How do you get the eyes to be sharp?

[maylis_curie]

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>as I received good advice and comments on this forum before, I am taking the liberty to come back with my current issue.</p>

<p>I use a Canon 5D Mk2. I am working hard on children's/baby portraits and am having a terrible time getting the eyes sharp. I understand that using the focus/recompose method is not the best, so am trying with selecting different focusing point, nearer to the eye. Sometimes works, sometimes not, but definitely better. I also see that the closer I am to the subject, the more difficult it is to get the eyes sharp as my DOP gets smaller the closer I get.</p>

<p>Am I missing anything else? Are there any other 'tricks' I should try, or is it just a matter of practice?</p>

<p>Below are a couple of examples, one with sharp eyes, one not... Both taken with my 50mm 1.4.</p>

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

[maylis_curie]

<p>And here's one that didn't work so well, like most!</p>

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

[Matt Laur]

<p>A big part of this (in the second example) is the fact that you're not getting any <em>light</em> on the eyes. They will seem much sharper and brighter if they're not in the shadows. That also gives your AF system more to latch onto.</p>

[phule]

<p>Practice practice practice practice.<br>

With a narrow DoF (dept of field) the slightest movement back or forward by you or your subject can easily move the focal-plane out of your intended spot. </p>

 

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Have you considered using manual focus? </p>

<p>With some practice, you can get to be very fast at it. You miss shots sometimes because you're focusing, but when you get one you like, it's dead on. I think it's a wash most of the time, as to how many you miss because auto-focus changed your shot versus you were too busy focusing to get the shot. </p>

<p>I use manual focus pretty much all the time. For an event that is happening quickly and is un-repeatable (e.g. wedding processional), I will use auto-focus and do my best to direct the camera's focus spots, but after those fast-action moments are over, I'll switch the camera back over to manual focus. </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>I focus on the eyes. In a portrait, if the eyes aren't sharp, the photograph won't look right.</p>

<p>As Matt alluded to, a little catch light reflecting into the eyes allows one to see the sharpness in the eyes. Your "not so sharp" example looks sharp enough to me through the face, but as the eyes are dark, there is no reference to see the eyes' sharpness.</p>

<p>Also, you can use Photoshop's sharpening tool to add a little extra sharpening just to the eyes when necessary:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.designertoday.com/Tutorials/Photoshop/4489/Sharpening.Tool.Photoshop.CS3.Tutorial.aspx">http://www.designertoday.com/Tutorials/Photoshop/4489/Sharpening.Tool.Photoshop.CS3.Tutorial.aspx</a></p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I don't believe that focus is an issue here. There's no light in the eyes, you're shooting at 1/64, which is probably the cause of some of the softness, and you're shooting at a high ISO. These three factors mean that no amount of focusing will help.<p>

 

Comparing to the first image - it was shot at 1/1000 sec, there was obviously light in the eyes and the ISO was 250. You're not comparing shots that can be compared.</p> </p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Many thanks for your contributions. I had indeed thought about trying manual focus to see if that would help.</p>

<p>Thanks also for pointing out that having the eyes catching light makes a lot of difference.<br>

I also agree that the second shot could not really be compared to the first, so here is one taken in exactly the same conditions as the sharp eye one. The eyes aren't sharp and the sharp area appears to be just 2-3 inches behind them. Of course it's all the more challenging with small children who can't understand the concept of immobility!<br>

Would standing further and then crop my photo if needed be a good idea? Am I going to lose a lot of quality though?</p><div></div>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Just realized the eyes actually look sharp in the small picture just above, but if magnified they aren't!!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The problem in that second one is that you're shooting at f/2.8, and you have only razor thin DoF. Just stop down a bit. You have plenty of latitude in your exposure, since you're at 1/3200th. You'll get plenty of motion-freezing speed at 1/800th and f/5.6, but you'll get more workable DoF. Of course, that distracting background would also be just a wee bit more in focus, but it's not <em>out</em> of focus enough at f/2.8 for that to really be helping anyway.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I agree with Jeff, that shutter speed could be a problem, not only with camera shake, but with squirmy subject movement. Could move between time you spot eye and refocus. Be sure your camera selector switch is set to single servo focusing not continuous focus. Otherwise, it will refocus as you recompose. Looks like you were pretty close on the first shot above. Did you realize that lens at 1.4 on a ff camera gives one inch dof at 3 feet and two at four feet. Thats total, any ahead and behind. Check an online dof calculator, its an eye opener. </p>

[anda_m]

<p>hello Maylis<br>

Yesterday I tried my hand at outdoor children's photography and, although I am a beginner myself, I believe what would really help in your case is:<br>

1. a bigger DOF (5.6 is ok; depending on the background and composition, I think f/11 is a good DOF)<br>

2.Maybe adding some fill-flash (I had only the in-camera flash yesterday, as I was not expecting to even take my camera out of the bag)<br>

3. Trying unsharp mask (threshold 10, radius 1, amount 150%) in photoshop or other processing software.<br>

hope this helps some</p>

 

[mariosforsos]

<p>Also, bear in mind that the shot you initially showed us was probably taken with some sort of professional lighting on the baby's face (either a beauty dish or an umbrella or an octabank), chances are it was shot with a macro lens (maybe a 100mm or something like that) AND it was heavily post-processed in PS.</p>

<p>It has already been said: you're not comparing comparable photos...</p>

[phule]

<p>Also bear in mind that Marios didn't actually read your post...</p>

 

[wogears]

<p>IMO, it's not the aperture, shutter speed or subject motion that is really the problem here. On the first image, the white balance is off, causing blue 'whites' in the eyes. Also, the image is under-sharpened in post. I DO agree that a bit of fill on the face would have obviated some of these problems, but some darkroom work is necessary. On the attached, I corrected the white balance, dodged the eyes (Dodge Tool set to first midtones, then shadows at 7% opacity, multiple strokes) and applied some selective sharpening. File was small, so some of the sharpening will look overdone.</p><div></div>

[rafael_s]

<p>I'm with what Jennifer posted above about using manual focus. The problem with most auto-focus is that it will search and focus on the closest object to you, and you can usually tell because noses and hair come out sharper as they protrude from the head a little further. I don't recommend manual focus on autofocus lenses, they're just not built for that. Invest in a good portrait manual focus lens and have the freedom and control you need.</p>

[RickW]

<p>A bit more on autofocus: As Rafael says, letting the camera select the focus point will lead to trouble with such critical work. Select the AF point yourself.</p>

<p>Also, the area a focus point "reads" is MUCH larger than the little red square in the viewfinder. You might have the little red square centered on the cute blue eye, but the AF sensor could be looking at everything from the nose to the ear. That's why paying attention to the focus the old-fashioned way (either with manual focus entirely, or "touching up" autofocusing) is good.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>In addition to the capture information above, digital images always needs some degree of sharpening in post.</p>

[maylis_curie]

<p>Thank you for all the extra comments.<br>

I do get the point about using a larger DOF, which would most likely solve my problem in many cases, but if I look at the work of this photographer: http://www.studiobloomphoto.com/blog/ , I see in the exif data that she shoots at 2.0 or 2.2 a lot of the time, yet she manages to get the eyes sharp! How does she do it do you think? I know she uses a 50mm 1.2, which may be sharper than my 1.4, but still...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>All of those shots include careful lighting, and every one of them has seen sharpening in post-production.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Something else you can try Maylis, is a little post process sharpening. I sharpened up the eyes a little in Photoshop. It does make a difference in the image!</p><div></div>

[ianivey]

<p>In both of the "soft-focus" shots you posted, the child's eyes are not catching much light. In the first one, it's just dark all around, but in the second one, the hair -- catching direct light -- creates a strong contrast point for the autofocus to grab onto, so if you think you got the focal plane just behind the eyes, it could be because the AF latched onto the hair. A reflector here might have improved the light falling on the child's face, and also reduced the extreme contrast a bit, preventing what looks like a bit of blown highlights (child's right hand, a bit of the brightest part of the hair).</p>

[martin_jordan]

<p>You know for a long time I asked these same questions. I mean, I'd go to Flickr and all kinds of sites and portfolios and I'd say the same thing you are, "How do they get their photos so darn sharp"?<br>

All the advice you've received about lighting, shutter speed is all good. But in order to get that incredible, unbelievably sharp look your looking for, you have to do it selectively do it in Post. PS does a "fair job" not even close to a 3rd party plugin that zer's in on a particular function. For example, look at Nik or OnOne software. I personally use Nik. I have their complete edition that allows me to selectively adjust anything and everything. Color, lighting, sharpening, contrast etc. etc. The key here is "Selectively". These tools plugin right into PS. The whole complete editions from either of these companies is going to run about $500 - $600. But you know what...your photos are going to get kicked up many notches.<br>

You've got a great camera, lens and know how, now just beef up a little with a few more tools in your post work and you'll get there.</p>

[johnzhao168]

<p>You need to set the film speed to ISO100, aperture to f/11 and shutter speed to 1/125 to get the eyes sharper or just attach a sharpness filter to your lens?<br>

John Zhao<br>

<p><b>Signature URL removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>

[mywork1]

<p>Your lens doesnt make the end-all for getting a Sharp pic so ignore everyone that said it does. It will help but not the answer your looking for. All of the things mentioned above, combined, will make for your best image, thats comparable to what your seeing & liking amongst childrens photographers. Here's a blog entry I did that has a lot of information you might find helpful on "How to take Childrens Portraits". <a href="http://ashleydellingerphotography.blogspot.com/">ttp://ashleydellingerphotography.blogspot.com/</a> . I attached a picture that kind of goes into the colorful, lens flare category that you'll see a lot in the modern pics.</p><div></div>