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>

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

<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>

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

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

<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>

<p>Thanks Stephen, I do have a good speedlight, so I could certainly practice using it.</p>

<p>Ok, so my problem might be solved by either focusing manually (will try) or have a larger aperture.<br>

I also tend to up the exposure by 2/3 or even 1 stop as I think it gives the baby portraits a nice light. Would it help not to do that do you think?<br>

Below is an example (post-processed-adjusted the tone, sharpened, added vignetting) of a portrait at f/6.3, 1/125s, ISO 400.</p>

<p>I was looking at two possible lenses: the EF 85mm f/1.8 and the EF 50mm f/1.4. They would both be within budget... but I'm now wondering if I really need either?</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, and yes, I am using the central point of the autofocus. I find it very frustrating though, because I never seem to get it focused onto the eye properly. Is there a trick I don't know about?</p>

<p>Thank you for your feedback, I will definitely try to change my method a bit.<br>

To answer the various questions:<br>

-This photo is straight out of the camera, no post processing at all.<br>

-Yes this was taken in the shade, at about 5pm (we are in Texas, very strong sunlight).<br>

-When I post process I use Lightroom. I adjust the tone, add a bit of saturation if needed, smooth the skin and sharpen (I use the sharpening slider). See an example attached.<br>

-I can't stop down any more with this lens. F/4 is as wide as it will get. I'm seriously considering buying a lens that would be better suited to portraits. Any advice on this very welcome (I would be looking at spending around $500).</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hello everyone,</p>

<p>after receiving good advice on another part of this forum, I am coming to the portrait specialists with the following issue: I am practicing my portrait skills, and am getting worried that my lens may be soft as I don't seem to get the desired sharpness even in good lighting conditions.<br>

My lens is a Canon IS_USM 18-105, about a year old, which I use on my 5d MkII.</p>

<p>Here is an example of the problem. Exif data: f4, 1/1250s, 400 ISO, 45mm. BUT it doesn't look quite sharp to me. Am I right? Or just imagining it? When I see fantastically crisp images I think mine just cannot compare... Am I doing something wrong or is my lens soft?</p><div></div>

<p>Ok, s,o I'd have to say my two favorites are on page 4: Stuart's, and then Rob's. John's on the first page would be #3. If Stuart is still following this I would be interested to read what he did to obtain that particular result.<br>

Thought I would post another image from a few months ago, shot in my home studio, so that you don't think I'm too bad!</p>

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

<p>Hello again everyone,<br>

and THANK YOU for all the contributions and advice, which I WILL try to apply as I really want to progress. I do understand that it will take time though, but I started last night by taking my manual out again, and re-studying certain features of my camera and speedlight. I experimented with various speedlight settings and was quite pleased with some of the results.<br>

We live in Texas at the moment, and daylight here is not ideal for portraits-very harsh. Will have to shoot in the evening outside I think.</p>

 

<p>Thank you so much to everyone for their contribution. Michel, I probably liked your image best after the one John produced yesterday (still my favorite I think). Les, I liked what you did too, and I will work on those Photoshop skills!<br>

I have to admit I always leave the white balance on auto, assuming it will sort itself out, but obviously that's not the right thing to do. I need to remember to change it every time depending on the situation.<br>

Tim, thank you for your comments. I do have Lightroom too, but I somehow find the interface very annoying to use. It's meant to be intuitive, but not for me. For some reason I find element a lot easier/logical...</p>

<p>John, I'm trying to replicate what you did to my picture, but can't it get exactly right. Can you go into details please?</p>

<p>Many thanks John. I love what you did, it's very much what I'm after and I'm reassured that it looks pretty easy to do! I just need to find the warming tool. My white balance is always on auto, I'm guessing I should probably adjust it to the conditions every time?</p>

<p>JDM- Yes, I very much agree about the composition and poses in the website I linked.My image wasn't popped by the way, just out of my 5D with no retouching. I understandyour point about 'less is more', but wondering if 'more is more' may indeed help sell this kind of image?</p>

<p>Thanks Tony, I will definitely look on YouTube. I too thought the music was odd! I was strongly advised against having any kind of music on my own site, and I'm glad I didn't!</p>

<p>Sure! Here's one.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi,<br>

I am seriously trying my hand at portraiture, and would be very grateful for a few tips. I can take very acceptable portraits (I own a Canon 5D Mk2), but they lack that little 'ooomph' that would make them even better. I am talking something like on this photo website: http://studiobloomphoto.com/index2.php . How can you get the colors to 'pop' like this, if you see what I mean? My pictures just seem rather flat compared to these...<br>

Any Photoshop tips? How do you make portraits this good?</p>

<p>Many thanks!</p>

Thanks a lot!

Hi everyone,

 

I need to have some prints done, size would be 11x14. These would be from a digital file, in black and white.

Can anyone recommend a company that would do a good job for not too much money?

 

Thanks a lot!

Mmm... will be difficult to judge quality on my home printer as it's pretty crap! May still give me an idea though.

 

I'm based in the US, so if anyone can recommend an online company that'd be great!

Hahaha, I guess I am the kind of person who puts their nose on a large-scale print and goes 'this is terrible quality!'... but most people would indeed only view it from a distance, as you said. Maybe I should try printing one of my very best and sharpest RAW on a large scale and see what it looks like, then decide if it's good enough...

 

Any printing company recommendations by the way?

Thanks for the extra answers above... I am getting a bit frustrated with all this, as I had read that some people seem to make very big prints from the 350D... obviously they can't be very high quality... which I really need for displaying my images at this exhibition...

I guess I'll try what you are suggesting: printing at 8x12 (240 ppi) and then seeing if it may be worth trying a larger size...

By the way can you recommend a good online company who does good quality prints and doesn't ask for a fortune?

Grrr.... just been trying and trying, and the largest good-quality print size I am getting to is about 20cmx12cm, which

is far too small for displaying the pictures on a wall! I don't know what to do...

 

I am working from the RAW file, tweaking it to my liking in DPP, then saving it as a TIF. I then opened the Tif in

photoshop to check it at various sizes, but it looks rubbish at 100%... 50% is just about acceptable, but probably not

good enough for a print... What am I doing wrong?

Thanks a lot Rainer, of course I meant 30"x20" as you guessed (sorry- am from Europe, not used to this inches/feet business!)!

So basically that sort of size is not going to be doable with the images form my 350D... fair enough!

 

I was indeed under the impression that a TIFF file would give a better quality print than a jpeg, so thank you for clarifying this. So basically, I need to do my adjustments on the RAW file, then save it as a TIFF and print from that file. I'll have to see what maximum size I'll be able to do with that whilst keeping a very high quality image... it's probably not going to be more than 16"x20"... Oh well, that's already pretty big!