|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
What percentage of photos are perfectly in focus?
I am finding that a percentage of photos are front focused when doing photo shoots. Even when I stop down to f/3.5 about 10 to 15% are clearly out of focus (100% zoom pixel peeping), especially standing full body shots using phase detect focus. I select the face to focus on and am not tilting the camera significantly and sometimes the camera just totally misses focus. I do not have this problem with contrast detect focus. I have seen some articles where even professional Canon cameras have a percentage that is not 100% perfect focus. Are my expectations off? Can anyone share experiences with their focus precision? Jul 17 23 10:40 am Link Are you focusing on the eye closest to you or focusing on the eye at all? @ F3.5 what shutter speed are you shooting at? are you shooting with a prime or zoom lens? Jul 17 23 02:32 pm Link Retro Wks wrote: Your camera may have the ability for microadjustments to the focus for different focal lengths. If it does, then that should help increase the in focus rate, but will require some trial-and-error testing of adjustment values to find the best setting for the lens+camera body that you are using. Jul 17 23 03:50 pm Link If you are photographing living, breathing creatures - humans or critters - they move. Even if it is just breathing there is movement. If you are hand-holding your camera, you move too. If you use a tripod you can gain stability on your end but you may lose some spontaneity. Perfect focus is likely only possible with a camera on a stout tripod and photographing an inanimate object that is not subject to motion by wind or other forces. Jul 17 23 06:11 pm Link I have the best luck using rear button focus. I thought I might change back to shutter button focus now with mirrorless but I still find rear button works best for me. And as mentioned earlier you may need to calibrate the focus on your individual lenses with each camera body. I've also found it possible to save photos slightly off with the use of Topaz Sharpen AI as a filter with Photoshop. It's amazing its ability to salvage images which in the past I didn't edit due to lack of sharpness. I do find I have to mask most elements of the frame and reduce or remove the sharpening sometimes narrowing down the effects to only the eyes of the subject. But it does do an amazing job of pulling out focus on missed shots. Jul 17 23 06:32 pm Link Znude! wrote: My best results come when I put a hood over the rear LCD screen and focus in Live View. The focus point can be moved to a precise location easily and quickly. Live View autofocus is a bit slower but for portraiture it seems to be more accurate and more flexible in terms of composition. I like to focus to the closest eye. Jul 17 23 06:45 pm Link Thanks folks, I have done plenty of calibration, and subjects are too far away to pick an eye to focus on (full body shots). It is just sometimes the autofocus locks on and is completely off. I tried small area, very small area, and single focus points, and focus on the face. Usually the small area on the face seems to perform best, however, with bright or high contrast background, it sometimes misses focus. Then I came across this blog, and indeed phase detect is not nearly as accurate as contrast detect. I am just curious what people experience in practice. Are all your images tack sharp with static subjects at 100% zoom? https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/0 … -accuracy/ Jul 17 23 07:04 pm Link Sounds like you may be having one of two issue. First, subject movement is a factor. Second, zoom lenses can move, from their own weight, as well as from your own body movements, while focusing. Also F/3.5, is pretty wide open for shooting people. The depth of field can be very inadequate, for the human body, especially in closer proximity. Rick Sep 09 23 07:01 am Link Interestingly, I have been using a different technique and now use the back-focus button and the success rate of photos in focus has increased significantly, where almost all photos are now properly in focus. I like the back-focus button technique as the camera doesn't refocus for every shot. Once in focus the subject often does not move such that refocus is needed. I find this quite interesting. Sep 18 23 11:31 am Link After some recent out of focus shots I decided to grab a older Macbook Air. While newer cameras often offer built in Wi-Fi many older ones don't. You can find these Macbook Airs on line for less than $100. I loaded mine with Linux and use its built in SD card reader to review images. Another idea is to try and shoot more then one image of a pose or subject you like. Tripods are also a good idea. Sep 18 23 01:18 pm Link Retro Wks wrote: What camera and what lens are you using? You mention using f/3.5 (not the most obvious aperture to use). Have you taken into consideration the depth of field of that aperture? Perhaps a smaller aperture, like f/4 or f/5.6 or f/8 would be more appropriate if you expect the entire body to be in focus? Sep 19 23 03:28 am Link "Correct focus" is subjective in this context. In portrait photography it's usual to focus on the eyes, but if the outline of the body is more important in a full length picture then you focus accordingly, to the extent that your camera allows you to do that. Oct 02 23 05:22 am Link In addition to what's already been mentioned, are you shooting hand held and at what shutter speed? Are you confusing motion blur with focus issues? Oct 02 23 11:25 am Link Focuspuller wrote: +1 Oct 02 23 03:44 pm Link Full length standing poses are relatively easy to focus because the body is basically perpendicular to the camera's direction of view. If on the other hand you take an end-on sitting pose with the model's feet five feet from the camera and her face nine feet away, you cant get both in focus at f5.6 with a 50mm lens. Oct 03 23 03:48 am Link For those who would like some REAL depth of field measurements, you'll find a useful resource here: https://dofsimulator.net/en/ Oct 03 23 10:39 am Link LightDreams wrote: And please someone explain how a seated model facing camera would have her feet five feet away and head 9 feet? Oh wait...baby giraffe? Oct 03 23 11:22 am Link Focuspuller wrote: If I understand his posts correctly, it's a "dirty undercover cop" model that's trying to entrap him, wearing a Giraffe disguise. Oct 03 23 11:46 am Link "...Can anyone share experiences with their focus precision?" Retro the lion's share of my portraiture, beauty and fashion genre are in my studio at f8 to f11... What focus problem? lol At those f-stops DOF is so deep I have forgotten about the trauma of shooting with razor thin critical zones of focus... Albeit on location I have to deal with this. To this end I invest a huge amount of time calibrating my "fast" optics to each of camera bodies (at the distance and f-stop) I will likely be using. Experience is a brutal teacher. btw with mirrorless focus issues vanish... Although they bring their own myriad set of challenges to the mix... i.e. there are no "perfect" solutions only adaptations to optimize outcomes for each assignment you are dealing with. Retro I still am using a vintage focus "fine tuning" kit called LensAlign which affords one the ability to assure superb parallel surface alignment with a camera's sensor and the focus target... If you don't accomplish this BEFORE you try to "fine tune" you will likely screw up your lens/camera combo and never have a clue why... Fine Tuning focus requires a deep understanding and appreciation of all variables in the equation although once mastered Lens Calibration becomes a "Cake Walk" Strongly suggest you study this carefully before you attempt it. (lots of YouTube videos on this, some good, some worthless). btw, since you've discovered that the epic beauty of Canon's Continuous-servo AF has dramatically increased your "keeper" rate this tells me you were a little naive on AF initially however you're learning (which is a very good thing). Also being able to discern the difference between subject movement and lens focus alignment issues are paramount in this endeavor. I certainly hope you have an excellent sturdy tripod which is priceless and precious in this quest a.k.a. an absolutely essential tool of the craft . Final thoughts: Photographic Excellence is decidedly not a consumer commodity... it comes with patience, persistence and attention to detail. Unfortunately photographers are subjected to exaggerated advertising claims that try to convince them to endlessly chase after "perceived" perfection... Oh well, in time those who endure long enough will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff will likely rise to the zenith of their potential... i.e. It isn't always easy to decide which things are relevant or important and which are not. Best Advice? Ignore marking hype... My solution? I'm constantly on flickr studying the work of outstanding photographers and what pieces of kit they are deploying and their progression within their craft... the beauty of flickr is that EXIF data is available and it's search tools are absolutely stellar. Wishing you all the best on your photographic journey Retro... Cheers! Thomas Oct 03 23 12:11 pm Link 1) With your "backbutton focus" success, I can't help wondering about whether your camera was previously in AF-C continuous auto-focus mode for a relatively stationary subject? And hunting for the focus at the time some shots were taken. 2) As Shadow Dancer alluded to, if your subject isn't moving much then (the much slower) "Live View" focus BYPASSES any micro focus adjustment issues that the camera / lens combination MIGHT be having. When the DSLR is in Live View mode, it does NOT use the normal / separate focus sensor and focusses instead directly off of the camera's image sensor. I.E. DSLRs in Live View mode work in the same way that mirrorless cameras (that don't require micro focus adjustments) work. The downside being that it's a slower option on DSLRs. Slower, but more accurate, for relatively stationary subjects. Oct 03 23 01:10 pm Link Autofocus cameras will focus more reliably than most people can manually, but ultimately they deprive you of some of the control you would have with a manual focus camera, so there is trade off. Focuspuller wrote: Well I say seated, reclining on a low (12 in high) stool with her feet toward the camera would be closer to what I mean. Oct 04 23 04:24 am Link You’re mixing up focus with depth of field….which will end with you wandering in circles of confusion. Even at an extremely small aperture, there is a very precise distance that is the point of focus.the depth of field is how far on either side of that point the circles of confusion are small enough to be sharp. Infinity focus is where the lens nodal point (the spot where the light waves all cross each other) is the same distance to the the sensor (film, focal) plane as the lens focal length. Closer-than-infinity focus is achieved by increasing the distance between nodal point and focal plane. So, 100% of images are in focus…somewhere. Whether they are in focus on the subject plane you want, however….that’s a different thing. Relying on depth of field makes perfect sense…for composition, but it isn’t focusing. The OP has not answered a few things that were raised…specifically about motion blur. - if you are hand holding, you are introducing another variable in your technique. If you are handholding with the “Flying elbow” pose like that dude in “Blow up”— you are increasing the probability of motion blur (and you look like a tool). Good autofocus is a wonderful thing…but if you’ve gone through all the rituals of focus trim for the lenses/bodies involved and still are not getting tack sharp images, it’s time to look at technique. I personally *can* handhold a medium format or Full size DSLR if absolutely forced too…but I am very conscious that I’m now introducing a new variable compared to using a tripod, or usually a studio stand. The Phase One XF AND my Canon both have focus assist beams and that works out pretty well. One thing though…back in the days before Autofocus was a thing, good cameras had nice, bright viewfinders with focus assist tools (split prism/micro prism) that honestly were not that difficult to use. Modern autofocus, with all the various modes and behaviors, I swear sometimes drives me nuts by wanting to seek different focus planes between shots….so it’s dive into menus to get the camera to behave itself and stop doing things my old ‘blad or Olympus OM would never think to do in the first place….at the same time, camera manufacturers first neglected the optical viewfinder (my 40 year old OM-1s have a much brighter and well equipped viewfinder than my EOS 5DS). Now the optical viewfinder is going the way of the dinosaur in the name of Live View…which is progress I guess, you can manually focus, zoom the display, use focus peaking in the live view and be assured your camera thinks the subject is in focus. Honestly, a split screen optical manual focus is way, way faster IMO. If you have eliminated camera and subject motion from your technique, calibrated your cameras/lenses, and are STILL struggling with consistently tack-sharp images…try a different camera….because that one sucks. In answer to the question posed by the subject line…With the Canon, handheld and wide open with a 200mm f 2.8 (shooting shows and concerts) about 70% of the images are critically sharp with the 50mp sensor. The Phase one (bigger sensor and higher pixel count) , in studio on a massive studio stand, really averages about the same or maybe less if I am relying on autofocus…I often turn off the autofocus to prevent focus seeking between shots and get better results. And my 35 year old Sinar P2 which has no autofocus at all and sits on an even more massive studio stand, cranks out 100% perfectly in focus images via an optical loupe on the ground glass or on the live view sensor. Critical focus is as much about technique as technology Oct 04 23 09:33 am Link Studio NSFW wrote: Yes. What I note with some dismay is the habit of photographers using Liveview with cameras held at arm's length, some even with heavy zoom lenses, and wondering why they are missing focus. Oct 04 23 09:41 am Link If you do commercial work, the client will probably expect the pictures to be sharp. In creative work, "correct focus" depends entirely on the effect you want to create. Having part or all of the main subject blurred or out of focus may help to create an impression of realism for example. Some schools of film making stress the value of a technically simple, gimmick-free approach in producing an authentic end result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95 Jess Franco's later films like Barbed Wire Dolls show the influence of Dogme 95 although they are not considered part of the movement. Oct 05 23 02:48 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Is Model Mayhem now a film school forum? Oct 05 23 05:31 am Link JSouthworth wrote: I see. Is that a pose you employ a lot? Don't see it in your port. Just the opposite, in fact. Did you just make that up? Oct 05 23 09:36 am Link Focuspuller wrote: I'm just wondering how much much you would know about the creative use of focus in still photography when your job as a focus puller simply requires you to change the focus setting on a camera lens from one value to another when directed to do so. Did I invent that pose? No. Oct 05 23 10:34 am Link JSouthworth wrote: It appears that Southy understands nothing about the extraordinary expertise that our very own Focuspuller has, including his extensive work on major films. Oct 05 23 01:58 pm Link JSouthworth wrote: "...your job as a focus puller simply requires you to change the focus setting on a camera lens from one value to another when directed to do so." Oct 05 23 02:17 pm Link I had it about right but this explains the job more fully; https://www.mediacollege.com/employment … uller.html Oct 08 23 08:15 am Link More thread hijacking by JSouthworth. As he explains why he's more of an expert than the experts in their field. Oct 08 23 10:10 am Link LightDreams wrote: JSouthworth has already demonstrated beyond any doubt his ignorance of film sets, with his inane speculations in the "Loaded Gun on Film Set" thread. Never having set foot on a film set, he nevertheless feels authorized to bloviate and fantasize about all aspects of the process, expecting, no demanding, everyone respect his ridiculous pronouncements. Oct 08 23 04:52 pm Link Focuspuller wrote: It seems the only method available to us to judge JSouthworth's photographic experience and expertise, is by considering his portfolio. As he always TELLS us how great he is, but constantly refuses to document his experience / related history. Oct 08 23 06:05 pm Link In my recent shoot I used two film cameras, a Canon EOS RT and a Canon EOS 5. Neither was completely satisfactory, the RT would only focus on the model's necklace and other contrasting areas, so while I was able to use AF throughout, I was constantly re-framing and switching the AF on and off, whereas the 5 would focus very quickly but on any one of 5 focus points when in automatic mode (the eye control focus system in this camera doesn't work well). With the 5 you can select a focus point but to do this for every single shot would be too time consuming. I may try disabling all the focus points except for the central one next time. I like the RT because of the uninterrupted view of the subject it gives you, an advantage when using flash. An EOS 1N RS would be better though. Oct 10 23 05:01 am Link JSouthworth wrote: Take your time. When you have figured out how to use your gear, DO report back. Oct 31 23 02:10 pm Link Focuspuller wrote: There are many types of film cameras, and with modern 35mm cameras there are often several possible ways of using the camera in any given situation, so it is a question of finding an approach which yields the results you're looking for. Nov 01 23 03:38 am Link 100% thanks to focus mask on the db and large focussing screen. Nov 19 23 06:37 pm Link Speaking of learning to use your gear…I have been going through a very rare (for me) platform switch, and am rapidly moving from Phase One to Hasselblad, and so going from MF DSLR (Phase one XF) to mirrorless (currently a 907x/CFV50ii, and soon the X2D) . The 907 will absolutely force you to review technique and it definitely is not a spray and pray workflow…slow and methodical with stunning results. Since there is no viewfinder at all, you must use the live view display, but that can be tilted to mimic an old waist level finder, which is a very stable way to hold a camera compared to holding it at eye level. Autofocus on the thing is about the same as the XF (OK, but sometimes wants to seek) ) and at first, I just gritted my teeth at the focus seeking etc. then I tried out focus peaking, first with the back on a view camera (Wow! Game changer for view camera work!) , and then manual focus with the auto zoom feature with the back on the 907x body…and, for me, that has become the most reliable for people photography work. Tap the screen to locate the focus point, grab the focus ring and the display switches to a 100% zoom view. Rest finger on shutter release and screen reverts to full screen composition view with level indicators. I have found that my output is much more reliably sharp on the point I want it to be than the autofocus technology, and it will only get better as I get more used to the technique My future X2D has a different AF system, and a recent firmware upgrade now added facial recognition and eye tracking, so maybe that will change my style with that camera, Oh, and if anyone wants a long deal on a Phase One XF (HAP2 sensor upgrade) with a 80MP back and a quiver of lenses, cables, batteries, etc ….drop me a DM. I’ll list it on eBay soon otherwise Dec 02 23 07:00 am Link Congratulations on your new gear, however I suspect that you could use a Holga and still make amazing images! Dec 03 23 10:32 am Link Weldphoto wrote: If you like the Holga, check out the Lomography BelAir 6 X 12; Dec 04 23 10:24 am Link |
