Where do you find is the best place to focus?

[bill_johnson18]

<p>I have trouble getting blury images occassionally even though my AF locks and gives me the beep confirmation. <br>

Can some pros please tell me what you use at a focus point giving maybe some suggestions for up close portraits and also full body shots from more of a distance? Thanks.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Need a little more info, Bill. What lens(es) are you using, from what distance, and at what aperture?<br /><br />When in doubt, you almost always want to make sure your subject's eyes are in focus. But if you're using a lens with a wider aperture (say, f/1.8), it's quite possible to have a workable depth of field that's only an inch deep. This goes to needing an understanding of the relationships between distance, aperture, lens focal length and the resulting depth of field.<br /><br />You might find it helpful to play with <strong><a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">this depth of field calculator</a></strong>, which will help you understand how changing those variables will result in different working focal depths.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Maybe you can post a photo and we can see what the problem is. It's fairly common here to see people thinking that a photo is soft when the focus is in the wrong place.</p>

<p>To answer your questyion most easily, go for the eyes. That's what draws people's attention and that's what should be in focus. You can enhance this by sharpening the eyes separately from the rest of the face, although I would recommend enhanced sharpening for the lips also if you do this.</p>

<p>Depth of field is less important than getting the eyes in focus, so that isn't going to change what point you focus on. The principle of depth of field requires understanding that there is only one focal plane in any photo, and that should be what is most important to be in focus.</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>Yeah, what's you minimum focusing distance and are you violating this? I focus on the nose w/ my f1.9 shots. I occasionally get blurry images, mostly when I haven't shot that wide in a while. Once you focus, if you move the plane of the lens forward or backwards an inch, it could mess up the shot, depending on your distance and aperture.</p>

[bill_johnson18]

<p>Hey guys I understand perfectly all the concepts you're talking about. What I'm saying is even when using a lense and aperature that should produce a reasonable depth of field I am focusing on eyes and getting the confirmation beep for AF lock and the damn eyes still come out soft. <br>

So what I'm wondering is are there certain facial features (or body features) that provide better contrast from the AF system than others or is the eyes? nose? lips? generally a good target? Is my AF possibly f'd up?<br>

I will do a series of portraits and find that only a shockingly small number of them are razor sharp yet I haven't changed any of the settings and will get the autofocus beep every time generally focusing on the same point (eyes or lips).<br>

If I didn't mention I have a Nikon D70 I have a 35-200 mm zoom lens but I am confident I know enough about whats going on that this isn't a depth of field issue.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What sort of light are you in when asking the camera to AF? And when you DO get an AF focus confirmation beep while focusing on, say, the eyes, and see that they wind up out of focus, what IS in focus? The ears? The nose? <em>Anything</em>? That way you can understand if you're getting front focus, back focus... or perhaps camera motion blur?</p>

[bill_johnson18]

<p>Nothing is in focus everything is just a bit soft usually when it doesn't work. Light would just be the modeling lamp from my studio lights or the natural light outside. I always have the AF assist light turned on on my camera. </p>

<p>I doubt I would be getting camera motion blur with strobes????</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>If nothing is in focus, then your problem isn't where to focus.</p>

[brian_osterhout1]

<p>A sample image may help resolve this.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Bill, why not stick the camera on a tripod and shoot a static subject? This will take camera shake and model movement out of the equation. Are you getting sharp results 100% of the time with this scenario? You have to sometimes approach these things in a scientific manner rather than have someone on a forum take a (albeit educated) guess at it.<br>

I often shoot portraits with strobes and try to always use a tripod or monopod. However, on the occasions I have not, I have always had a % that are not perfectly crisp. So yes, camera shake can be an issue even with strobes.</p>

[bill_johnson18]

<p>Ok thanks guys. I don't like to use tripods because I like to jump around and get all kinds of crazy angles but if you are saying you can still get blur with high shutter speeds (1/400) and strobes then I guess that might be my problem. I seem to remember using a tripod though and still getting some blury shots when I think about it. <br>

<br /> But the bottom line is that eyes, nose or lips *should* be perfectly acceptable things to focus on and they AF should be able to lock on it - right?</p>

<p>I don't have a great sample handy now but I'll try to post one later.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

Bill,

 

You always focus on the eye nearest the camera.

 

Mark

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Hi Bill, I'm not sugesting you use a tripod for each shoot - I'm merely suggesting you run some tests using a controlled repeatable method so that you can pinpoint your problem. If shooting a bowl of fruit on a tripod still gives you blurry shots then you can eliminate camera shake and model movement - correct? If on the other hand, it fixes the problem, then it's up to you to decide if the % of soft shots is worth the freedom of not using a tripod during the shoot. <br>

Point is, until you do this (and lets be honest, it's a test that will take you 10 minutes to do), you, I and everyone else here on the forum can only guess at what the problem is. Who knows, maybe your AF isn't working correctly, maybe there's a fault with your lens but until you eliminate the obvious, you'll never really know.</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Ok, let's assume that your lens is good. (Forgive me, as the nature of question suggests your need some basic instruction on using AF). Caveat, I don't shoot Nikons, but will assume similar features on your camera exists. Also, since you mentioned you have plenty of DOF, we'll dismiss aperature and film speed.</p>

<p>First, if you have diopter adjustments on the viewfinder, make sure it's corrected for your eye site. Point at something white and adjust until your cross-hairs or focus points are tack sharp. That will help you to visually confirm by site the your AF locks correctly.</p>

<p>Set your AF to single shot and not the continuous or live mode.</p>

<p>If using autofocus, I set the center AF point. Point at the subjects eyes, (as the sharp eyes are tell tale signs of a good shot). Press shutter half-way to lock focus, do not release the button, recompose (i.e. reframe by moving the camera up or down -but not backwards or forwards to center subject). Steadily press the shutton button fully to take the shot.</p>

<p>If you have multiple AF points, then frame your subject and select the AF point that is nearest the eyes, and take the shot that way.</p>

<p>If using manual (recommended for posed portraits), then absolutely make sure that your diopter is adjusted correctly to get visual confirmation. Both subject and cross hairs or AF points in the finder should be in focus. I've done this with canons and manual FD lenses that were retooled for EOS.<br>

If shooting a distance with a long lens, then camera shake will become more apparent when zoomed in. A tripod, or steady hand on a monopod is the way to go.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>People seem to be assuming that this is a mis-focus, but if nothing is in focus, as he says, then there is some problem other than where the camera is focusing, unless it's got a problem.<br>

<br /> Post a photo, otherwise it's just a lot of meaningless speculation. Post the EXIF also.</p>

[j.c.]

<p>To test your camera's/lens' focusing, is it best to shoot RAW? Or does that not matter?<br>

Thanks. I have a LOT of homework to do!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>To test your camera's/lens' focusing, is it best to shoot RAW? Or does that not matter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cameras focus in the same place regardless of RAW or JPEG. A high-res JPEG will certainly tell you if you have a focus problem.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I recently made a portrait of an elderly man whose eyes appeared soft due to an eye health issue..a film of some sort, like cataract (though he claimed his vision was OK). His whites were red, as well...took more than usual post processing. The details around the eyes were sharp but the pupils were soft.<br>

Also, "nystagmus" is a condition (vibrating or wobbling eyes) that can result in unsharpness if the exposure isn't short enough. <a href="http://www.nystagmus.org/aboutn.html">http://www.nystagmus.org/aboutn.html</a> I have no idea what "short enough" means, but maybe it suggests strobe or strobe fill.<br>

Old time large format photographers commonly focused on the tip of mens' noses, rather than eyes, because men (caucasians anyway) typically have longer noses than women (I think Kodak advocated that practice)...might apply to fast DSLR telephoto lenses...it seems to apply to very tight framing of faces with large apertures and "normal" lenses...</p>