DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Why are my portraits always soft??
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/27/2008 09:35:50 PM · #1
I am getting frustrated! I feel that all my portraits I take are too soft.

Here are a few examples of some I took of my 2 yr old today. These are completely un-edited, straight from the camera.

[thumb]652349[/thumb][thumb]652350[/thumb][thumb]652351[/thumb]

My 2 yr old is never in the mood to have her picture taken, that is why I use her the most. To practice.

Do I need a faster lens? I used my 18-55 3.5-5.6 but I think it will only stop down to 4.5

I want to get the 50mm 1.8 lens. Would that improve sharpness? I think part of the problem is the slowness of the autofocus when she is moving.
 02/27/2008 09:39:28 PM · #2
they don't look all that soft to me but if you want razor sharp the 50mm f/1.4 is what i have and it could cut you like a knife it is so sharp.
 02/27/2008 09:40:49 PM · #3
Originally posted by slickchik:
they don't look all that soft to me but if you want razor sharp the 50mm f/1.4 is what i have and it could cut you like a knife it is so sharp.


yeah I would love one. But I spent so much money on buying my D300 and other accessories... LOL
 02/27/2008 09:48:51 PM · #4
Instead of shooting wide open, try stopping down to f/8 or so. In order to keep the BG OOF, keep the subject well in front of it. I think you'll like the results much better.
 02/27/2008 09:57:34 PM · #5
Originally posted by gwe21:
un-edited, straight from the camera.


Perhaps a high pass followed by some USM would help you to achieve a crisper 'feeling' image. I find that shooting raw is pretty flat and lately have been using these two tricks to add a bit of sharpen punch on the whole. Could be all you need.
 02/27/2008 10:04:59 PM · #6


Used the small post and imported to PS
- Duplicate Layer and filter/other/High Pass (.8px for something this size)
- Set layer to overlay, opacity to preference.
- Merge down
- Set filter USM to 120% at .3px for image this size.
 02/27/2008 11:24:44 PM · #7
Try doing this. Move her further away from your BG along with your camera. Zoom all the way in and focus on her. This will darken your BG and it will also be OOF.

For some good hints and tricks click on the Learn link at the top of the page and go through the tutorials. One that sticks out for me is this one.

//www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=65

Make a note that the further away your camera is from the subject and the further away your subject is from the BG the more light you will need to give that natural effect.

One more thing. Think about how light moves when you set something up. Look at pictures in magazines and look for shadows on faces... you won't see any. (well not alot anyway) but when you start using light you will start getting shadows. Make sure that you have lots of lighting to do studio shots. I have a good site that will teach you all that but I don't have it right this second. So I will post it later. Anyway just read the tut sections and google things you want to know. Should be a big help.

BTW your little girl is precious. These are great shots and I know that soon you will be turning out some perfect shots. Good luck
02/27/2008 11:41:22 PM · #8
It would help to know what the shutter speeds and aperture settings were for those shots. Primarily, if your shutter speed is too slow to capture crisp portraits, then just add more light or bump up your ISO.
 02/27/2008 11:46:22 PM · #9
His EXIF data says 1/125th of a second. That seems fast enough, although I detected motion blur in at least the first image.

By the way, there is a plugin for Firefox that lets you view EXIF data right inside of Firefox. Pretty cool if you happen to be using FF.
 02/28/2008 12:01:34 AM · #10
Ooh, that is cool, David. Might get me to switch from Safari. ;-)

If those shots are at 1/125, then that should be plenty fast. I would even think going to f/8 (as suggested earlier) and slowing down to 1/40-1/60 would help make sharper images, as long as the camera is fairly steady.
 02/28/2008 12:09:10 AM · #11
yeah, I try to shoot at 1/125 or faster with her. I think I used 5.6 aperature. Cant remember off hand.

If I use 2 softboxes, should I put one on either side of the camera directed at the subject?

I used iso 200 and auto WB as well. The lighting is a little bright too IMO, but I can work on that.

Thanks for all the tips. I am going to try again tomorrow, using a darker background and see what we get.
 02/28/2008 12:09:32 AM · #12
Originally posted by dwterry:
His EXIF data says 1/125th of a second. That seems fast enough, although I detected motion blur in at least the first image.

By the way, there is a plugin for Firefox that lets you view EXIF data right inside of Firefox. Pretty cool if you happen to be using FF.


and where can I find this plugin? I only use FF
 02/28/2008 12:48:03 AM · #13
Erica, looking at what Arcanist did makes me wonder: are you doing any sharpening in processing? You need to if you're shooting in RAW because the camera isn't doing it for you.

If you're shooting in JPG, and don't want to do sharpening in processing, try increasing the sharpness setting.

You can REALLY sharpen things up in processing, though. Compare this final to the original (shot in JPG):


Let me also toss out there that DPC adores lines you can cut yourself on. But your shots don't look especially soft to me.

Message edited by author 2008-02-28 00:48:48.
 02/28/2008 01:13:42 AM · #14
FF > Safari :)

Originally posted by PhilipDyer:
Ooh, that is cool, David. Might get me to switch from Safari. ;-)

If those shots are at 1/125, then that should be plenty fast. I would even think going to f/8 (as suggested earlier) and slowing down to 1/40-1/60 would help make sharper images, as long as the camera is fairly steady.
02/28/2008 04:59:54 AM · #15
Originally posted by levyj413:
Erica, looking at what Arcanist did makes me wonder: are you doing any sharpening in processing? You need to if you're shooting in RAW because the camera isn't doing it for you.

If you're shooting in JPG, and don't want to do sharpening in processing, try increasing the sharpness setting.

You can REALLY sharpen things up in processing, though. Compare this final to the original (shot in JPG):


Let me also toss out there that DPC adores lines you can cut yourself on. But your shots don't look especially soft to me.


That's quite a difference... mind telling us what you did to the original?
02/28/2008 06:56:58 AM · #16
EXIF Viewer for Firefox
 02/28/2008 07:30:43 AM · #17
They look fine to me as straight out of camera shots. A little post-processing should give you the sharpness you are looking for. As also mentioned set up a custom profile by increasing in camera sharpness when shooting in Jpeg.

P.S. she is a cutie !

02/28/2008 08:23:19 AM · #18
They don't look as crisp as they potentially could look and partly that's the lens you are using, wide open.

You could try shooting at around f8, you'll get sharper general results, assuming you have sufficient shutter speed.
To me, the processed versions shown in this thread look oversharpened, to compensate for a slightly soft original (you can see the halos
and other sharpening effects). If you get a decent original, you won't need to sharpen so dramatically and overall the shot will look better. With a decent lens, you almost need to soften portraits, not sharpen them, straight from the camera.

Lighting is also a large part of if an image looks sharp or not - local contrast is what creates sharpness, and that comes from the light.

2 year olds also don't tend to sit still, so lots of wrap around light and fast shutter speeds will help, but I think you are towards the limits of your particular lens here, because you are shooting it wide open.

Message edited by author 2008-02-28 08:27:53.
 02/28/2008 09:53:30 AM · #19
Go thru here and watch their videos. They are very useful.

//www.youtube.com/user/snapfactory
 02/28/2008 09:58:39 AM · #20
Originally posted by figaro:
That's quite a difference... mind telling us what you did to the original?


About a million things. It wasn't just sharpening. :) Just PM me a real email address and I'll send you a Photoshop file (goes for anyone, not just figaro).

Gordon: I'd be interested to hear what oversharpening artifacts you're seeing in my shot. My own tastes have tended to be toward less-sharpened photos since I took that, so there's no tension in this request; I'd genuinely like to know. A general opinion is fine, but specifics will help me look for problems in future editing. I also agree completely that my original was soft. :)

Message edited by author 2008-02-28 09:58:47.
 02/28/2008 10:36:21 AM · #21
[quote]Let me also toss out there that DPC adores lines you can cut yourself on. But your shots don't look especially soft to me[/qoute]

I used to think my portraits were "okay" looking, then I kept getting comments on how they were too soft.

Outside of DPC I get great feedback. I think DPC has its own little set of standards compared to the rest of the world. I am not complaining though, because I have learned more here than I would have otherwise.

02/28/2008 10:48:17 AM · #22
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by figaro:
That's quite a difference... mind telling us what you did to the original?


About a million things. It wasn't just sharpening. :) Just PM me a real email address and I'll send you a Photoshop file (goes for anyone, not just figaro).

Gordon: I'd be interested to hear what oversharpening artifacts you're seeing in my shot. My own tastes have tended to be toward less-sharpened photos since I took that, so there's no tension in this request; I'd genuinely like to know. A general opinion is fine, but specifics will help me look for problems in future editing. I also agree completely that my original was soft. :)


I was really referring to the sharpened version of the original posters images. Your's looked pretty good. Arcanist's version looks like an attempt to fix a soft original by oversharpening, that's all. It would look a lot better with a sharper initial shot and less sharpening.

Basically though, these shots are probably soft because they are shot with an average lens, wide open. You either need a lens that is better wide open, or you need to stop down the lens a few stops from wide open.

Motion blur/ inaccurate focus might also be contributing, along with camera shake - what's your handholding technique like ? lens supported by a hand, arms tight in to a well braced body ? Or do you shoot like my friend does, holding the camera in one hand about 3 feet from his face ? or somewhere in between ? That'll make a big difference too.

Do you stab the shutter, or press it softly ? Are you focusing on her eyes, or letting the camera pick a focus point from everything in front of the lens ? Have you considered shooting on a tripod - even with the head not clamped down ?

Do you focus, then wait several seconds before shooting ? Or do you focus and shoot smoothly and at the same time ?

What's the lighting you are using ? 1/125s is still going to give plenty of opportunity for shake/ subject movement to factor in to softer than possible shots.

DPC does seem to favour oversharpened, over processed images. But that's a different thing to soft originals.

As an example, with a different lens, noted for its sharpness, this is an unsharpened RAW conversion.

//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/69749631.jpg

It's just been resized, no sharpening at all applied.

Here it is with a very slight amount of sharpening - it is noticeable if you flick between them, but you shouldn't really
be able to see the effects of sharpening in isolation, looking at edges, you shouldn't really see halos that didn't exist, etc.

//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/69749894.jpg

Here's a 100% crop on the unsharpened image

//www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/69749635.jpg

That's the sort of starting point you should be able to get, from the camera, before you start applying any sharpening.

Here's another example with the same lens



Message edited by author 2008-02-28 11:01:52.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 07:08:37 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 07:08:37 PM EDT.