First Wedding Photos a bit blurred! Help

A lot off lenses are more blured when fully open (f stop) you have to find your sweet spot of every lens and only go fully open if you cant avoid it..

Shockey wrote in post #10927508
With that lens don't go below F4, or it won't be sharp, ...

That lens is extremely sharp at 2.8 as long as you focus correctly, which as clearly already confirmed, did not occur.

Valjoy wrote in post #10928844
...I always use centre point focus and recompose...

I'm surprised. Using the closest AF point is far better and more accurate than focus-recomposing.

ewijk wrote in post #10928992
A lot off lenses are more blured when fully open (f stop) you have to find your sweet spot of every lens and only go fully open if you cant avoid it..

All comes down to knowing your lenses. If you can't open up with confidence then you really shouldn't be using those lenses for weddings, otherwise you won't have any options to be creative with shallow dof.

Peacefield wrote in post #10921728
I know I'm not being helpful at all, and I mean no disrespect to the OP, but there's a part of me that says the original post is something that should appear on CraigsList under wedding services. This is the kind of stuff that brides don't think can go wrong but happen all the time.

You're correct. Your comment has nothing to do with the OP question.

lankforddl wrote in post #10936333
You're correct. Your comment has nothing to do with the OP question.

But it has everything to do with the uniformed bride's worst nightmare. Once again, I'm not beating up on the OP specifically, but if had said to the bride that, "I know my equipment looks professional but it's really only consumer grade, I don't know how to control this gear so I let the camera decide for me even for such critical elements as focus point, and your photos may come out horribly out of focus as a result of this and all the other things I don't even know enough to warn you about", I suspect she might have passed.

I get buyer beware, but the wanna-be wedding photographer also has a responsiblity to communicate their skill level to the couple. I'm guessing that did not happen here. The reality is that the OP seems to understand photography just well enough to know that he has not yet acquired what might be considered the minimum level of technical skill required to take on the substantial responsibliity of photographing someone's wedding for them regardless of budget constraints.

And I wasn't then nor am I now looking to hijack this thread; just felt compelled to toss that into the mix FWIW.

Enough said about the cause but a little Focus Magic will do wonders for your images.
Al

Peacefield wrote in post #10937159
The reality is that the OP seems to understand photography just well enough to know that he has not yet acquired what might be considered the minimum level of technical skill required to take on the substantial responsibliity of photographing someone's wedding for them regardless of budget constraints.

Which is precisely why I would explain to any friends who asked me to photograph their wedding what to expect if I did the photos.

I have done one wedding mind (for a friend of a friend) who really could not afford a "proper" wedding tog. All they could afford for a honeymoon was a week in a caravan. They loved the photos fortunately - phew....

I do as Peacefield puts it, think it's important to give realistic expectations to the couple. As I mentioned above some people just cannot afford an experienced (and hence more expensive tog).

ni$mo350 wrote in post #10922565
EXIF doesn't lie.

This could not be more wrong... I've gone back and looked at some EXIF data from photos after they've been through Lightroom and it is way off.

How? Why? I don't know... but I've had it tell me a photos was taken with a camera in which I know it wasn't... as I don't own that camera and the same with lenses. I have also seen screwed up focal lengths, etc in EXIF data.

Again, i don't know why I have this problem. Maybe some sort of glitch with my Lightroom and Photoshop as it only happens to photos that I've edited in those programs.

On flikr, when i put things on there, it will give the wrong info too...

Looks like a filter or auto-focus problem, particularly if you have this occurring in a series of photos. 2.8 is not really small enough depending on the subject distance and number of rows but think of F4.0 or 5.6 as a starting point for most group shots.

Let me fix up a common misconception posted here .. using flash will not stop blur caused by slower shutter speeds unless your settings are such that the ambient light is 2-3 stops below the flash, which for all practical purposes means a very dark background.

2.8 on a crop body is more than enough for a row or 3 of people...
i shoot 28mm 1.8 on a FF and they are fine for formals.
the pic posted is just straight mis focused. never trust the outter points much less the camera to decide... but you been told that a few times.

SMonson wrote in post #10921482
OK..so I mis-spoke earlier, the camera body I used was the Canon Xti. If this should make a difference. Sorry

XTi shouldn't make an iota of difference. I've used my XTi as a second shooter for The Wife on many weddings (until she recently got a 5D II and handed her 50D to me). The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a fine lens as well, is her workhorse for weddings, in fact.

For formals, I'm trying to figure out why you're shooting so slow. 1/60? And with such a wide aperture. For event and reception shots, yes, you'll want to shoot wide open because of crappy lighting, plus the OOF backgrounds make images more stylish and attractive. But that's not what formals are. If you have an umbrella setup you're using with strobes, set your aperture to f/4 for a deeper DOF and shoot at 1/100 minimum to eliminate any hint of camera shake. ISO 200 and 400 are fine on the XTi, so don't feel wedded to ISO 100. XTi works best for photojournalistic-style wedding shots, as that leverages the camera's strengths and minimizes its weaknesses, but there's no reason why your camera/lens combo can't take good formals as well.

I'm joining late but had a thought - first, I feel bad for all involved. I'm sure the OP is upset and the b/g will likely not be too happy either. But, water under the bridge and let's try to figure things out...

We don't appear to have an explanation yet so I'll offer this based upon his sample photo. First off, everything in the photo looks OOF. I don't believe we haven't established if he was using a poor quality filter or not. I'm betting it was a combination of that large f/2.8 aperture and a spread of auto-focus points.

I've never tried this myself and I'm not familiar with his camera, so here's a question to the group: If you select all AF points, the focusing algorithm in the processor will give you an average, correct? And if he used all points, some would likely have fallen on the back wall which is several feet from the plane of the subject. Now, combine this with the shallow DOF at 2.8 and you end up with an average focus point that falls nowhere to create a sharp image. Does this make sense as a possibility?

This is why I always use the center focus point and at least f/6.3 (give or take a little) when doing groups. For larger groups I'll use an even smaller aperture. I am not concerned with bokeh for groups, but strive for sharpness in all my people. Now, portraits of one or two individuals is a different story when it comes to bokeh.

sapearl wrote in post #10965149
I've never tried this myself and I'm not familiar with his camera, so here's a question to the group: If you select all AF points, the focusing algorithm in the processor will give you an average, correct? And if he used all points, some would likely have fallen on the back wall which is several feet from the plane of the subject. Now, combine this with the shallow DOF at 2.8 and you end up with an average focus point that falls nowhere to create a sharp image. Does this make sense as a possibility?

Stu - "All Focus Points" doesn't quite work like you think. Generally, the camera finds a point of high-contrast that is (1)Closest to the camera and (2)covered by ONE of the focus points. It then focuses at this point. So SOMETHING should be in focus. It is often something in the foreground rather than the subject though. Except for AI-Servo, this is a usesless setting. It's telling the camera "Hey, I don't care where you focus, just focus on something and I promise not to complain about mis-focused shots later"

I think you may be thinking of "A-Dep" mode where the camera tries to set a narrow enough aperture such that all objects covered by all the focus points are in the depth of field.

Well Evan, my explanation is what's called "let's theorize when you don't really understand the features of the equipment and let's speculate on thin air...." Thanks for the info - yours makes more sense than mine.

I hope the OP comes back as I'd really like to figure out what he did and try to help him avoid that sort of thing in the future. He was really digging for some clue.

I had this problem with somebody else. Closer examination always found one sharp element, usually a purse or similar object in focus. The purse was in the center with the faces higher up and the camera took it's pick. My friend was a little better off because the lens didn't have as much max aperture as yours

According to the data in the jpeg you linked that shot was with f/2.8 which just doesn't have enough depth to photograph a group of people close up. The solution for the problem above was to use A-DEP on the dial for everything that has more than one person in the picture. I'm too lazy to look up whether your Rebel has that but I think it does. Of course this means you run out of light and into noise earlier.

For single-person shots watch the read dot and keep it on the bride's nose. It might be worth it to invest two user-selectable storage positions, one for center/middle focus and one for top/center focus.

Make a habit out of shooting all important set-pieces on a wedding twice, once with a-dep, once with high iso and everything else on auto.

Dear SMonson

As a happy-go-lucky amateur photography enthusiast . . .I feel your pain.

Nothing is as difficult as nailing indoor photography. That 1/60 shutter speed is barely cutting it unless everyone (including YOU squeezing the trigger) is very, very still!

That f 2.8 (which is so much fun on brightly lit creative shots) is a separate skill set when using it to paint a group portrait.

Combine the two and marry it to that tiny LED screen to review captured images on your Rebel, and . . .well . . .I (and others here) feel your pain.

Please do not be put off by photographers who can not help but editorialize about Craig List Low Dollar Wedding Photographers . . .they can NOT help themselves. These Craigs List opportunists are (too often) polluting pristine photo-op waters and real Wedding Photogs can be protective of their environment.

It’s understandable and expected.

Do not be put off of your original quest to discover what went wrong. You came to the right place.

Most everyone here knows more than I. In fact, my only two cents to add here . . is I feel your pain / and stick with your thread.

This forum is a superb resource.

I thrive upon & learn so very much here by drinking up all that real world photography knowledge of what truly works. My consideration of what and how to shoot expand almost every time I sign on.

Stick around and you will “see the light” . . and no doubt LEARN how to use it !