-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Why Focus-Recompose Sucks" - your solution?
- Thread starter feinschmecker
- Start date
This is a problem that I have been thinking about lately. I try to focus on the eye and recompose. The eye in most cases is the most critical point to have in focus. Using my E-3 and something like the 35-100 or 14-35, I find it frustrating that it sometimes takes several half presses on the shutter using the single center focus point to bring the eye into focus. I don't have a good answer other than to keep pressing the shutter in hope that it does finally come into focus. When I am shooting portraits, I don't have time to move focus points around or to try and use live view.
--
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
--
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
Joesiv
Veteran Member
Greg your photos are nice, I like tight portraits like that, and the 50-200 is my favorite tool for them.
However, I think all those saying that fourthirds depth of field is too deep to have to worry about it are just skirting the problem. Your pictures while examples, aren't the best examples, becuase in all cases the eyes are near the center of the frame. Obviously people can frame how they want, and often I like to frame more of the body in the frame, and in these cases the eyes will not be as central. With the 50-200 too much re-composing WILL affect critical focus, especially with bodies with only a single cross focus point.
I've relied on focus and recompose for years and get good results, I've never heard of the slide technique, but I've heard of the lean back technique. And indeed it takes much practice to get it right. but basically just lean back to the ammount that you think will compensate for it.
By the way, even with my 14-54 I still get the recompose focus shift on recomposed shots. But maybe I'm just more critical than some of you people lol.
Also to the OP, if you can, use your focus points if you have them. Especially for moving subjects, it's much better to keep the focus point on what you want, and continuously pulse focus or have it in C-AF to ensure focus. Spending time to re-compose on a subject moving to/away from you is a recipe for very soft fotos
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
However, I think all those saying that fourthirds depth of field is too deep to have to worry about it are just skirting the problem. Your pictures while examples, aren't the best examples, becuase in all cases the eyes are near the center of the frame. Obviously people can frame how they want, and often I like to frame more of the body in the frame, and in these cases the eyes will not be as central. With the 50-200 too much re-composing WILL affect critical focus, especially with bodies with only a single cross focus point.
I've relied on focus and recompose for years and get good results, I've never heard of the slide technique, but I've heard of the lean back technique. And indeed it takes much practice to get it right. but basically just lean back to the ammount that you think will compensate for it.
By the way, even with my 14-54 I still get the recompose focus shift on recomposed shots. But maybe I'm just more critical than some of you people lol.
Also to the OP, if you can, use your focus points if you have them. Especially for moving subjects, it's much better to keep the focus point on what you want, and continuously pulse focus or have it in C-AF to ensure focus. Spending time to re-compose on a subject moving to/away from you is a recipe for very soft fotos
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
kernow
Veteran Member
How did photographers manage before AF? It truly boggles the mind some of the discussions on this forum.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
TXforester
Veteran Member
I disagree. He is explaining why points other than the point in the center of the plane of focus are at different distances than the center point. His geometry lesson is correct. Therefore, the commonly used focus/recompose doesn't work for those that employ it.
His solution was to use another AF sensor which falls on the critical point of focus in the composition. That does not contradict your comment about an arc (which is correct). Also using the arc sounds good if you can find something along that arc to achieve focus. You do have your tape measure in your pocket don't you? If not, you better calibrate the Mark I Eyeball.
Probably the best bet is to find something as near as possible to the same distance (near the arc
), recompose and then fine tune the focus manually.--
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
R
Raist3d
Guest
well you could use the other focus point as he suggests or you can start getting a feel for anticipating depending on distance and aperture where you need to focus. Personally if I am taking portraits with a tripod, I would rather consider using live view and manual focusing at that point.
That said, I think it's good you bring it up. I probably have made a few mistakes with this every now and then.
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
That said, I think it's good you bring it up. I probably have made a few mistakes with this every now and then.
--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
TXforester
Veteran Member
That's Spiney Norman.
"Dimsdale."
--
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
"Dimsdale."
--
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
vincent filomena
Veteran Member
Am I the only one ?: I find BRIGHT eyes boring and
the pictures look phony !
Vjim
the pictures look phony !
Vjim
TheEye
Veteran Member
You are very meticulous in your record keeping. Sounds healthy.
Breiny
Leading Member
I did not realize there was so much background and baggage coming into this discussion.
I hope that I try to find common understandings as a working basis for discussion.
If you can pllease forgive me for my past ignorant posts (I'm sure I've posted boatloads of drivel and a few rants) I can always try to be a better/more informed person than I was yesterday.
My post was intended as clarification/illustration of a concept. I apologize if my attempt was less-than-expert and focused on the wrong details.
I had hoped to provide a plain illustration of the concept and I was driving at the point that there are sometimes multiple ways to see a problem and multiple solutions- not a decree that solutions are equally practical but that technically it is possible to arrive at the same endpoint (I can either walk due west 50 feet or I can circumnavigate the globe eastwards to end up at my neighbor's house).
Regards.
--
breinholt.zenfolio.com
I hope that I try to find common understandings as a working basis for discussion.
If you can pllease forgive me for my past ignorant posts (I'm sure I've posted boatloads of drivel and a few rants) I can always try to be a better/more informed person than I was yesterday.
My post was intended as clarification/illustration of a concept. I apologize if my attempt was less-than-expert and focused on the wrong details.
I had hoped to provide a plain illustration of the concept and I was driving at the point that there are sometimes multiple ways to see a problem and multiple solutions- not a decree that solutions are equally practical but that technically it is possible to arrive at the same endpoint (I can either walk due west 50 feet or I can circumnavigate the globe eastwards to end up at my neighbor's house).
Regards.
--
breinholt.zenfolio.com
Tyrone Wellhung
Leading Member
Really, not your problem. Your post was just fine. You correctly identified the part of the drivel that was actually true and informative. It just needed pointing out that as a whole that post was profoundly misleading. If people learning photographic techniques had tried to follow it, they would have been totally lost. Just think about it - how useful is a rangefinding technique that requires you to know the distance of the thing you're rangefinding?
Absolutely. Everyone can follow photography just as they choose. So long as they find individual satisfaction form their hobby or profession, I have no argument whatsoever. However, they're better off if properly informed.
So if I have a problem with a photographic tool, say levels in Photoshop, should I not bring it up because photographers in the last century didn't have it available to them? It boggles my mind how people think they can dictate what should be discussed on an open forum.
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
--
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
TXforester
Veteran Member
Where did he dictate the subject of discussion? He asked a rhetorical question about photography before AF. What I take from it is he is saying the techniques used prior to AF are still useful. Doesn't matter if the camera does the focusing or you do, because proper technique is still required.
--
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
manual focus, and perhaps increasing the DOF.
doubtfully the lighting is that bad that you have to use large apertures to maintain adequate shutter speeds, so DOF is more for aesthetics usually in these conditions.
if you were focusing on the eyes, and a recomposed image to fit the intended crop in the finder results in the eyes becoming out-of-focus, then my take is that most likely the DOF was too shallow for the purposes. in other words, assuming you are shooting level with the subject, you'll be pointing the camera slightly up to align the autofocus with the eyes. by moving it back down to get the crop centered again, you are effectively moving the focal plane slightly into the body, behind the eyes. if the nose was already out-of-focus when the focus was on the eyes (very possible given the conditions stated), then after recomposing, you'll have eyes and the nose out-of-focus (perhaps the ears are great now though!). too much shallowness can be bad, as you know... want to see the whole head in focus after all.
also, carry around a slide rule, measuring sticks, and other devices to manually calculate the proper corrections required for post-recompositioning. that way, you know exactly how far back you'll need to move to compensate for the change in focal plane due to your repositioning on the focusing arc.
doubtfully the lighting is that bad that you have to use large apertures to maintain adequate shutter speeds, so DOF is more for aesthetics usually in these conditions.
if you were focusing on the eyes, and a recomposed image to fit the intended crop in the finder results in the eyes becoming out-of-focus, then my take is that most likely the DOF was too shallow for the purposes. in other words, assuming you are shooting level with the subject, you'll be pointing the camera slightly up to align the autofocus with the eyes. by moving it back down to get the crop centered again, you are effectively moving the focal plane slightly into the body, behind the eyes. if the nose was already out-of-focus when the focus was on the eyes (very possible given the conditions stated), then after recomposing, you'll have eyes and the nose out-of-focus (perhaps the ears are great now though!). too much shallowness can be bad, as you know... want to see the whole head in focus after all.
also, carry around a slide rule, measuring sticks, and other devices to manually calculate the proper corrections required for post-recompositioning.
that way, you know exactly how far back you'll need to move to compensate for the change in focal plane due to your repositioning on the focusing arc.Can't believe what is discussed on this forum means to me that it is not acceptable to discuss certain topics or points of view or that I can't believe your so stupid to ask that question. I am just a believer that as long as it has something to do with photography then it's fair game. Perhaps I have been on here to long, but I have seen time and time again where people try to tell others what they can and can't say according to how they see the world.
I don't have any bone to pick with him, he's commented favorably on some of my postings but sometimes things strike a cord.
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
I don't have any bone to pick with him, he's commented favorably on some of my postings
but sometimes things strike a cord.--
Quote by Robert Roaldi: I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.
digital ed
Veteran Member
Let me ask you to rethink the diagram above. What if the points of focus in the subject is not a straight line but is an arc at a specific distance from the lens. Then if you focus with the eyes at the center of the picture and then properly rotate the camera around the nodal point to re-compose, the eyes remain in focus.
By developing an intuition for how much the manual focusing ring must be twisted to compensate, perhaps ;-)
--
Rikke
John King
Veteran Member
Thanks Rikke
I have explained why I am posting very little here at present here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35800112
Even this much typing and rat use is very difficult ...
And the focusing point moves along an arc between the two points in your diagram, as distinct from the descriptions (?) in the rambling attacks on me made by Styrofoam Wallhanging.
Thanks for providing the diagram, mate. It also explains why the photographer in the OP's original link will never get it right - and neither will Styrofoam ...
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
I have explained why I am posting very little here at present here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35800112
Even this much typing and rat use is very difficult ...
Yes, among other things.
By developing an intuition for how much the manual focusing ring must be twisted to compensate, perhaps ;-)
And the focusing point moves along an arc between the two points in your diagram, as distinct from the descriptions (?) in the rambling attacks on me made by Styrofoam Wallhanging.
Thanks for providing the diagram, mate. It also explains why the photographer in the OP's original link will never get it right - and neither will Styrofoam ...
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
John King
Veteran Member
Gidday Pablo
.
If some others here were to try this instead of seeking to attack others at any and all points, the forum would be considerably less dysfunctional (and so would they ... maybe ... ).
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
Glad to be of some help to you, Sire ...
.If some others here were to try this instead of seeking to attack others at any and all points, the forum would be considerably less dysfunctional (and so would they ... maybe ... ).
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group
John King
Veteran Member
As usual from Styrofoam Wallhanging:
Having strongly implied that I was wrong in his first two posts in this thread, he then says that I am right ...
THEN goes on with a whole lot of irrelevant drivel apparently to attack me personally and to attempt to confuse a simple, clear photographic technique understood by almost everyone with any experience in photography, except for him, and the person in the link in the OP's post ...
Well done, Styrofoam!
Or, to put this in pictures ...
-
Having strongly implied that I was wrong in his first two posts in this thread, he then says that I am right ...
THEN goes on with a whole lot of irrelevant drivel apparently to attack me personally and to attempt to confuse a simple, clear photographic technique understood by almost everyone with any experience in photography, except for him, and the person in the link in the OP's post ...
Well done, Styrofoam!
Or, to put this in pictures ...
-
kernow
Veteran Member
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I was simply pointing out that manual focus would eliminate this problem entirely. Something old revisited.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum