# Picture lacks sharpness, critique requested



## gossamer (Sep 18, 2017)

Hi, I have a D500 and was trying to take some profile pictures today with my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII. I was also using my new Flashpoint XPLOR 600 with a 38" octobox.

I have lots of questions, but the main one is that the pictures were not sharp and I don't know why. This one was shot at ISO100, f/4.0 1/250th at 200mm. It was an overcast day, so there weren't really any shadows, except for perhaps just under the eyes.







The original picture also looks slightly under exposed. It's always so difficult for me to tell the quality of the picture before looking at it on the computer, particularly when using an external light source because you then can't rely on the camera's meter.

I don't know what other information I can provide. It seems the whole series of shots I took today were soft like this one. With a high enough shutter speed to avoid any kind of motion blur, I can't think of what the problem could be. Also, generally, do you think it's a good picture? 

This is the result of using "unsharp mask" to sharpen it a bit. I also adjusted the exposure, set WB to "auto" (since daylight wouldn't work because of the external strobe; forgot my grey card), and maybe made a few other minor photoshop adjustments. 





Here is the original NEF, in case you'd like to show me something on the original.
Dropbox - _DSC8151.NEF

Any suggestions gratefully accepted.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 18, 2017)

The lack of sharpness is due to missed focus and shallow DOF. You have the camera tilted up slightly which causes the focus plane to likewise tilt. Look at the point where the top of the yellow belt is near her right arm. You have good focus there. That's behind her face and if you add to that a slight tilt in the focus plane the focus miss is exacerbated. At f/4 DOF isn't enough to cover.

Joe


----------



## ronlane (Sep 18, 2017)

I'd say that is at the very least a half stop under and maybe a full stop. As @Ysarex mentioned f/4 will give a shallow DOF. Suggestion would be to go to f/8.0, ISO 400 or even 800 if necessary. How far away was your lighting and what power was it set on? With that light and a 38" Octobox, you shouldn't have any issues getting good exposure.


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2017)

Much of the EXIF has been stripped or didn't transfer for some reason.  I tried to see where the focus was, but the indicators would not turn on.  Just looking closely leads me to believe your focus was on her dress.  

Another thing; You can consult the histogram to evaluate the exposure. (after each shot)  There are some questionable settings, such as; 1/250 second, at f/4.  Was the flash at reduced power?


----------



## gossamer (Sep 18, 2017)

ronlane said:


> I'd say that is at the very least a half stop under and maybe a full stop. As @Ysarex mentioned f/4 will give a shallow DOF. Suggestion would be to go to f/8.0, ISO 400 or even 800 if necessary. How far away was your lighting and what power was it set on? With that light and a 38" Octobox, you shouldn't have any issues getting good exposure.


I don't recall exactly what the lighting power was for this picture, but probably something like 1/64+3 or perhaps 1/128+3. I tried to use my light meter to achieve f/4.0 at 1/250th, but it kept going to f/5.6. I need more practice with this to figure out why. Couldn't keep the client waiting any longer. The light was probably three to four feet away.

I've only had the XPLOR 600 for a few weeks. I was also concerned with the octobox creating shadows on one side of her face because I only had one light, and it was off to one side. I don't have someone to help me with a reflector. I do have two of these XPLOR 600s (got an incredible deal), but haven't really experimented with two lights until I can figure out one a little better.

I really wanted the f/4.0 because I needed the blurred background. I was using AF55 focus points, and I'm pretty sure I had set focus on her face. That's what I always do.

Is there a way to achieve the blurred background while also keeping the subject in focus with a wide aperture?


----------



## gossamer (Sep 18, 2017)

Designer said:


> Much of the EXIF has been stripped or didn't transfer for some reason.  I tried to see where the focus was, but the indicators would not turn on.  Just looking closely leads me to believe your focus was on her dress.
> 
> Another thing; You can consult the histogram to evaluate the exposure. (after each shot)  There are some questionable settings, such as; 1/250 second, at f/4.  Was the flash at reduced power?


How can I export the EXIF information so I can show it to you?

Okay, I exported the XMP file (less my serial number) and uploaded it here. Does this help?
Dropbox - _DSC8151.xmp


----------



## Braineack (Sep 18, 2017)

turn off lens stabilization when using flash.


----------



## Destin (Sep 18, 2017)

Don't use AF55 point group for portraits. 

Change to AF-S and single point. Period. You want control over exactly where that focus point lands and you don't want the camera to have any say in changing it.


----------



## KmH (Sep 18, 2017)

gossamer said:


> particularly when using an external light source because you then can't rely on the camera's meter.


Exactly! Which is why portrait photographers use a hand held meter that can measure incident light, reflected light, _& flash_ in 1/10th EV increments.
The in-the-camera meter can _only_ _measure_ reflected light and even then only in 1/3 EV increments at best.

A bit of powder would greatly minimize the highlights under her eyes and on her left cheek.
Her shoulders square to the camera is not nearly as flattering as having her stand with her shoulders at an angle to the long axis of your lens.
Also have portrait subjects lean forward a bit at the waist so their chin is over, and not behind, where a belt buckle would be.
One of the subject's feet should be closer to the camera with a majority of the subject's weight on the forward foot. It looks like she has most of her weight on the back (left) foot.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 18, 2017)

gossamer said:


> ...Also, generally, do you think it's a good picture?  ...any suggestions gratefully accepted.


The end result is okay; the 'as-shot' is sub-par at best.  The technical aspects have been discussed in detail; the artistic ones IMO, need a great deal of work.  Posing any subject (except for a football player) square to the camera, especially a female subject square to the camera is just about the least flattering pose you can use.  Have the subject turn their body about 20-30 degrees off-axis, place their weight on their back foot (I use a 2"  foam 'Yoga block' under the front foot to transfer the weight and keep them comfortable) and turn their head toward the camera.   This will induce a slight natural curve to the body.  As Keith (KmH) mentioned have them bend forward ever so slightly at the waist, and lower their chin just a bit (to avoid a double-chin look).  In addition, your light seems a bit too low raised it up so that the bottom edge of the modifier is more or less even with the top of the subjects head and then aim it down at about a 30 degree angle.  This will be a good starting point and you can fine tune as you go.


----------



## Designer (Sep 18, 2017)

gossamer said:


> Is there a way to achieve the blurred background while also keeping the subject in focus with a wide aperture?


Yes, you can use a DOF calculator to figure everything before you even turn your camera on.  The prospect of using a wide aperture should be done judiciously so as to avoid such a shallow DOF that part of your subject is not in focus.

We see that quite often on here.  Somebody will maximize the aperture and get only the subject's closest eye and cheek in focus, while the remainder of the head is blurry.  Get a chart or a mobile app to do the figuring.  While you're at it, consider all factors, such as the distance to the background, which is part of the calculation.  

Since you'll be setting the aperture according to those calculations, you will need to adjust the flash to get a good exposure.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 18, 2017)

gossamer said:


> This one was shot at ISO100, f/4.0 1/250th at 200mm



Why 200mm, you must have been super far away?


----------



## SquarePeg (Sep 18, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> gossamer said:
> 
> 
> > This one was shot at ISO100, f/4.0 1/250th at 200mm
> ...



I'm not the OP but I'd imagine it was for the blur he/she was after.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 18, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> I'm not the OP but I'd imagine it was for the blur he/she was after.



Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!


----------



## Destin (Sep 18, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> gossamer said:
> 
> 
> > This one was shot at ISO100, f/4.0 1/250th at 200mm
> ...



I shoot portraits at 200mm all the time. Great portrait length. One of my favorites. 

I also shoot portraits at 2.8 or 3.5 often. Great apertures for outdoor portraiture. 

If the OP had nailed focus this wouldn't be an issue. 

I also think there's an element of motion blur here. 1/250th really isn't that fast at 200mm. Especially when you add the crop factor.. OP should really be at 1/320th or faster. I try to shoot at least 1/500th if I'm shooting at 200mm wide open, faster if I can get it. Even if this means increasing my ISO levels to 800 or 1000, the D500 is good enough that nobody other than us will know the difference.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 18, 2017)

Destin said:


> If the OP had nailed focus this wouldn't be an issue.



I looked at the pic super zoomed, her hands have the best focus, she must be leaning back. 

Not a fan of the 200mm 3/4 body shot. But hey...whatever works right?!


----------



## pendennis (Sep 18, 2017)

With a D500 and a 70-200 lens, the effective focal length is 105-300.  You may be able to get by at 70mm, but never at 200.  The longer focal length compresses a bit too much.  It's all right to bring the background out of focus, but you have to get her completely in focus at the 3/4 length.  I'd be shooting at somewhere between f5.6 and f11.  And at 1/250 you're not getting any ambient light into the field, which could be helpful.  The flash is stopping any movement in the subject, so you can slow the shutter down to help.

You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot.  Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other.  You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side.  And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use.  The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face.  Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.

As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter.  In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women.  Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses.  No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.

You should also explore a higher angle with the camera.  Never shoot upward.  You need to get shadows from the nose, and you can't get that with a low angle.

These aren't suggestions for glamour shots.  It's what every photographer needs to know to get good portraiture.


----------



## Destin (Sep 18, 2017)

pendennis said:


> With a D500 and a 70-200 lens, the effective focal length is 105-300.  You may be able to get by at 70mm, but never at 200.  The longer focal length compresses a bit too much.  It's all right to bring the background out of focus, but you have to get her completely in focus at the 3/4 length.  I'd be shooting at somewhere between f5.6 and f11.  And at 1/250 you're not getting any ambient light into the field, which could be helpful.  The flash is stopping any movement in the subject, so you can slow the shutter down to help.
> 
> You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot.  Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other.  You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side.  And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use.  The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face.  Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.
> 
> ...



Some of this is good info. Some of this is strong personal opinion or gross over generalization.

Many professional photographers shoot portraits with the Nikon 200 f/2 or even a 300 2.8. Saying 200mm is a bad length for portraits is flat out untrue. 

The crop factor does not affect compression at all. 200mm compresses the same whether on full frame, aps-c, or even a smaller format like m4/3. Sure you get a longer apparent focal length from the crop factor, but the compression is the same regardless. You'll actually get a deeper DOF on the crop sensor because you're farther away from the subject.

Also, you absolutely can shoot upwards at subjects. Maybe not a female who you're trying to make appear femenine and pretty, but there are many times to shoot upwards at a subject.. generally if you want them to appear more powerful or aggressive.


----------



## gossamer (Sep 18, 2017)

Destin said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > gossamer said:
> ...


There was also actually no reason I couldn't have shot at 1/320th at probably ISO200, particularly since I was using the strobe. I just didn't think I needed to. Now I know.



			
				dragster3 said:
			
		

> Why 200mm, you must have been super far away? ... Not a fan of the 200mm 3/4 body shot. But hey...whatever works right?!


Yes, I was super far away. I also have a 24-70mm, but the consensus from a previous post was that the 70-200mm would blur/compress the background better and just produce a better picture. It does feel awkward being so far away from the subject. I chose the 3/4 body shot just as a starting point, and figured I could crop it as needed, but couldn't later add to the picture.



			
				designer said:
			
		

> Yes, you can use a DOF calculator to figure everything before you even turn your camera on. The prospect of using a wide aperture should be done judiciously so as to avoid such a shallow DOF that part of your subject is not in focus.


In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing. I was using dofmaster and f/2.8 at a distance of 10' resulted in a DoF of just 9 inches with my 24-70.

I would have been fined with using f/5.6 but it's not always possible because it's sometimes necessary for the subject to be too close to the background for it to be blurred/compressed. For example, how would I take a picture of someone sitting or standing on a busy city street, but blur as much of the background behind them as possible? Would my 24-70mm be able to do this?


----------



## pendennis (Sep 18, 2017)

Destin said:


> Some of this is good info. Some of this is strong personal opinion or gross over generalization.
> 
> Many professional photographers shoot portraits with the Nikon 200 f/2 or even a 300 2.8. Saying 200mm is a bad length for portraits is flat out untrue.
> 
> ...


My comments are directed at the photo the OP provided, not portraiture in general.  I did portraits for over thirty years, and have done them for any number of clients, from glamour, to corporate and environmental.

Unless there's a reason to include a background (context i.e.), whether deep or shallow, it's better not to have anything in the portrait that detracts from the subject.

Yes, you can get away with a slightly lower camera angle, if you want to portray power in the subject.  But, a middle-aged woman, in this instance, would be done a disservice.

There's nothing wrong with a zoom lens, but it's vital that proportions be maintained if you're doing a "standard" composition (head/shoulders, head/waist, 3/4, full).  Zooms aren't a substitute for proper framing.

There are exceptions such as in the case of a woman who thinks her nose is too long.  There are lighting and lens compression techniques which alleviate these problems, and it's only experience and the criticism of other photographers which allow you to grow and become proficient.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Sep 18, 2017)

Many things have already been said. Here´s my 2c:
I don´t think the blur is a result of camera shake. The belt is sharp and so is the left neck, if it would have been camera shake, there should be no sharp areas unless they moved at the same speed the camera shakes . At close inspection the teeth seem to be somewhat moving and the flash freezes most of the motion. Maybe your model was moving her head/talking? But I don´t think that is the main problem.
Like many other photographers I like to shoot wide open - even for video. There is no rule what you have to do in photography. If you like a particular style like a blurry background it is OK to not have the complete person (or even the complete face) in focus. Anybody who thinks I´m wrong: take a look at this image and tell me it is bad. It is not shot wide open, but at f4.0 and since the girl is much smaller than your model and the crop is closer, the DOF is even much smaller than in your image. So telling you, you have to stop down to get the right area in focus is not the only option. You may miss more shots shooting wide open, but if you like the style, you will get rewarded.

The focus may be off because you chose the wrong focus point (you say you didn´t, so this is out of the way). 
It may also be a focus-recompose issue when you focussed first and then recompose. I do this method all the time, and it works for me but I have read that others have problems with it. It seems to be related to how you tilt your camera.
I repeat myself way too often in this regard, but the lens may have a focus issue (in this image back focus because even the ears are sharper than the eyes). I had that more than once and some cameras have micro adjustment to correct that. This is your last reserve though.

One more thought on the background: if you have people with dark hair, don´t place them in front of a dark background unless you have a lot of light comming from the back, I have brightened the hair a bit to make up for that.

To safe images like this one, you can use the unsharp mask on the face only and blur the rest of the image a tiny bit. Here is my try:


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2017)

Looking at her face, eyes, eyelashes, lips,etc: it looks to me like a bit of camera shake on the ambient light exposure, plus a bit of flash freezing her, and a verym,very slight bit of a "ghost image" issue. Or perhaps it is a VR feedback loop, but* I do not see shallow DOF issues*, but rather very sliught traces of image movement/blurring. This blurring/shake/movement is most noticeable on the face and eyes and lashes. I think the f/4 at 1/250 exposure is about right, in the bad way of being 'right', to show blurring and that slight bit of flash as a very subtle "ghost image", as it is called.

If you'd used MORE flash power, and stopped down, the shot would likely be very crisp.


----------



## pendennis (Sep 19, 2017)

One other thing - If you want sharpness in the image, it's critical that you use a tripod.  There's no substitute for a solid platform for your camera.  You have a subject who is standing quite still.  No reason not to lock down another variable.


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2017)

pendennis said:


> ..it's critical that you use a tripod.


If not exactly "critical", then helpful for sure!


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 19, 2017)

Helpful is not to shoot portraits with 200mm. That's no longer a portraiture, that's paparazzi-style... Then he wouldn't need high shutter speed and/or tripod.
In portrait you're not trying to hunt down the person, but to get rather close and capture his/her expressions etc. Get intimate..
Trying to shoot a portrait from such a long distance is ridiculous, no matter how many "professional" photographers you know who do it.

Now I noticed it's even on APS-C... That's like shooting wildlife with that sensor and focal length.


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2017)

gossamer said:


> In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing. I was using dofmaster and f/2.8 at a distance of 10' resulted in a DoF of just 9 inches with my 24-70.
> 
> I would have been fined with using f/5.6 but it's not always possible because it's sometimes necessary for the subject to be too close to the background for it to be blurred/compressed. For example, how would I take a picture of someone sitting or standing on a busy city street, but blur as much of the background behind them as possible? Would my 24-70mm be able to do this?


I don't know why someone would be critical of using a calculator to help with knowing the DOF.  I usually advise using a DOF calculator.  I have one as a mobile app. on my phone. 

The one point I attempted to make was; it seemed as if you had selected the 10' mark somewhat arbitrarily, and as a consequence were struggling with getting the right frame at that distance.

For any kind of shot where you want separation from the background, you can still use the principles of physics to blur the background, whether in the city or not.  To get the answer to your question, plug in some preliminary numbers into your DOF calculator using your 24-70 lens.  I'd start with the maximum zoom (70mm) and the maximum aperture (f/2.8) (and your camera, of course) to find the distances.  If you are going for a walk, memorize some of the key values so you won't be fumbling with calculations out on the street.  Then you will know before each shot what to expect for DOF.


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> Helpful is not to shoot portraits with 200mm. That's no longer a portraiture, that's paparazzi-style... Then he wouldn't need high shutter speed and/or tripod.
> In a portrait you're not trying to hunt down the person, but to get rather close and capture his/her expressions etc.
> Trying to shoot a portrait from such a long distance is ridiculous, no matter how many "professional" photographers you know who do it.


Wrong!

And not helpful.


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 19, 2017)

That's your opinion. If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.
Btw, don't forget you need their release form even if you shoot them from behind the trees @Designer .


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2017)

gossamer said:


> In a previous post, someone tried to dissuade me from using a DOF calculator, perhaps because it can be confusing.


I found that post.  It was posted by Ysarex (post #2) in this thread: Depth of field calcuations with a D500 and 24-70mm

Taken in context, I believe he was trying to get you to loosen up a bit.  His own many years of practical experience has educated him in the everyday settings so he doesn't need to consult a table to know the DOF.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 19, 2017)

Dragster3 said:


> Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!



200mm is NOT extreme for portraits.  the compression is flattering for both the face and background.

her hands are not sharp.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 19, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.



it in no way makes it a bad idea either.


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 19, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> > If you shoot portraits of people with 200-300 on a crop sensor, it's your choice, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea in general.
> ...


Considering factors other than "background compression", yes, it does. Especially in a portraiture work where interaction with the subject is essential for good photos.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 19, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!
> ...


I guess I need glasses and a new portrait tele... LMFAO 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## gossamer (Sep 19, 2017)

KmH said:


> A bit of powder would greatly minimize the highlights under her eyes and on her left cheek.
> Her shoulders square to the camera is not nearly as flattering as having her stand with her shoulders at an angle to the long axis of your lens.
> Also have portrait subjects lean forward a bit at the waist so their chin is over, and not behind, where a belt buckle would be.
> One of the subject's feet should be closer to the camera with a majority of the subject's weight on the forward foot. It looks like she has most of her weight on the back (left) foot.


I think if I approached her with powder she'd have a problem with it. She explained she changed outfits a few times, and spent time on her makeup. Is there a type of powder you recommend, and an approach to applying it? Should I have them do it themselves, prior to coming to the shoot?



tirediron said:


> Posing any subject (except for a football player) square to the camera, especially a female subject square to the camera is just about the least flattering pose you can use. Have the subject turn their body about 20-30 degrees off-axis, place their weight on their back foot (I use a 2" foam 'Yoga block' under the front foot to transfer the weight and keep them comfortable) and turn their head toward the camera. This will induce a slight natural curve to the body. As Keith (KmH) mentioned have them bend forward ever so slightly at the waist, and lower their chin just a bit (to avoid a double-chin look). In addition, your light seems a bit too low raised it up so that the bottom edge of the modifier is more or less even with the top of the subjects head and then aim it down at about a 30 degree angle. This will be a good starting point and you can fine tune as you go.


Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. I have another where she is sitting on a park bench with legs crossed and looking more to the side. Maybe that's the one I should focus on.



pendennis said:


> You should be shooting at the equivalent of 50mm for a 3/4-full length shot. Also, as others mentioned, she should be turned slightly toward one side or the other. You can shoot both sides and make a determination as to the "better" side. And a single flash is the most unflattering you can use. The light should be strong on the "broad" side of her face, then you should use a scrim or reflector to provide some detail to the narrow side of her face. Oh, and don't forget the hair; it needs highlights.


50mm or 75mm on my crop sensor? And with my 24-70, I don't believe I could achieve the DoF blur I'd like. Do you have any examples?



			
				pendennis said:
			
		

> As others mentioned women, especially those approaching middle age, when facial wrinkles start to become more prominent, the lighting and "lensing" need to be softer, even adding a slight softening filter. In the film days, and large format, there were lenses which had chromatic aberration, which aided in giving a softer look for women. Look at movies made in the B&W era; all women were photographed using soft focus lenses. No woman wants more wrinkles than absolutely necessary.


Do you think my modified version is not soft enough? I haven't quite grasped how to use any of the add-on filters available with Lightroom/Photoshop yet...


----------



## pendennis (Sep 19, 2017)

gossamer said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The modified version still seems a bit harsh, but from the single-source lighting.  There isn't much that can be done with post processing if the light sources aren't what you needed to start.  It's also difficult to control the DOF with such a great distance from the subject to the background.

The soft-focus filters I used were all camera mounted, with some custom ones made from nylon hose stretched across a filter ring.  I also had a couple of large format portrait lenses made in the 1930's and 1940's which were "soft focus" by their design.  Even today, I use filters on images as much as possible, to avoid a lot of editing.

Lighting is a tricky thing.  My preference was to get the lighting to my liking before taking the picture; not that the algorithms used by Photoshop, etc., aren't great.  The better original image I could get, the less modification in the darkroom or software programs.  As I earlier mentioned, the more lighting sources, the easier it is to avoid huge post-exposure work.  This was true in film, and is just as true in digital.

Alas, my portraiture days are long past, but my learning came from pros who worked with large and medium format.  I also worked as an assistant, and  I had notebooks full of notes and drawings of lighting setups, and used them to improve my skills.

I also know, from experience, what I envisioned in the final image.  I made my set up based on that.  It's again, critical, to help differentiate between what is a good photo, from a great one.


----------



## KmH (Sep 19, 2017)

There's another reason to use 200 mm:
200 mm keeps the photographer well outside the subjects personal space, making the subject more comfortable and thus more photogenic.


----------



## Destin (Sep 19, 2017)

I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.

Edit: *insert sarcasm here* - since some people couldn't catch on.


----------



## Designer (Sep 19, 2017)

gossamer said:


> I think if I approached her with powder she'd have a problem with it. She explained she changed outfits a few times, and spent time on her makeup. Is there a type of powder you recommend, and an approach to applying it? Should I have them do it themselves, prior to coming to the shoot?
> 
> Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. I have another where she is sitting on a park bench with legs crossed and looking more to the side. Maybe that's the one I should focus on.


Advising a lady on her wardrobe or makeup could be a landmine, so instead of you coming up with suggestions, why not gather a few examples of excellent wardrobe, makeup, and posing and just show them to her.  Let her decide how much she wants to mimic or not.

Your role as photographer is to evaluate and advise, but not necessarily dictate, especially to a paying customer. Your customer is essentially calling the shots, but a little education (done diplomatically) can help.  

Arrange a second photoshoot with the lady, and dig into some reference material ASAP.  Find a few good examples that she can emulate, and leave it at that.  If she consents to a second photoshoot, she (and you) will be better prepared.


----------



## pendennis (Sep 19, 2017)

The subject's wardrobe, while her "area" is not set in stone.  In the past, I often discussed wardrobe well before the client showed up at the studio.  Most of the time, they brought a couple of outfits and we shot several photos, usually Polaroids, to see how an outfit presented.

At one time I was a contract photographer to several Mary Kay Cosmetics agents.  These ladies knew makeup, and could really assist the customers with makeup that would flatter them.

As to "invading" personal space; a lot of this depends on how comfortable the subject is when they enter the posing area.  After a few years, I could usually tell if they were tense, or uncomfortable.  I could usually gain their confidence, which made them better subjects.  A lot were a bit overwhelmed by the gear (camera, stand, lights, backdrops).  I would always walk them to the posing seat to insure that they were comfortable.  If they were comfortable, I would either guide them by the arm, or hold their hand.  And the chatter continued with lots of compliments directed to the subject.

The studio lights were usually most intimidating.  Large soft boxes, umbrellas, and reflectors are not comforting.  I'd usually take a trip cord, and have them pop the lights a couple of times, and that usually broke the ice.

These techniques are not rocket science; it's a matter of selling yourself and developing good rapport with the customer.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 19, 2017)

gossamer said:


> Do you have any examples of this you could point to? These pictures were intended to be used for her social media profile pages as well as her political campaign. ...


----------



## chuasam (Sep 19, 2017)

KmH said:


> There's another reason to use 200 mm:
> 200 mm keeps the photographer well outside the subjects personal space, making the subject more comfortable and thus more photogenic.


200mm means you lack that connection with the subject. I find 105mm to 135mm far more idea.
You can talk and communicate and engage your subject. I make my living by my portraits and I prefer shooting from 2m to 3m away.

Oh and samples...


----------



## chuasam (Sep 19, 2017)

Destin said:


> I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.
> 
> Edit: *insert sarcasm here* - since some people couldn't catch on.


200mm f/2.0 is ridiculous and overkill for portraiture. Yes it has pleasing compression but a 70-200 f/2.8 is far more versatile.

Oh right...and similar knee to head shot as the OP's original but using a 105mm on a fullframe.


----------



## rosh4u (Sep 19, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> The lack of sharpness is due to missed focus and shallow DOF. You have the camera tilted up slightly which causes the focus plane to likewise tilt. Look at the point where the top of the yellow belt is near her right arm. You have good focus there. That's behind her face and if you add to that a slight tilt in the focus plane the focus miss is exacerbated. At f/4 DOF isn't enough to cover.
> 
> Joe


Completely Agree!


----------



## Destin (Sep 20, 2017)

chuasam said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the pros who use the $5700 200mm f/2 for portraiture don't know what they're talking about then. I'm sure they spent that much on a lens because it's just terrible for portraiture.
> ...



I don't disagree that its overkill for *most* portraiture. But when used for portrait work it makes incredible images. 

My favorite portraits I've taken have been in the 160-200mm range, and I'd shoot at that focal length for most of my portraits if I always had the room to do so. I prefer the background compression and subject isolation you get that you simply can't achieve as well at shorter focal lengths. 

I won't drag the conversation away from the OP's topic any further. But just because you prefer to work closer to your subjects with a shorter lens doesn't mean that people using a longer lens are doing it wrong.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2017)

I owned the 200/2 VR Nikkor for over a decade; YES, it is/was a great imager, but too heavy and bulky for most uses...a real PITA as far as carrying and balancing...it has BAD balance on any camera Nikon has ever made--super front-heavy and nose-divey! The new 105mm f/1.4 offers similar defocus potential (not identical, but similar), in a much smaller, much lighter, and much more-affordable package. The 105mm f/1.4 is the _new highly-desired Nikkor lens offering_ for this decade.

As far as focal lengths go: kind of depends on the length one wants to use, and how far away you wanna' be...200 or 300 gives a voyeuristic look, and is well,well outside of the personal space of the subject, so it's one way of shooting, whereas an 85mm lens is very close-range. A 135mm is a nice focal length, but hard to find nowadays, whereas they were super-common in the 1980's.

A smaller lens can change the way "some people" react to the camera and the photographer; the 200/2 is massive, and very obvious. A 50 or 60 or 85 or 105mm slower-speed lens is unobtrusive.

Again...the sample pic: it's flash + ambient lighjt and BLURRING, not all focus-related. Look at the blurring on the face! You can NOT shoot *flash + ambient at /200 at f/4 in daylight and NOT pick up a slight bit of "ambient"*! Surprised yet not surprised that some people are unaware of this. Same goes for using VR and getting that weird "shakey" look!


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Dragster3 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems extreme to me. Her hands are sharp though !!!
> ...




@Dragster3   I'm curious which part of this you disagree with.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

Her hands show most detail and 200mm is extreme to "me". You can use what u want, but to me 200mm for the situation is extreme. The subject is a human...not a squirrel that's gonna run away. Lol

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

We should start a thread...guess that focal length, same pic different focal length, then crop so they all look the same. See who fools who.

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2017)

@Dragster3   Her hands may show the most detail, only because they have the most detail -- but they are still blurred.  You can't even see the facets on her ring, her watchface is mush.  To me it looks like the focal plane is right at her neck.  Nothing in the image is sharp.

The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.



Dragster3 said:


> We should start a thread...guess that focal length, same pic different focal length, then crop so they all look the same. See who fools who.



I know who would lose already.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> @Dragster3   Her hands may show the most detail, only because they have the most detail -- but they are still blurred.  You can't even see the facets on her ring, her watchface is mush.  To me it looks like the focal plane is right at her neck.  Nothing in the image is sharp.
> 
> The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.
> 
> ...


Relax @Braineack , I'm not the only one who "thinks" 200mm is extreme. Actually it's 300mm if we are gonna be technical about it. As far as your awesomeness that has built in mm detection and natural born winner... IDK. I am no "pro" by any means. Just my opinion. BTW I use the disagree button a lot. That's why it's there. [emoji6] 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.


Or maybe it shows a strong preference of contact with the subject, what should be the most important thing when taking pictures of living human beings. OP had to stay probably about 8-9 metres (9.73yd) from the subject, which I find silly, but I suppose that's just me.

@Dragster3 , oh, so I'm not the only one. Guess we're both weird (and probably thousands other photographers who don't do portraits from 10 metres away).


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

Thank you @Tomasko

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2017)

Tomasko said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > The 200mm comment is just plain silly and suggests little experience in the matter.
> ...



I get that point, but I wouldn't care if I had to use walkie talkies or a bullhorn to direct the subject so long as the resulting shot was worth it...

I'm going to shoot at whatever focal length makes sense for the picture I'm trying to achieve.

this is a nice little video that shows the vast difference in resulting image depending on the focal length and distance to subject:






imho, the further he was shooting the better.  At the end when he's around 135mm with his 70-200 -- he's still quite close to the subject, what like 10' away?


----------



## Tomasko (Sep 21, 2017)

Wait, there's a difference between 135mm and 200mm (or even 300mm as someone mentioned that is supposedly still just fine). As it's a DX sensor, it's 300 and 450mm FF equivalent. We usually take pictures of wildlife with those focal lengths. Also Jared is shooting a FF body or not? Not sure which one he used in this video.

Yep, D3s...

I don't think anyone said it's not possible to take a portrait with 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but to use 200/300 focal lengths on a DX for a portraiture work is still in my opinion just silly.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

@Braineack that is a full frame camera, he would have to have zoomed to 300mm to prove your point. So this video actually supports what I am saying ....Thanks! I knew you would come around!

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2017)

You're still focusing (no pun intended) on the wrong point.

again, I understand your point about being far away from the subject, and again, I don't care how far back i need to stand if the resulting image requires i stand a football field away.   You almost need to shoot that long on a DX to achieve the BG compression/bokeh a FX sensor can do at a much closer subject distance.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 21, 2017)

With good glass I can achieve that look with 85mm and a crop. Sorry but 200mm on DX is not ideal for a 3/4 shot. Again this is my opinion. Obviously it didn't work out for the OP, he's looking to get a sharper image with a DX lens not a FX. Either way...loving this post! 

Sent from my RS988 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack (Sep 21, 2017)

OP's sharpness issue was all poor technique.

OP captured two exposures in the shot -- one from the underexposed ambient which was blurred mainly due to shooting technique.  The other from the flash, but it was't enough fill based on the camera settings to register as a sharp crisp image on the sensor.

If stabilization was being kept on during the shot--it probably exaggerated the issue.

I've run into this exact same issue before when first starting shooting portraits.  This was shot using the 85mm 1.8G, you can see I captured two images.  One sharp crisp image from the flash exposure, and another underlying blurred one from having poor technique using 1/80sec.


----------



## gossamer (Sep 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> I get that point, but I wouldn't care if I had to use walkie talkies or a bullhorn to direct the subject so long as the resulting shot was worth it...


I agree with this, but it also means that I can never use a hotshoe flash.



Dragster3 said:


> With good glass I can achieve that look with 85mm and a crop. Sorry but 200mm on DX is not ideal for a 3/4 shot. Again this is my opinion. Obviously it didn't work out for the OP, he's looking to get a sharper image with a DX lens not a FX. Either way...loving this post!


Glad you're loving it - it's sure a help to me  How much better is the 85mm prime than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at 85mm? Is the glass that much better? Is it inherently designed differently?



Braineack said:


> I've run into this exact same issue before when first starting shooting portraits. This was shot using the 85mm 1.8G, you can see I captured two images. One sharp crisp image from the flash exposure, and another underlying blurred one from having poor technique using 1/80sec.


Very interesting. I see that. How does that happen? Is the goal to always overpower the sun when using strobes and shooting portraits outdoors? The problem I've had with doing that in the past was that the picture then was just overexposed.

Would someone help me to summarize the improvements I should make to my portrait photography to avoid this issue in the future?

- Turn off VR when using flash
- Don't use AF55 point group for portraits.
- Use a tripod
- Change to AF-S and single point. Should I start with that point being the area closest to me, such as her nose?


----------



## Designer (Sep 21, 2017)

gossamer said:


> I agree with this, but it also means that I can never use a hotshoe flash.


Oh, sure you can!  Don't be silly.  You need to get that flash off the camera anyway, so put it closer to your subject, and use a modifier to diffuse the light.  Of course, you will need a way to trigger the speedlight, but there are ways to do that.



gossamer said:


> Would someone help me to summarize the improvements I should make to my portrait photography to avoid this issue in the future?
> 
> - Turn off VR when using flash
> - Don't use AF55 point group for portraits.
> ...


I think it was turn off VR when your camera is mounted on a tripod, which it should be anyway, but sure, turn it off when using flash, also.

#2 and #4 are the same issue.  No, not her nose; her eyes, or one eye anyway, usually the closest, but right on her eye is where you want the focus area.  Considering that the current fad is to shoot with a very shallow DOF, you should at least try to get the eyes in focus, even if the nose is not.  Actually, I much prefer getting the entire head in focus, including chin, forehead, ears, hair, neck, and while I'm at it, her shoulders, bodice, arms, necklace, and anything that is part of the portrait.  I figure out the DOF, trying to get at least two feet to be safe, so that's one foot behind and one foot in front of the focal plane.  I want all the person to be in acceptable focus. 

#3 I always use a tripod when trying to make a descent portrait.  I then have a choice of how to release the shutter, and I usually use a cable release, although I've used other methods depending on my exact needs.


----------



## Designer (Sep 21, 2017)

gossamer said:


> How much better is the 85mm prime than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at 85mm? Is the glass that much better? Is it inherently designed differently?


It depends on which prime and which zoom.  Yes, lenses are different.  Sometimes it's the glass, sometimes the design, and sometimes both.  Learning which lenses are superior is going to take some time and research on your part.  Sweat it not, however, because there are sources on the interwebs that will help you.  Beware of incorrect information, and learn only from people who know what they're talking about.


----------



## Dragster3 (Sep 22, 2017)

gossamer said:


> Would someone help me to summarize the improvements I should make to my portrait photography to avoid this issue in the future?



Shoot more pics with different setups. Lots of pics with different settings so you can get a feel of what to do for each situation.
Being able to adjust to your surroundings quickly is what makes you better.
And remember that 200mm is 300mm, So an 85mm is more like a 125mm. Learn to use the crop to your advantage.
Move the subject, try different background depths.  Shoot more pics! Digital is free! Upload them to your iPad on the spot
and instantly see if you like the outcome. Don't wait till you get home in front of the PC, its too late.
Good Luck.


----------

