How to make very sharp portrait photo as in magazine?

[easy]

<p>Anyone please help me in this. I read a lot of photography tutorial book, magazine on making a sharp photo. I follow using tripot, small aperture, focus on the eye. but the photo I have is still not as sharp as those always shown in magazine. What is the technique actually behind this?<br>

Is lens play a part? or PS sharpening technique?</p>

 

[kristinsson]

<p>Hard to see without the image</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>Unless your photos are very soft it is likely not a resolution issue, magazine photos simply don’t have much in the way of resolution. Without seeing your photos it is hard to tell but my guess is that it is a combination of lighting and the contrast of the print. Flat lighting and a low contrast print are never going to look very sharp, no matter how much detail you captured.<br>

<br />The other thought is perhaps you are going too small in aperture, you say you are using a small aperture but not how small. Depending on the camera once you go past around f/8 the image will start to get softer as the f number goes up, at f/16 on most camera the photos will be noticeably softer then at f/8 and by f/32 it is going to be very soft.</p>

</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Get some sharpening plug-ins and play with them with your current images. See if you can get what you want.</p>

[marc_david]

<p>Sharpening won't do anything to an unsharp picture apart from making it look bad. I don't sharpen any of my files unless they are going to be printed WAY bigger than native resolution, and even then, I don't find it is needed very often. Lighting and contrast, as Scott states, are what give the impression of sharpness in a file or print. You don't say what kind of shutter speed you're shooting at, and if you're using a very small aperture, maybe you have a slow shutter speed and you are seeing subject movement? Using a tripod will not help you in that case.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>What you are probably seeing is the effect of flash, which tends to produce a much sharper image than available light photos. I'm not sure why this hasn't been pointed out, it's the usual reason for photos appearing sharper than people expect. This is a pretty typical result with flash, without flash, it would never have been this sharp. Contrary to what is said about aperture above, this is shot at f5.0.<br><center>

<img src="http://spirer.com/images/manwithcap.jpg" alt="" width="467" height="700" /><br><i>

Brandon, Copyright 2009 Jeff Spirer</i><.center></p>

[easy]

<p>Let me show some example.... I downloaded some of the photo from web and compare with mine without any editing.<br>

OK ... I know that there is some sharpening plug-in out there can do the work. And aparently those photo I downloaded are edited. My bottom line is that whether the sharpness of my photo is considered qualified (and may achieve the same level of sharpness if it went through "editing")<br>

#1 (HPC2_0742.jpg) image info: Nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 lens at 80mm, F5.6 ISO 200. 1/500 s<br>

#2 (HPC2_0803.jpg) iamge info: Nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 lens at 116mm, F2.8 ISO 100. 1/400 s<br>

Next one is the image I download:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[easy]

<p>another image: HPC2_0742.jpg</p><div></div>

[easy]

<p>This is my downloaded image:</p><div></div>

[mike dixon]

You haven't focused on the model's face in either of your shots. In the first, the plane of focus is the middle of her head (behind her face), and in the second, you've focused on the front of the motorcycle. You need to focus on what you want to be sharp.

[midan_smith]

<p>To me, the problem with your images is that there are sharp parts, but they are not where you want them! on one, bits of the bike are sharp, on another there are some sharp stray hairs. The eye on your third shot looks sharp enough, though the depth of field is very narrow. Shoot with the aperture a little bit more closed, and manually focus if necessary. The sharp parts look sharp enough to me, and with a little discreet PP work look fine. On your larger images, apart from the focal point not being in the right place, you cant expect to see too much fine detail on the face/hair for the bike shot at a 100% crop, unless you shoot with a mega high MP, and then the 100% crop will be a completely different view anyway.</p>

<p>are you shooting raw, are you converting with capture nx2 or at least camera raw 6.0 (i know there are others..), to get the most details out of the shot?</p>

<p>i applied 30 secs of sharpening work in photoshop to the third shot, and even with the compression of re-saving a jpeg, parts are plenty sharp enough.</p><div></div>

[parv]

<p>YihTzye, perhaps you could confirm or refute the below using Nikon supplied software to show you the focus point(s) ...

 

<ul>

<li>In 0742 (woman in red top with blue motorcycle), focus seems to be much in front of the subject. The focus plane appears to contain the yellow round reflector & orange turn signal.

 

<li>In 0803 (woman in white top with blue stripes), sharpest thing seems to be the hood, especially the 5th stripe starting from the chin. This one also seems to be suffering from low contrast. Low contrast can be remedied (to some point), but not the missed focus too much. I can provide GIMP file, with simple adjustments made in layers, if you care. In the mean time, see the annotated zipped <a href="http://www103.pair.com/parv/tmp/y-00WWrM-246603784.tiff.zip">TIFF file</a> (8.2 MB).

</ul>

[parv]

Richard, the third image (as is looks a bit overworked) is an example of the sharpness that OP wants to achieve.

[midan_smith]

<p>ah, got it, apologies!!</p>

[easy]

<p>Thanks for all of your comments. I shoot in RAW+JPG. The JPG is uploaded are those original generated from my Nikon D80 camera. I will try out somemore work to concentrate on my focusing skill. I always using auto focus. This should not be problem right?<br>

parv. you mentioned about "a Nikon supplied software to show you the focus point(s) " Do you mean this sw can show me where is my focus point on the image? Which sw is this? Nikon Capture? or other?<br>

Please recommended any sharpening plug in for PS ?<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[parv]

<p>I was referring to whatever software that might have come with your camera. Mind that that particular software may or may not be useful for the purpose.

 

<p>Suggestion was just a wishful thinking ("<i>... <b>perhaps</b> you could confirm or refute the below using Nikon supplied software to show you the focus point ...</i>") based on what I had read about included software in past to see the focus points. I am not personally familiar with such software from any manufacture.

[htarragon]

<p><strong><em> I always using auto focus. This should not be problem right?</em></strong><br /> <br /><strong>Wrong</strong>. The AF will choose a spot to it's liking, not yours. Use the single spot focus or Manual focus to get the eyes sharp and an aperture setting that will give you enough depth of field to include all areas you want sharp.</p>

<p>Mike Dixon says "You haven't focused on the model's face in either of your shots. In the first, the plane of focus is the middle of her head (behind her face), and in the second, you've focused on the front of the motorcycle. You need to focus on what you want to be sharp.</p>

<p>"You haven't focused..." He's right, <em>you didn't focus, the camera did the focusing</em>. Same with the second shot. Also, in the second shot, you used an aperture of f/2.8, not enough DOF to get both the model and motorcycle sharp.</p>

<p>Is your exposure also on Auto?</p>

[easy]

<p>All, Thanks a lot for your commemts.<br>

Some comments above mentioned about the contrast and flat lighting will be one of the factor for sharp image. Could someone elaborate more?<br>

If I am shooting portrait outdoor with cloudy sky, without using flash light nor reflection pane, does this lighting condition provide enough contrast for sharp image?</p>

 

[easy]

<p>I found a web forum discussing about focusing and sharp photo contain a lot of info. Sharing with you guys...<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157605124986240/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157605124986240/</a></p>

 

[htarragon]

<p>YihTzye,<br>

The model's face in the first shot is underexposed, needing a reflector to correct. Photoshop can help by lightening that area.<br>

Aside from the focus problems in your two shots, I would say that the motorcycle shot is overexposed which will appear blurry, over and above focus issues.<br>

The second shot was taken at f/2.8 which does not give you the DoF you need (at least 12 inches).<br>

You seem to be looking elsewhere for answers that have already been given. You need to learn and practice the the relationship between Aperture, Depth of Field and Shutter Speed.</p>

 

[vikas_kohli]

<p>Can someone please confirm if there is a "Nikon supplied software " that shows the point of focus in a picture ?</p>

<p>Just like the OP I also struggle with where did the focus go in some of the pictures after taking the shots. generally I can figure out staring at the screen, but would be nice if a s/w (and Nikon free if possible) can do that for me.</p>

[parv]

Kikas, try the Nikon forum around here elsewhere for your query.

[vikas_kohli]

<p>@parv. - I thought you knew abt that s/w.. hence I asked. </p>

<p>I will ask around. Thanks </p>

[vikas_kohli]

<p>@parv. - I thought you knew abt that s/w.. hence I asked. </p>

<p>I will ask around. Thanks </p>

[parv]

<blockquote>

<p>May 29, 2010; 12:56 p.m.

 

<p>@parv. - I thought you knew abt that s/w.. hence I asked.

</blockquote>

 

<p>Well (<b>emphasis</b> has been added here) ...

 

<blockquote>

<p>May 24, 2010; 01:40 p.m.

 

<p>YihTzye, <b>perhaps</b> you could confirm or refute the below using Nikon supplied software to show you the focus point

</blockquote>

 

<p>... implying ...

 

<blockquote>

<p>May 25, 2010; 01:22 p.m.

 

<p>I was referring to <b>whatever software</b> that might have come with your camera. Mind that that particular software may or may not be useful for the purpose.

</blockquote>

 

<p> ... which was further expanded to ...

 

<blockquote>

<p>Suggestion was just a <b>wishful thinking</b> ("... perhaps you could confirm or refute the below using Nikon supplied software to show you the focus point ...") based on what <b>I had read</b> about included software in past to see the focus points. I am <b>not personally familiar with such software from any manufacture</b>.

</blockquote>

 

<p>Please ignore this reply if I had missed sarcasm.