Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
Thread started 19 Aug 2011 (Friday) 21:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

28 days later...

 
Ekir
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 19, 2011 21:19 |  #1

Just 28 days after birth I got to photograph this little darlin', please let me know what you think.

Ater a snuggle with mum, her cheeks went treally red, so I tried to counteract that in ps.

Lou

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6060412579_33608238f2_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ekir78/60604125​79/  (external link)
Banksia13 (external link) by Ekir78 (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6072/6060412561_f26847c257_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ekir78/60604125​61/  (external link)
Banksia11 (external link) by Ekir78 (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekir
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 19, 2011 21:20 |  #2

They don't look very nice up on here, not sure if its fklicker or whatm, but they look better then this in my photoshop screen!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Aug 19, 2011 22:04 |  #3

Don't worry, somebody will be along to advise you.

David


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kaptnkain
Senior Member
985 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 219
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 20, 2011 00:04 |  #4

Your title is misleading. 28 days later is the name of a zombie flick haha.

Looks like you missed the focus on both photos.


- Ilya
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LONDON808
Senior Member
Avatar
872 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Honolulu hawaii
     
Aug 20, 2011 00:09 |  #5

he shoots and its a miss - not sure where the focus is BUT its not on the baby


View My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nomofica
Senior Member
509 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
     
Aug 20, 2011 17:20 |  #6

First shot is heavily front-focused (hand is more in focus than face, but hand is still somewhat OOF). Second shot is completely OOF. In both shots, the colours are very washed out (possibly wrong colourspace).

At an aperture of 1.8, you have a very shallow depth of field - especially when up close (0.45 m). I would have shot this with a much narrower aperture to give the photo a deeper DOF and keep things in focus. Also, when shooting with such a wide aperture, it's wise to use Live View (with Exp. Sim. enabled) to confirm focus as looking through the viewfinder will not show you where your focus is (even if you press the DOF button - your VF will be too dark to tell).


Portfolio (external link) | 5∞ (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekir
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 20, 2011 17:34 |  #7

Thanks guys, I desuatuarated a little as bub was really red in the face, so thats the washed out effect

In regard to the focus, thts something I'm really carefull with, the I used sective focus with the af poin always on her closest eye. Not sure why its coming out off focus!

I gues with that narrow a DOF, even a tiny movement would throw it off, althogh I checked photos as I took them and most of them the AF point was on the eyes. Would it be bub or me moving just ever so slightly or front/back focusing issues? IO thought I had the slight front focus issue fixed!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nomofica
Senior Member
509 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
     
Aug 20, 2011 17:50 |  #8

Keep in mind the minimum focusing distance for the 50 1.8 II is 0.45 metres. Any closer and it will be OOF regardless if AF gets a lock or not. If you're having AF issues, shoot in manual. I also recommend shooting tethered in a studio situation so you can view how your focus is on a larger screen.


Portfolio (external link) | 5∞ (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stayhumble
Goldmember
1,328 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
     
Aug 20, 2011 18:09 |  #9
bannedPermanent ban

The title is fitting because i think you made the baby look like its in a zombie movie.

first. you probably have the 50 1.8 in which you probably would never want to shoot at 1.8 ever again. great lens, horrible wide open. stop it down to 2.0

your out of focus issue may be because you are close, and when you readjust to get the better crop, you lost the focal point. when you are that close to a subject and using that shallow a dof, use the joystick to grab the focal point.

goodluck!


There are no rules for a good photograph and there are no excuses for a bad one.
SELLING:40D, 50D, 10-22, Tamron 17-50 non VC, 5D, 14MM II, 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS, 430EX, 530EX (ALL MINT W/Box)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekir
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 20, 2011 18:29 |  #10

Thnaks stayhumble! I have another shoot with the baby on wednessday, as the whole family was jetlagged! I will set it to 2.0 and higher, thanks for the advice!

@kptnkain, yeah I was using the title as a pun! The baby is 28 days old!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,360 posts
Gallery: 332 photos
Likes: 1836
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Aug 20, 2011 18:32 |  #11

Lovely baby but not in focus - as others already told you. Did you use single spot focal point or multiple focal points: for shots like these pick the central one!
The white balance is also a bit off. But the main point is the focus. I think in #2 you were too close and in #1 you focussed on the fingers. F1/1.8 gives you a very thin depth of field..... try a smaller aperture and a higher ISO to keep at a shutterspeed of 1/125. Then you get some more DOF and the noise at higher ISO is not bad in the 50D (got one so I know that... :)) and easily corrected in PP


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
Canon R5, R,, RF24-105/1:4 + RF70-200mm F/2.8 + RF15-35mm F/2.8 + 50mm 1.4 USM + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + RF100mm F/2.8 + GODOX V860 IIC+ 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekir
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 20, 2011 18:39 |  #12

Hey vk2gwk!

I used single point af, sometimes the centre one, but I moved it around to where I wanted in focus then took the shot without moving. Don't understand why its off focus, when I know I focused exactly where I wanted to!

Very frustrating....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ekir
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Aug 20, 2011 19:04 |  #13

Ok, this one shows up as the af single point right on her eye where I pionted it.


IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6063190307_c62c4828cd_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ekir78/60631903​07/  (external link)
Banksia76 (external link) by Ekir78 (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,360 posts
Gallery: 332 photos
Likes: 1836
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Aug 20, 2011 19:19 |  #14

Lookslike there is some front focussing.... The towel to th left is more in focus than the eyes.


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
Canon R5, R,, RF24-105/1:4 + RF70-200mm F/2.8 + RF15-35mm F/2.8 + 50mm 1.4 USM + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + RF100mm F/2.8 + GODOX V860 IIC+ 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nomofica
Senior Member
509 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
     
Aug 20, 2011 19:25 |  #15

vk2gwk wrote in post #12969684 (external link)
Lookslike there is some front focussing.... The towel to th left is more in focus than the eyes.

Beat me to it.

I agree, your lens is front-focusing. I'm not familiar with the 50D as I've never held one, let alone browsed the settings, so I'm not entirely sure the 50D is capable of microadjustment settings like the 7D and up are. If that's not possible and you don't want to send your lens to Canon for proper adjustments, the easiest and most economical workaround is simply using manual focus.


Portfolio (external link) | 5∞ (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

1,860 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
28 days later...
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Discussion Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MWCarlsson
706 guests, 129 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.