Fast focusing and portraiture

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not dissecting past sentences for the sake of debate' date=' Jamie. There's different ways of doing everything in this business and that's what puts our signature on the product.

 

Here's some movement pics and some do have a little added light to avoid forced contrast, but the focussing is done using the ambient light. No sharpening.

 

I'll get Andy B to remove these in a few days to preserve disk space. Apologies to any disinterested spectators.[/quote']Of these images only the close up of the bride looks close to being sharp, I do not find the rest very convincing as a demonstration. On a PC you can zoom in using cntr-scroll to see what I mean, but this also reveals a lot of jpeg artifacts which may be adding to the impression.

 

The pictures Jamie showed are sharp, except for some digital noise which should be at an acceptable level for printing, expecially after some post processing which he did not do (processed direct from RAW apparently).

 

Maybe you can show some crops or links to larger files.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie, your earring focussed shot is interesting. I'm not sure if I'm particularly fussy but I'd personally classify this one as having missed focus (by some way) and would probably only use it if it had a strong mood or moment to compensate.

 

Ian, it's as close as I could get with the Nocti at 1.2, which isn't "sharp" when in focus in any case. I can see her eyelashes on both eyes at 100% and that's good enough for me (and for printing). Should I have stopped down more? Probably, or used the Lux--but I didn't.

 

I'm trying to illustrate a worst case focusing scenario for technical purposes is all. These are hardly signature images.

[Jamie Roberts]

I did Jamie' date=' and hoped you had something more convincing to illustrate your points.

 

On the ones you posted, I agree with Wattsy. The only image of value, IMO, is the third which is clearly out of focus. I, personally, would only present that in desperation.

 

Please show some more images as I genuinely want you to make your point clear.

 

end.

 

As a photographer, I capture light on film and paint with black on paper. If the result of having 6400 ISO available is that one (not you) captures dark flat scenes and turns them into uninteresting daylight looking scenes, then I'm not sure I need anything above a good 1250 ISO, (which I currently don't have). LOL[/quote']

 

I think your post truly speaks for itself, and I'll leave it at that. My point is crystal clear to anyone who bothers to read my posts.

 

The third image is in focus, it's just low contrast. That's all the sharpness you get from a wide open Nocti with no light point on a low-res JPEG RAW dump from C1 with no sharpening.

 

For the record, though, this technique also works for shots like these (though again, this is now wider, and DOF is going to cover this anyway).

 

But it's still candlelight and ISO 640 at f2 and 1/20s... (with the 28 cron). No flash.

 

Whose eyes should I focus on, again?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[M'Ate]

I think your post truly speaks for itself, and I'll leave it at that. My point is crystal clear to anyone who bothers to read my posts.

 

Well, I'm glad you've dipped into the archive. Perhaps not a big test of focus capability, but nevertheless a pleasing image. Thank you.