Kimberly on the look out

[lensesz]

Need some help on this one also, Thanks for all the pasted critiques.

[lobofw]

JMO, I like the overall photo but on my monitor it looks a little out of focus and her shiney nose isn't really working for me.

[Brad]

Looks like the focus caught her top rather than eyes.

[bruggemj]

Not sure if you shot with Canon, something I tried that made
an almost imediate differance.....

Move your focus lock from the shutter to a rear button.
Once I did that I was able to lock onto the eyes even with my lens wide open.
It does take some getting used to, but then again so is this whole WB thingy. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Sorry I don't have any samples, I was practicing on a very patient porcelain doll. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Pretty much the only model I can seem to get in front of my camera.

Hope this helps. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Joe [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[lensesz]

Thanks for the infor, Yes, shot with a Canon D5. Sometime I get a little careless when a model starts popping those poses a little fast.

[lensesz]

Thanks Brad, One of my short coming. also I am just learning about this Post and reply thing. If I missed responding to anyone in the past I am sorry, just got onto the button today. I think I am getting there.

[jtsmith]

Looks like what I call digital dof got you. What camera, lens and f-stop did you use? Head is soft and belly and legs are sharp. Did you manually focus or use auto?

If I can add a critique. It's not a pose for the outfit and model to pull off to compliment the model.

Black glove is lost with the black prop. 4 fingers are accented by the hand on her hip because of the black gloves. I realize her thumb is behind in a natural situation but the glove in this situation makes her hand distracting.

Using a broad light source and the model being that close to the background makes the background distracting and it's busy. If you choose this background, flagging the light or distance between the subject and the background for light fall off will help.

[bruggemj]

JT
Can you 'splain what you mean by digital dof.

I'm new to this digital stuff, but I understand the dof is affected
by the smaller APS sized sensor. But what does this have to do with the ability
of the camera to find/maintain the selected point to focus?

Are you referring to how the field of focus is not equal from the front to rear of the focus point?
Does this change with digital or is that strictly determined by the lens?

Not sure why, but it did help for me to move my focus lock to
the rear.

Joe [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[jtsmith]

I can explain it as far as something I notice and hear from time to time.

I also refer to it as vertical dof.

I never ever noticed this with film cameras except when film was warping or the pressure plate was not right. It's a known problem but nobody seems to want to explain it or admit to it and not really noticed with apertures f-8 or higher.

Basically you can be in focus on a plain and part of the plain will be in focus and part of the same plain will be out of focus. Distorted or critical focus problem occurs.

Your image seemed like the camera focused on her legs more than what I was talking about and that is why I was curious what f-stop and lens you used. I realized her face was leaning in front giving distance that could very well fall out of dof with a low aperture if you were not exactly focused on her eyes. It was hard to tell on same plain because there was nothing else I can view on the same plain.

I know what I am talking about and I know I am not explaining it very well....

J T

[lensesz]

I was using a Canon 5D, with canon 28 to 235 lens, ss @ 1/125 sec, F-stop f/16, AV f/16, ISO 100, focal lenght at 62.0 MM. Thanks for the critique, It will be very helpful.