• Photos

  • Level

  • Score

BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photography Question 

Robyn Gwilt 		 

Getting a group pic sharp


I'm battling with a group of people (say 3 or more) to get them all in focus. I've tried F16, but then the shutter speed is very slow, if I up the shutter speed, then the whoever is in the middle is sharpest, with those on the sides / at the back are not sharp.... HELP


To love this question, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Alan N. Marcus 		  Hi Robyn,

While it’s true that smaller apertures yield more depth-of-filed; there are other factors:
All of the following equally valid factors:

1. Use the smaller apertures f/22 – f/11
Tiny apertures yield the greatest depth-of-field.
2. Use a shorter focal length
Wider angle lens settings yield greater depth-of-field
3. Step back
Compose with space around the subject as greater subject to camera distance yield greater depth-of-filed

Tips: Use a faster film or set the ISO higher to permit smaller apertures without resorting to slow shutter speeds.

Most important:
Do not focus on the middle subject. Focus halfway between the middle subject and closest to camera subject. As an aid, have the middle subject extend a hand towards you. Focus on this hand placed halfway between middle and closest subject. After you have performed the focus, lock the focus. Check your camera manual, you can probably focus on this hand by centering it in the viewfinder, then lock focus by pressing halfway down on the shutter release. After the lock, you reposition subjects and recompose, then shoot.

Depth-of-field is not split down the middle. It extends further towards the back (rear) than towards the front of the point you are focused upon. As a rule of thumb; depth of filed extends 2/3 back and 1/3 towards the camera as measured from the point of focus. As an example; you are focused on 8 feet. Depth-of-field will envelop a zone from 6 feet thru 12 feet.

Try it you'll like it

Alan Marcus
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt 		 
 
 
Thanks Alan. This is useful. What about if I use manual focus (focus on the extended hand and lock it there?)I have been using the focus lock as you mentioned here, but normally on the middle person, who might be on the ground, with someone standing slightly behind, and to the side, and thats where the problem comes in! I did try to keep ISO to about 200 (we were in the shade of a tree, on a nice overcast day). I shot with a 70-200 and a 17-70, with a variety options in both of them, generally trying to crop in tightly on portraits, and give more of a sense of feeling/space in the groups. I'll try to u/l one or two (edited/sharpened) for your opinion.
Thanks for your input. Robyn


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt 		 
 
 
Trying again...


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Alan N. Marcus 		  Hi Robyn,

You’re on your way! Manual focus on the extended hand is absolutely correct.

My main comments are three:

I like more zip (contrast). Your shady tree is a bit too flat. You might consider allowing the camera to flash this will add some highlights. You have added contrast with your PhotoShop work and that’s good.

Generally pictures taken of people are better if the camera height is equal or just above subject eye height. A low camera position sometimes invokes an abnormal feeling.

This next one is a bit technical but I consider it essential. People have a mental picture of themselves derived from their view in the makeup or shaving mirror. We want to duplicate this prospective. If we don’t, people look at their picture and say ‘I don’t photograph well”. Actually this is a feeling induced when the taking lens is set too short. For pictures of people we want to select a focal length that is about 2.5x or greater than diagonal measure of the film or chip being used. Both of your cameras feature a chip that measures 22.5 x 15mm with a diagonal measure of 17mm. So to try out my suggestion you need to set your lens to a minimum of 65mm. If you use a setting shorter than 65mm the subject’s nose will reproduce microscopically too large and the ears microscopically too small. Longer than 65mm is OK.

Your friend,

Alan Marcus
ammarcus@earthlink.net


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt 		 
 
 
THanks Alan (just woke up this side, diff time zones, i'm in SA!!) Just tried looking at my exif data, as I had my flash on all the time, for fill in. Could have been that it didn't fire at times, but generally I do use it, even in sunlight. I'll u/l 2 more, where it didn't and did fire. I'll also bear in mind what you say about height, so if someone is one the ground, and someone is standing, I should be about midway?
This AF/MF thing is worrying me now - in the case of a wedding, there isn't always time to do things manually - especially if you don't want a very posed look - how do I get around that?


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt 		 
 
 
trying again


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Alan N. Marcus 		  Hi again Robyn,

Atta girl! Just took a long look at your gallery!
Your work is first rate! SA should be proud.
I am retired and live in California literality next door to Disneyland.

Your friend,
Alan Marcus


To love this comment, log in above
November 13, 2006

 

Robyn Gwilt 		  Thanks Alan, made me blush!! I still think there's huge room for improvement though. Especially on the 'sharpness' thing. I'm also not sure whether its the screen I'm viewing on - as very often when its printed up, I'm happy - but then am I biased, and the client a tad ignorant, or just not as critical as say another photographer would be?


To love this comment, log in above
November 14, 2006

 
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here

Report this Thread