Help, Why are some images Tack Sharp? And some are not?

hvaught32 wrote in post #15095516
Also for those of you that state that these images are overexposed, can you tell me why? My whites are not blown out at all and they don't appear overexposed on my computer. Could it calibration?MAC vs PC or even personal preference? When I print through my lab everything looks great.

Not only is your red channel overexposed to the point of clipping, your skin tone is incorrect. Although skin tone can vary, it should be somewhere in the area R=220, G=190, B=170. Note the relations between the RGB values, R greater than G and G greater than B. A sample measurement from your top image (from her forehead) was 255/233/240. The 255 means that the red channel is clipped. Moreover, the blue channel is too strong, probably because of a poor choice of white balance.

A note about the 50 mm, f/1.8: It can be very good from f/4 to f/11, but part of its appeal is the equation of quality per dollar cost. It is Canon's cheapest lens and money was saved in the quality of its construction. One of the ways that corner-cutting afects its performance is in the consistency of its focusing, so you should not be surprised by differences in shots even if they are taken within seconds of each other.

hvaught32 wrote in post #15095516
Also for those of you that state that these images are overexposed, can you tell me why? My whites are not blown out at all and they don't appear overexposed on my computer. Could it calibration?MAC vs PC or even personal preference? When I print through my lab everything looks great.

But your skin tones are way off. You don't really have whites per se. Could be your calibration on the monitor. Look at a histogram. It will be leaning more to the right.

Elie: As a point of clarification, what are you using to see the channels and what is the visual indicator there that the different channels are clipped? Is it just that the RGB channels blow off the top of the histogram?

tzalman wrote in post #15096190
Not only is your red channel overexposed to the point of clipping, your skin tone is incorrect. Although skin tone can vary, it should be somewhere in the area R=220, G=190, B=170. Note the relations between the RGB values, R greater than G and G greater than B. A sample measurement from your top image (from her forehead) was 255/233/240. The 255 means that the red channel is clipped. Moreover, the blue channel is too strong, probably because of a poor choice of white balance.

A note about the 50 mm, f/1.8: It can be very good from f/4 to f/11, but part of its appeal is the equation of quality per dollar cost. It is Canon's cheapest lens and money was saved in the quality of its construction. One of the ways that corner-cutting afects its performance is in the consistency of its focusing, so you should not be surprised by differences in shots even if they are taken within seconds of each other.

Yeah I want to get the 1.4 but can't afford that right now

So I went and adjusted ONLY the histogram and tried to get the RGB as close to the numbers you suggested and this is what I got. It looks dark and dingy on my screen, does it look right to you?

hvaught32 wrote in post #15096599
Yeah I want to get the 1.4 but can't afford that right now

So I went and adjusted ONLY the histogram and tried to get the RGB as close to the numbers you suggested and this is what I got. It looks dark and dingy on my screen, does it look right to you?

Hosted photo: posted by hvaught32 in
./showthread.php?p=150​96599&i=i73073357
forum: General Photography Talk

Looks good to me!

SkipD wrote in post #15094807
I don't see any difference in sharpness between the two posted images. Both are overexposed a bit, though - the first a little more than the second.

That is exactly what I thought when I saw them.

it does not look right to me, not sharp and underexposed now. WB is also off.

elrey2375 wrote in post #15097212
it does not look right to me, not sharp and underexposed now. WB is also off.

It doesn't look right to me either but if I messed with the WB or anything else the RGB also adjusted and then the skin is off according to the above posts. I am starting to think that some of it is the difference in our monitors and calibration. I am going to get mine calibrated? Any suggestions on a software?

Edit's definitely better.

hvaught32 wrote in post #15097263
It doesn't look right to me either but if I messed with the WB or anything else the RGB also adjusted and then the skin is off according to the above posts. I am starting to think that some of it is the difference in our monitors and calibration. I am going to get mine calibrated? Any suggestions on a software?

You should look at portraiture, the plugin from Imagenomic for Photoshop. If you plan on taking portraits of people, it's the best money you'll ever spend. I bought it and I don't even do that many portraits, just to have it in case.

Snydremark wrote in post #15096238
Elie: As a point of clarification, what are you using to see the channels and what is the visual indicator there that the different channels are clipped? Is it just that the RGB channels blow off the top of the histogram?

I use Picture Window Pro, but lots of programs give you a numerical readout of pixel values and even more show three channel histograms. Numerically, the highest value a jpg or other 8 bit image can have is 255, but if it is at 255 it is possible that it has that value because it theoretically should have been higher but practically can't be, so the relationships between the three channels are distorted. In a histogram you see it as the graph being piled up hard against the right side - the right side is 255.

On the 0-255 8 bit scale a medium grey, the famous 18% grey, is 118/118/118. The difference from that to a very bright white just short of clipping, like 250/250/250 is a little bit more than two stops. But Caucasian skin is only one to one and a third stop brighter than medium (in the case of a baby who hasn't had much exposure to the sun, a bit more). In a black and white photo you would want the skin to be around 165-175. Personally, for a mature male in a color photo I use 200/170/150 as a rough guide.

hvaught32 wrote in post #15096599
Yeah I want to get the 1.4 but can't afford that right now

So I went and adjusted ONLY the histogram and tried to get the RGB as close to the numbers you suggested and this is what I got. It looks dark and dingy on my screen, does it look right to you?

Hosted photo: posted by hvaught32 in
./showthread.php?p=150​96599&i=i73073357
forum: General Photography Talk

Colors are MUCH better now. the baby looks healthy and pink, not like casper the friendly ghost!

A few things to try, and post your results?

Set your DoF to be 'right' for the amount fo space you want to be in focus. 5ft from subject with F8 gives you about 12" of 'in focus' area to work with. (try measuring it out on the spot where your subject is. it's not nearly as wide as it sounds), adjust everything else around that (shutter, ISO, flash power) for proper exposure.

do a custom white balance.

maybe use the T2i if you find your having to bump the ISO to get the right exposure? anything less than 800 on that body is pretty noise-free.

Are your flashs adjustable? Don't want to ass-ume anything, but if they are, you should have more than enough power to light the subject on your set, and still keep your ISO at 100. If anything, i would be worried about having too much light! squeezing down the aperture will help with that a lot, as well as give you the DoF to achieve the look your working on.

Good luck!

hvaught32 wrote in post #15096599
Yeah I want to get the 1.4 but can't afford that right now

So I went and adjusted ONLY the histogram and tried to get the RGB as close to the numbers you suggested and this is what I got. It looks dark and dingy on my screen, does it look right to you?

Hosted photo: posted by hvaught32 in
./showthread.php?p=150​96599&i=i73073357
forum: General Photography Talk

looks better to me, maybe you ought to do a re-calibration of that monitor

hvaught32 wrote in post #15095794
Let's say I do have background that I want blurry, what do you suggest?

Simplest: Put more distance between the subject and the background.

hvaught32 wrote in post #15096599
It looks dark and dingy on my screen, does it look right to you?

It looks right on my calibrated system.