Blurry photo again

I'm having a hard time getting my model's eyes focused like dead-on..

NIKON D850 Focal Length: 1050/10 Shutter Speed Value: 10287712/1000000 Exposure Time: 1/1250 Aperture Value: 9.9 F-Number: 9.9 ISO Speed Ratings: 5000 Flash: 0 Metering Mode: 5 Exposure Mode: 1 White Balance: 0 Focal Length In 35mm

I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod.

I can see the clarity and details in the viewfinder but when I take the shot, 10 out of 10 come out blurry.

Is it because of the lack of lights? What am I doing wrong?

Focus looks to be good, but shooting at ISO 5000 means that noise is obscuring the fine detail.

Drop your ISO to 800 and have another go, that should still give you a shutter speed of 1/125.

Otherwise, you're going to need more light.

Shutter speed does not need to be so high, 1/250 should be fine, any higher and you're wasting light.

I'm having a hard time getting my model's eyes focused like dead-on..

NIKON D850 . . . I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod.

I can see the clarity and details in the viewfinder but when I take the shot, 10 out of 10 come out blurry.

Is it because of the lack of lights? What am I doing wrong?

The image is not blurry. The extreme right of the RH Eyelashes are in Sharp Focus.

The image exhibits a lot of noise, that's mainly because of the high ISO used.

The image has a very shallow Depth of Field: if it is a full frame crop, then the camera was about 3ft/1mtr from the Subject, the DoF around the Plane of Sharp Focus would be about 2/10th inch or 4mm when using F/1.4.

If you had (enough) more light and/or slowed the Shutter Speed, you could close the Aperture a bit and also drop the ISO, resulting in a larger DoF and less noise.

In any case most if not all lenses will not render their best image quality when used wide open.

WW

F/1.4 is extremely difficult to get focused exactly. It doesn't take much movement of the subject to throw them completely out of focus.

The only way to get exact focus at f/1.4 is to use magnified Live View. Neither AF nor just looking through the viewfinder are accurate enough IME.

Of course using Live View is slow, and there's always the chance that the subject will move between focussing and pressing the shutter. Welcome to the challenges of using a wide aperture lens!

Personally I'd get more light on the subject and close the aperture to a more practical value. Otherwise you won't be able to get the model's nose and lips in focus at the same time as both eyes.

Shutter speed does not need to be so high, 1/250 should be fine, any higher and you're wasting light.

Not only that, but most mains-powered artificial light flickers at 100 or 120Hz. This means that your exposure may well vary from frame to frame, or from top to bottom of the frame with a shutter speed higher than 1/100th of a second.

1/60th is plenty short enough for a static subject and with the camera on a tripod.

Exposure Time: 1/1250 Aperture Value: 9.9 F-Number: 9.9 ISO Speed Ratings: 5000

"I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod."

Which is it? Were you shooting at f9.9 or f1.4.

I'm going to assume it was f1.4. As noted above, the primary problem with the image is noise which you can alleviate. The tripod isn't helping you because the head that you are shooting can also move in and out changing where the plane of focus falls on the face. You're using a long, fast, lens and focusing very close as well. All of that adds up to a very difficult capture.

"I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod."

 

Which is it? Were you shooting at f9.9 or f1.4.

 

I'm going to assume it was f1.4. As noted above, the primary problem with the image is noise which you can alleviate. The tripod isn't helping you because the head that you are shooting can also move in and out changing where the plane of focus falls on the face. You're using a long, fast, lens and focusing very close as well. All of that adds up to a very difficult capture.

It was 1.4. I'm not sure how 9.9 was registered.

I can find no reference to a Sigma 105mm macro lens with a max aperture of f1.4 - they all seem to be f2.8. Have I missed something here ?

There's a Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'Art' lens, but it's not billed as macro.

There's a Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'Art' lens, but it's not billed as macro.

Thanks, did not know that. I wasn't aware of the existence of the lens, since it is so far out of my budget !

There's a Sigma 105mm f/1.4 'Art' lens, but it's not billed as macro.

For those interested: [LINK]

...since it is so far out of my budget !

Yep. The OP has dropped about 4.5K in £££s (at least) on gear. Not bad going for a raw beginner.

Yep. The OP has dropped about 4.5K in £££s (at least) on gear. Not bad going for a raw beginner.

Hey, at least they'll have 'room to grow'...

I must admit, seeing all these multi-thousand $£€ setups makes me wonder how I ever managed to get results with a charity shop Zenit B and 'sunny 16'

Hey, at least they'll have 'room to grow'...

 

I must admit, seeing all these multi-thousand $£€ setups makes me wonder how I ever managed to get results with a charity shop Zenit B and 'sunny 16'

I saved up my pocket money for weeks to get a Ferrania 12 on 120 single shutter speed and two aperture box of sh*t. The Praktica VF with Meritar lens I got after I started working was barely an improvement. Then I bought a used Steinheil Quinon f/1.9 lens for it and a veil was lifted. All water under many bridges now.

Whoa! I see divots are paying over 300 quid for a Quinon lens now.

I feel bad when I see a newbie spending that kind of $$. He's listed almost $5,000 worth of gear. They often end up very disappointed that this expensive stuff doesn't produce good images when they start to use it. What I tell people is that expensive gear in the hands of a novice produces photos that look exactly like they were taken by a novice.

But on the positive side, the 850 is a fabulous camera, so he won't have to worry about outgrowing it.

Recently, a friend looked at a bunch of photos I have on exhibit. Most were taken with a Canon 5D Mark III. His favorite? A 13 x 19 print of an image taken with a Lumix LX-100, which you can buy new for about $600.

(Positively Leicaesque Yashica FX-D)

I would say with a lens of this size, a tripod always helps. At least you don't have to hold all that equipment with your muscles.

I agree that the picture is sharp, but noisy, and the focus is not completely where I would want it to be. Focusing on anything at f/1.4 is a challenge, and at the resolution of the D850 and such shallow depth of fields, I would not consider a person stationary by any means, even if they tried to stay in one spot. Just breathing normally will produce enough movement that things will move out of focus. So 1/60s shutter speed would be too slow too, even from a tripod, unless you really are photographing a steady subject, which, as we established, a human being is not. That being said, I think you could get away with around 1/250 or so, allowing you to drop the ISO a few stops, reducing the noise on the final image. Getting more light and stopping down slightly would help even more.

Yep. The OP has dropped about 4.5K in £££s (at least) on gear. Not bad going for a raw beginner.

Whilst of some interest agreed; the spend is not the main point.

I think the salient points are, thus far:

> the OP has been USING the gear and then

> asking relevant "beginner" questions

> moreover seems to be reading and understanding the responses.

WW

I would say with a lens of this size, a tripod always helps. At least you don't have to hold all that equipment with your muscles.

 

I agree that the picture is sharp, but noisy, and the focus is not completely where I would want it to be. Focusing on anything at f/1.4 is a challenge, and at the resolution of the D850 and such shallow depth of fields, I would not consider a person stationary by any means, even if they tried to stay in one spot. Just breathing normally will produce enough movement that things will move out of focus. So 1/60s shutter speed would be too slow too, even from a tripod, unless you really are photographing a steady subject, which, as we established, a human being is not. That being said, I think you could get away with around 1/250 or so, allowing you to drop the ISO a few stops, reducing the noise on the final image. Getting more light and stopping down slightly would help even more.

If you go from 1/60th to a 250th you’ll need to UP the ISO, not drop it, unless I’m not understanding your point? I’m not sure I follow what influence the shutter speed has on the ability of the camera to focus accurately? We’re not talking motion blur here. OK, the person might be swaying very slightly by breathing, but I don’t see how upping the shutter speed will help nail the focus?

So 1/60s shutter speed would be too slow too, even from a tripod, unless you really are photographing a steady subject, which, as we established, a human being is not. That being said, I think you could get away with around 1/250 or so, allowing you to drop the ISO a few stops,

As previously explained: Mains powered artificial light flickers at twice the mains AC frequency. Therefore any shutter speed shorter than that flicker frequency will give a variable exposure, due to only part of the cycle being captured.

1/60th will be fine, unless the subject is really fidgeting about.

However, the real answer is a smaller aperture and more light. Forget the razor-thin depth-of-field and 'bokeh' that only impresses other photographers. Get the face sharp all over! Or at least enough DoF to cover the nose to ears.

If you go from 1/60th to a 250th you’ll need to UP the ISO, not drop it, unless I’m not understanding your point? I’m not sure I follow what influence the shutter speed has on the ability of the camera to focus accurately? We’re not talking motion blur here. OK, the person might be swaying very slightly by breathing, but I don’t see how upping the shutter speed will help nail the focus?

The picture was taken at 1/1250s. 1/250s would reduce the ISO compared to that, but you're right, not as much as 1/60s would.

Indeed, motion blur is not a problem in the original image that was taken at a shutter speed of 1/1250s. I am implying that it might be at 1/60s.

I was simply trying to say that using a longer shutter speed was a good idea, but I wouldn't go as far as 1/60s, because that might introduce new problems.