about it yet, sharpening has 4 or 5 components.

Van Gogh wrote in post #16140779
Interesting, know quiet a lot about post-processing, but I never really touched any of the sharpening tools to get sharper focus on eyes.

I guess i have to select eyes and play around with sharpening tools, maybe even clarity and contrast. But first have to learn how sharpening is done, don't know much about it yet, sharpening has 4 or 5 components.

Yes, it can be a bit complicated if you go for the advanced modes. However, most software has simple one click sharpening available. In PS you can resize, then just click "sharpen edges" to get a pretty decent result. It can be a little too much with some very detailed images (bird feathers, leaves on trees etc). In which case just cancel it, select the sharpen brush and a low percentage, then work your way over the image, areas such as eyes you can give a little more to if you want by going over them two or three times.

These do a pretty good job much of the time and don't take any real learning or practice getting a bunch of settings right.

sandpiper wrote in post #16140826
Yes, it can be a bit complicated if you go for the advanced modes. However, most software has simple one click sharpening available. In PS you can resize, then just click "sharpen edges" to get a pretty decent result. It can be a little too much with some very detailed images (bird feathers, leaves on trees etc). In which case just cancel it, select the sharpen brush and a low percentage, then work your way over the image, areas such as eyes you can give a little more to if you want by going over them two or three times.

These do a pretty good job much of the time and don't take any real learning or practice getting a bunch of settings right.

Can u tell exactly where the sharpening is please?
How do i access this "sharpen edges" menu? What des resizing have to do with it?
I see one sharpening tool with Blurr and Smudge tools, u talking about that one?

Where is the sharpen brush located? Maybe u mean in RAW?

I think great camera technique can achieve most if not all of your questions to be answered. I have found by researching a lot of sports shooters, I have been able to improve the clarity of my image through proper technique.

Van Gogh wrote in post #16140882
Can u tell exactly where the sharpening is please?
How do i access this "sharpen edges" menu? What des resizing have to do with it?
I see one sharpening tool with Blurr and Smudge tools, u talking about that one?

Where is the sharpen brush located? Maybe u mean in RAW?

I am using PS CS6, it may be different on your software, but you need "Filters > Sharpen > Sharpen Edges".

Resizing softens the image as it has to be redrawn and loses sharpness in the process. If you resize something for web use That may involve the software using one pixel to replace twenty, thirty or more pixels. Sharpening after resizing will make a definite difference to images you display online and in forums.

Yes, the sharpen tool with the blur / smudge tools. Click on that and it gives you a brush, best used at a low strength ans build up if needed.

jmcgee131 wrote in post #16140896
I think great camera technique can achieve most if not all of your questions to be answered. I have found by researching a lot of sports shooters, I have been able to improve the clarity of my image through proper technique.

Yes, of course great camera technique will create sharper images, but it doesn't give you output sharpening, where you apply sharpening to suit the final image size, and counteract the softness introduced by resizing.

sandpiper wrote in post #16140944
I am using PS CS6, it may be different on your software, but you need "Filters > Sharpen > Sharpen Edges".

Resizing softens the image as it has to be redrawn and loses sharpness in the process. If you resize something for web use That may involve the software using one pixel to replace twenty, thirty or more pixels. Sharpening after resizing will make a definite difference to images you display online and in forums.

Yes, the sharpen tool with the blur / smudge tools. Click on that and it gives you a brush, best used at a low strength ans build up if needed.

Yes, of course great camera technique will create sharper images, but it doesn't give you output sharpening, where you apply sharpening to suit the final image size, and counteract the softness introduced by resizing.

Thanks a lot for the tips u helped me a lot.
Hopefully my eyes will be sharper now
It seems the only problem I really had was post-processing than !!!

Van Gogh wrote in post #16140955
It seems the only problem I really had was post-processing than !!!

Hopefully. Assuming you are getting sharp captures, then sharpening should give them that really crisp look you are after.

As jmcgee131 said though, good camera technique is also important. If your original image isn't good there is only so much you can do in PP.

sandpiper wrote in post #16141027
Hopefully. Assuming you are getting sharp captures, then sharpening should give them that really crisp look you are after.

As jmcgee131 said though, good camera technique is also important. If your original image isn't good there is only so much you can do in PP.

Absolutely.
I started with photography and for 3-6 months was just learning how to take perfect pictures, be it portraits, events, landscapes, etcc, no editing whatsoever, except basic thigs like brightness, etcc.. . In other words, I was learning camera technical details, lighting (took 2 months extensive learning to get this, the hardest part of photography) as well as framing, posing.

But than I realized to take my pictures to the next level and to make them absolutely gorgeous and pop I have to learn edting. (I did use the RAW editing software that came with camera but its really limited in what it can do).
So I looked into PS and am absolutely obsessed with it the last 1 month or so. It opened a new world for me and can certainly can take my picture to a new level !!!

Van Gogh wrote in post #16141044
Absolutely.
I started with photography and for 3-6 months was just learning how to take perfect pictures, be it portraits, events, landscapes, etcc, no editing whatsoever, except basic thigs like brightness, etcc.. . In other words, I was learning camera technical details, lighting (took 2 months extensive learning to get this, the hardest part of photography) as well as framing, posing.

But than I realized to take my pictures to the next level and to make them absolutely gorgeous and pop I have to learn edting. (I did use the RAW editing software that came with camera but its really limited in what it can do).
So I looked into PS and am absolutely obsessed with it the last 1 month or so. It opened a new world for me and can certainly can take my picture to a new level !!!

Yeah, there is a lot to learn. You can pick up the basics quite quickly, but there are so many features it takes a long time to get around to learning them all, then learning how to get the best by combining features takes forever. I've been using Photoshop for about 8 years now, and I am still learning it, although I have a fair understanding of the features I really want to use.

I still see some edits by the experts though, and realise how much I still have to learn. Of course, some of that is just sheer b****y talent, and that cannot be learned.

sandpiper wrote in post #16141101
Yeah, there is a lot to learn. You can pick up the basics quite quickly, but there are so many features it takes a long time to get around to learning them all, then learning how to get the best by combining features takes forever. I've been using Photoshop for about 8 years now, and I am still learning it, although I have a fair understanding of the features I really want to use.

I still see some edits by the experts though, and realise how much I still have to learn. Of course, some of that is just sheer b****y talent, and that cannot be learned.

Thats why photography is the best hobby I have had so far, u can always learn and get better (techincalw wise) but it is also creative in so many ways !!!
It keeps me motivated and I am certainly in this for a long haul !!!

If you want the eyes to be sharp here are some tips:

1. Use a single focus point that is cross type for more accuracy, focus on the eyes, snap the picture.
2. Use a shutter speed faster than the focal length of your lens.
3. Use a monopod if you need to.
4. Make sure your subject is lit properly.

I just did a workshop last night which was the first time I've shot people (normally I do landscape and such). Looking through the images this morning, I see that the best of them are a bit soft, and the rest are just hopelessly out of focus. I was using mostly a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, and this was the first time I've made extensive use of it. I also was trying to keep it wide open for the narrow depth of field. From the comment above, it sounds like that is a bad idea for this lens (since it's basically a kit lens), or at least using the AF on it wont get the results. The first question then is, if I leave it open, should I expect the focus to be soft, or should I expect that the AF will be soft and I can correct with MF (in other words, is the softness related to the AF or the lens itself)?

The other question is just to verify that I'm doing it right, which I may well not be. My process was to get the shot framed and lit the way I wanted to take it, then to move the center point (the only point selected for AF) over the models eye, do the 1/2 press to focus, then pan back to the shot I wanted before pressing the shutter release the rest of the way and grabbing the image. As I understand it, that is correct, but perhaps I misunderstand. I'd also appreciate any suggestions anyone has on how to best practice resolving this (specific suggestions please) as I have another workshop Tuesday and would like to get at least some of the shots from that one in focus.

Thanks all

craigat wrote in post #16161162
...My process was to get the shot framed and lit the way I wanted to take it, then to move the center point (the only point selected for AF) over the models eye, do the 1/2 press to focus, then pan back to the shot I wanted before pressing the shutter release the rest of the way and grabbing the image.

With the lens wide open (f/1.8 in this case), you're dealing with a thin depth of field. When you focus on one point, and then recompose, you're moving the camera in an arc, and the camera-to-subject distance has changed, moving the subject out of focus.