Should I be happy ? Pixel peeing and focus failing.

A model I know shared some pictures of herself looking androgynous so I said I'd like to do something mono portraits of her in that style. I used that shoot to test the Fuji DFX100-II, but shot some with the K1 as well, and this was made with the K1 and DFA*85



If you're going to comment, just give the picture a moment before blasting down to the bottom.

It was shot at ISO 400, f/2.5 and 1/250th: because of the light behind her (there are windows on multiple side of the studio space and skylights in the roof - it's being inside a softbox). the K1 under exposed by about 1 stop which is easily fixed in processing,

Here's the pre-B&W conversion. I like the arrangement and her expression enough to produce the version you see above - that's been retouched but I hope not in a heavy handed way. Apart from the exposure tweak it's as the camera saw it





There's a degree of visualizing this as the final B&W, and when we get threads about the K3-III mono I wonder how that would have rendered the image. It would, I suspect, be harder to darken the jacket as I've done above.

Now ... An initial bit of Pixel Peeping tells the 85/K1 pack in more detail than we need (and looking at the Fuji's 100MP images, that's way more).







I've said before if you photograph attractive women and find yourself photoshopping out nasal hair (you might need to open the original) that's an indication you have too much resolution. We can also see there are some skin blemishes; and I think it's worth taking a few moments to retouch those out before saying "done"

But zoomed in like this, lets take a look at the eyes





We can see the further eye is quite a long way out of focus (the eyelash isn't resolved). and the nearer eye is a bit out of focus - the Iris isn't sharp. "K1 fails again" although it's "James fails" because I selected the focus point one position too high in the frame and the camera has locked onto the hair above her eyebrow. If I had used a smaller aperture the error would be less noticeable, but the hand and ear would also be sharper, and I don't want them too sharp.

But it is it really a fail ? When you looked the picture did the slight front focus even register ? The things that I notice is how the expression has created a crease between the eyebrows, and the prominent hair above that (I might retouch that hair out )

Here's a shot taken a few minutes late with the fuji and I liked the way her hair accidentally formed "devil horns".





Is it better ? The fuji got the eye this well focused and this detailed on every shot.





Is "but it's not perfectly in focus" just the voice of the 'imposter syndrome" devil saying "your pictures are no good, and here's a reason" Is "Sharp enough", enough?

Hi ya James I hope I have not confused you my ranting James.

My opinions are way way out there and many many photographers will disagree with some of my claims ( but that does not concern me either way )

Anyway, the photographer is always right. You have to decide how sharp is enough and whether something is a dud due to focus error. Some will say it depends on the print size and that is true but I would also add that even a slightly dud eye out of focus will still look very good at a decent viewing distance. There are many complex answers.

The model photos you are showing are excellent so yes you need to keep up with this model photo thing you have going on. ( The one the other week you posted was a superb exceptional photo for example. )

A K1 iii will arrive and perhaps be a lot closer to live with so your original wish list is still likely sound thinking. As is your idea to dabble with mirrorless perhaps.

There are different ways of shooting everything and yes models need not be in high resolution with every dot on the skin visible but there will be some photos that will look amazing because it is showing everything.

My D700 misses focus but only just. It works for me with people shots. I personally have no ambition to correct the issue. That does not mean I am right if I were to show the pictures to other people. Model and people photography has many many pitfalls like colour of skin and make up in lights. It is way more tricky than many of us realize until you have shot a session yourself. A beautiful lady that I photographed has dark eyes and what with the eye liner as well it has been hell both times and she is gorgeous in real life. The first time she had a long ( black ) fringe that clashed with her eyes and eye liner. That was hell. You have no idea that the photo will struggle in PP from such things until you have been there and done it.

Sometimes focus is subjective. Only you know the answer.

( I hate gear talk but this one I have made an exception since it has been an exceptional couple of weeks for me regards Gear Talk. The Xmeda Q post my favourite. That caught him out. The Q10 sensor measures better than the bigger sensor Q7 according to Bill Claff. It should be way worse. He soon recovered back to the troll posts very quickly though sigh :-D )

Regards Dino26323

The K1 did good in my opinion. It is a great photo. I have no problem with the focus. Were one eye nailed on right then the whole thing would not have worked as well especially in print ( but photoshop can get around many issues for you too given 4 hours work for 10 to 20 shots or something. Exactly. There are no easy answers )

Regards Dino26323

I'm far from an expert in this genre, I've only dabbled, however perhaps its worth considering that a portrait photo is not a macro photo and therefore need not be so technically correct like a macro photo. Yes not everything needs to be perfectly in focus unless perhaps if you're blowing the photo up to something like life size or larger where people will be able to see every pore. Also remember that traditional portraiture was done at F5.6 and even smaller apertures, traditional portraiture attempted to get the whole subject in focus, not just the eyes.

In my opinion, the first photo is good, although a little more DOF would help. The second one is way too oversharpened. Human beings (even pretty women with good skin) don't need to be shot with such sharpness and clarity.

Hi James O'Neill

Portrait for me It is the art that is not related to the full focus on the face. It is the art that conveys a certain mood. I do not care if the focus is on the eyes or one eye or if the eyelashes are very visible or the pimples on the face. What matters to me is the mood as a whole. I will see the whole picture and not parts. My impression of the picture is wonderful. The most wonderful thing is the details that you wrote in the post. The model is attractive by the way and the picture is completely successful for me.

I like the cropped one #3

Oh

here is a portrait i have made years ago with k1 and zies 50mm .the focus is on one eye but it works for me and I decided to print it









--
pentaxian .

Dino26323 said:

Hi ya James I hope I have not confused you my ranting James.

My opinions are way way out there and many many photographers will disagree with some of my claims ( but that does not concern me either way )

Click to expand...

You didn't confuse me, I thought it was part of a good and interesting discussion but wanted to keep a separate strand.

Dino26323 said:

Anyway, the photographer is always right. You have to decide how sharp is enough and whether something is a dud due to focus error.

Click to expand...

I think this is an important part that we are missing. With digital we have taken to pixel peeping, and crazy levels of magnification ... it's like taking a digital recording of an orchestra and complaining that one of the violins is 10th of a semitone flat, or the trumpets came in 100th a second too soon. We should look at the whole picture with the range, noise / film grain, lens/medium resolution, aberrations, distortions, and whatever has been in processing and assess the whole thing.

Dino26323 said:

The model photos you are showing are excellent so yes you need to keep up with this model photo thing you have going on. ( The one the other week you posted was a superb exceptional photo for example. )

Click to expand...

Thank you. That's appreciated, I've been doing it since before I got my *ist-D, probably will keep doing it as long as my eye sight and mobility hold up...

Dino26323 said:

A K1 iii will arrive and perhaps be a lot closer to live with so your original wish list is still likely sound thinking. As is your idea to dabble with mirrorless perhaps.

Click to expand...

I've given the Fuji and the Sony A7R IV serious test drives, and had the K1 there for comparison. The Sony was better on paper than in reality. The Fuji proved that while and EVF is still nicer, and nothing has beaten hyper program and the green button on Pentaxes, it is possible to build a MILC I can live with. Whether I make one my main camera is difficult to predict, it depends on a lot on whether / when Ricoh deliver a new FF

Dino26323 said:

There are different ways of shooting everything and yes models need not be in high resolution with every dot on the skin visible but there will be some photos that will look amazing because it is showing everything.

Click to expand...

there's a level of resolution which looks amazing because you see the texture of mascara, eyes are clear and so on. But when it's almost like shooting macro of a human instead of a portrait.

Dino26323 said:

My D700 misses focus but only just. It works for me with people shots. I personally have no ambition to correct the issue. That does not mean I am right if I were to show the pictures to other people. Model and people photography has many many pitfalls like colour of skin and make up in lights. It is way more tricky than many of us realize until you have shot a session yourself. A beautiful lady that I photographed has dark eyes and what with the eye liner as well it has been hell both times and she is gorgeous in real life. The first time she had a long ( black ) fringe that clashed with her eyes and eye liner. That was hell. You have no idea that the photo will struggle in PP from such things until you have been there and done it.

Click to expand...

As you can tell I understand that!

Dino26323 said:

Sometimes focus is subjective. Only you know the answer

Click to expand...

I think there are distinct things - what do I want to be unsharp / clear / in the transition zone. That's an artistic thing. How exactly did I / the camera focus at the distance where I want maximum clarity ? And then what do we think of the result?

And I think there is too much worry about the second instead of the third. I need to print a poster of HCB's "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

Dino26323 said:

( I hate gear talk but this one I have made an exception since it has been an exceptional couple of weeks for me regards Gear Talk. The Xmeda Q post my favourite. That caught him out. The Q10 sensor measures better than the bigger sensor Q7 according to Bill Claff. It should be way worse. He soon recovered back to the troll posts very quickly though sigh :-D )

Click to expand...

>"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

In our digital age, when even the proletariat has gained access to high quality photography equipment, sharpness has become more of an older men's concept. As you know perfectly well, a woman will always choose the photo where she looks the best regardless of the focus.

alex_virt said:

In my opinion, the first photo is good, although a little more DOF would help. The second one is way too oversharpened. Human beings (even pretty women with good skin) don't need to be shot with such sharpness and clarity.

Click to expand...

As I said with the first one I I wanted the hands and ear being shading into unsharp, a little more D.o.F perhaps, but I wouldn't a lot more.

The second is was processed with the lightroom defaults. I wonder if with a lens that sharp on a 100MP chip, I might need to turn that down.

zakaria said:

Hi James O'Neill

Portrait for me It is the art that is not related to the full focus on the face. It is the art that conveys a certain mood. I do not care if the focus is on the eyes or one eye or if the eyelashes are very visible or the pimples on the face. What matters to me is the mood as a whole. I will see the whole picture and not parts. My impression of the picture is wonderful. The most wonderful thing is the details that you wrote in the post. The model is attractive by the way and the picture is completely successful for me.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much!

zakaria said:

I like the cropped one #3

Oh

here is a portrait i have made years ago with k1 and zies 50mm .the focus is on one eye but it works for me and I decided to print it

Click to expand...

That's beautiful , mood and light are superb. I can't see where the focus is and I don't need to .

James O'Neill said:

alex_virt said:

In my opinion, the first photo is good, although a little more DOF would help. The second one is way too oversharpened. Human beings (even pretty women with good skin) don't need to be shot with such sharpness and clarity.

Click to expand...

As I said with the first one I I wanted the hands and ear being shading into unsharp, a little more D.o.F perhaps, but I wouldn't a lot more.

Click to expand...

I guess, F4 would do.

James O'Neill said:

The second is was processed with the lightroom defaults. I wonder if with a lens that sharp on a 100MP chip, I might need to turn that down.

Click to expand...

Default sharpness is 40, which is way too high for portraits.

An image can be in focus and not be sharp.

I have several lenses that are not sharp but having focus not on fall on the subject can diminish the quality and the success of the photograph. One can see by how the amount of blur increases and where it happens can have impact on the photo, if the nose or the ears are in focus while the eye or eyes are not that can be distracting.

I point this out because many people clump focus and sharpness to mean the same thing when they are not.

Many times, people will clump too sharp with in fact it can be processing that are causing the problems. This can be caused by the use of sharpening to correct for miss focused. This can cause noise, reduce the quality of how the in focus transition into out of focus and even decrease the look and the quality of the bokeh.

Another problem when introducing sharpening to correct for focus error there can be sharping that is also being applied to artifacts and moire. We also run into the problem that sharpening will also be applied to spurious detail, this is a problem I see regularly with bird and wildlife we will see unnatural detail in fur and feather detail and the leading problem is sharping for missed focus.

How much a missed focus can impact the image is really up to the user, but one also has to consider that where you place the focus is as much a component of composition as to how you frame the image.







I don' think the impact of the photographs would convey as much if I have missed the focus.

There is also the issue of using DOF to hide missed focus, this will impact your subject isolation and noise. There is also even when you increase the DOF you can still see that there is a missed focus when viewed at smaller prints.

One of the number one problem I see when people evaluate quality of a lens and how sharp it is, is down to the quality of focus.



Would you be shocked to know this was taken with a kit zoom wide-open, without the need for heavy sharpening in post you don't see the many of the distracting artifacts from missed focus.

I have many old lenses that many would consider as very poor when shot wide open but much of that was from focus error.



This was taken with a 50mm lens from the 70's shot wide-open at ƒ1.2. everyone tell me this lens was not very sharp but when focused correctly it really is.

Much of the sticklers for me when it comes to focus is that it reduces the need to stop down the lens, you can reduce the noise at the time of capture, for me where the focus point fall is a component to composition and mainly I don't take photographs to please other people and if it can be done correctly the first time it saves me a lot of time to enjoy the process of taken photo's

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

[No message]

Very good write up, however I'm not sure your second last photo was with a kit zoom lens.

alex_virt said:

James O'Neill said:

alex_virt said:

In my opinion, the first photo is good, although a little more DOF would help. The second one is way too oversharpened. Human beings (even pretty women with good skin) don't need to be shot with such sharpness and clarity.

Click to expand...

As I said with the first one I I wanted the hands and ear being shading into unsharp, a little more D.o.F perhaps, but I wouldn't a lot more.

Click to expand...

I guess, F4 would do.

alex_virt said:

The second is was processed with the lightroom defaults. I wonder if with a lens that sharp on a 100MP chip, I might need to turn that down.

Click to expand...

Default sharpness is 40, which is way too high for portraits.

Click to expand...

Oddly I for portraits which are more "beauty" focussed I will often turn the clarity / texture down a little, but I have some from this shoot where I have left them on 0 and sharpening on the defaults. Those definitely look at little over sharpened.

I'm also wondering if my characterization of the the DFA* 85 as a bit "clinical" is because it's getting more sharpening by default than it needs.

But this is part of the same thing about obsessing on sharpness / sharpening, and treating Adobe's default as a minimum. It really isn't

A very cogent response. Work is calling but I must reply to it properly when I get time.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

An image can be in focus and not be sharp.

I have several lenses that are not sharp but having focus not on fall on the subject can diminish the quality and the success of the photograph. One can see by how the amount of blur increases and where it happens can have impact on the photo, if the nose or the ears are in focus while the eye or eyes are not that can be distracting.

I point this out because many people clump focus and sharpness to mean the same thing when they are not.

Many times, people will clump too sharp with in fact it can be processing that are causing the problems. This can be caused by the use of sharpening to correct for miss focused. This can cause noise, reduce the quality of how the in focus transition into out of focus and even decrease the look and the quality of the bokeh.

Another problem when introducing sharpening to correct for focus error there can be sharping that is also being applied to artifacts and moire. We also run into the problem that sharpening will also be applied to spurious detail, this is a problem I see regularly with bird and wildlife we will see unnatural detail in fur and feather detail and the leading problem is sharping for missed focus.

How much a missed focus can impact the image is really up to the user, but one also has to consider that where you place the focus is as much a component of composition as to how you frame the image.



Amazing

....

Agree about the focus and sharpness. I may add the clarity which is different than the sharpness

I think

Editing can't correct the bad focus



I don' think the impact of the photographs would convey as much if I have missed the focus.

There is also the issue of using DOF to hide missed focus, this will impact your subject isolation and noise. There is also even when you increase the DOF you can still see that there is a missed focus when viewed at smaller prints.

One of the number one problem I see when people evaluate quality of a lens and how sharp it is, is down to the quality of focus.



Would you be shocked to know this was taken with a kit zoom wide-open, without the need for heavy sharpening in post you don't see the many of the distracting artifacts from missed focus.

I have many old lenses that many would consider as very poor when shot wide open but much of that was from focus error.



This was taken with a 50mm lens from the 70's shot wide-open at ƒ1.2. everyone tell me this lens was not very sharp but when focused correctly it really is.

Much of the sticklers for me when it comes to focus is that it reduces the need to stop down the lens, you can reduce the noise at the time of capture, for me where the focus point fall is a component to composition and mainly I don't take photographs to please other people and if it can be done correctly the first time it saves me a lot of time to enjoy the process of taken photo's

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

Click to expand...

--
pentaxian .

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

An image can be in focus and not be sharp.

I have several lenses that are not sharp but having focus not on fall on the subject can diminish the quality and the success of the photograph.

Click to expand...

There are of course two things, on is a lens quality / design thing - how much "smudge" is there at transition from back to white - we can measure who much light falls in the dark zone, or close pairs of lines need to be before the smudge renders them as one.
But also the shaking of the photographer's hand or the movement of the subject can render things blurred (and we can pan with moving subject keeping it sharp and streaking the back ground)
AND
Where the lens is focused. An unsharp lens with its centre of focus a given distance from the image will focus light from a particular distance

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

One can see by how the amount of blur increases and where it happens can have impact on the photo, if the nose or the ears are in focus while the eye or eyes are not that can be distracting.

Click to expand...

I think there is a stage when we first pick a camera where we think everything should be sharp and the subject should be in the middle and then we find "hey I can make a tiny bit sharp in a huge picture (and it can be off centre)" and then we learn how to use what. We also quite quickly learn - even if we don't always know that we know - that the eye goes to what's got clear edges, patterns, shapes, colours, faces (and how it picks one face over another). We get a conflict - you say distracting to me it's more cognitive dissonance - where the more conscious process says we should look here and the more reflex one says look there. Because seeing where people (and predatory and prey animals) are looking is important we go to the eyes in a face. As you say if they is unsharp and the ear is sharp our brains often don't like it.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

I point this out because many people clump focus and sharpness to mean the same thing when they are not.

Many times, people will clump too sharp with in fact it can be processing that are causing the problems. This can be caused by the use of sharpening to correct for miss focused. This can cause noise, reduce the quality of how the in focus transition into out of focus and even decrease the look and the quality of the bokeh.

Click to expand...

I am starting to think I've been underestimating the significance of sharpening in the process. Because there is a "pretty much sharp" zone, a "really unsharp" and a transition zone, what is in each and how rapid the transition is forms part of the composition, sharpening in processing messes with what is those zones and with the rendering of the out of focus parts.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

Another problem when introducing sharpening to correct for focus error there can be sharping that is also being applied to artifacts and moire. We also run into the problem that sharpening will also be applied to spurious detail, this is a problem I see regularly with bird and wildlife we will see unnatural detail in fur and feather detail and the leading problem is sharping for missed focus.

How much a missed focus can impact the image is really up to the user, but one also has to consider that where you place the focus is as much a component of composition as to how you frame the image.







I don' think the impact of the photographs would convey as much if I have missed the focus.

Click to expand...

You're right they wouldn't... but it depends where you call a miss. With the ant the eye is the sharpest point, zoom in enough the bases of the antennae aren't as sharp would you have lost the impact if the antenna base was sharpest ? How small does the error need to be before it's a "hit"

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

There is also the issue of using DOF to hide missed focus, this will impact your subject isolation and noise

Click to expand...

And this is the big one for me. The size of of the circle of confusion at infinity varies with aperture. Double the aperture and you halve the circle size at every distance all the way to infinity. What had become a mush now has identifiable features and what wasn't quite sharp is now indistinguishable from sharp. In my photo with the rings I don't want the rings with their bright finish, patterns, and well defined edges to be sharp because it will pull the viewers eye away from the face.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

There is also even when you increase the DOF you can still see that there is a missed focus when viewed at smaller prints.

Click to expand...

Again, degree of miss. If you can see it in a given print it's a miss. D.o.F helps to hide it.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

One of the number one problem I see when people evaluate quality of a lens and how sharp it is, is down to the quality of focus.

Click to expand...

If you're saying what I think you are, that people say good lens or bad lens when actually, it is well focused / badly focused - there are a lot of cases where that is true.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

Would you be shocked to know this was taken with a kit zoom wide-open, without the need for heavy sharpening in post you don't see the many of the distracting artifacts from missed focus.

Click to expand...

I'd say DPR is showing me the wrong exif data then. But I take the point that it is well focused

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

I have many old lenses that many would consider as very poor when shot wide open but much of that was from focus error.



This was taken with a 50mm lens from the 70's shot wide-open at ƒ1.2. everyone tell me this lens was not very sharp but when focused correctly it really is.

Click to expand...

I think this is from things like "but wide open are the corners sharp?" (answer "How would I know, I never put what I want to have maximum sharpness in the corners")

Those no lack of sharpness in that picture overall.

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

Much of the sticklers for me when it comes to focus is that it reduces the need to stop down the lens, you can reduce the noise at the time of capture, for me where the focus point fall is a component to composition and mainly I don't take photographs to please other people and if it can be done correctly the first time it saves me a lot of time to enjoy the process of taken photo's

Click to expand...

The K1 issue is that it can't be left to chose the focus point(s) for itself and the attention a photographer needs to devote to keeping the selected point on the key part of the image.

MightyMike said:

Very good write up, however I'm not sure your second last photo was with a kit zoom lens.

Click to expand...

It was taken with the 36mp sensor along with a 24-85 ƒ3.5-4.5

The image was fabricated to demonstrate the point in another thread done several months ago that there was too much of a hit to IQ when using a zoom and felt it was a rather good fit here also, just like in that thread no one even questioned whether on not it was taken with a zoom kit or a prime. One of the sad points of the thread a great deal of the post are deleted.







--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

James O'Neill said:

Ian Stuart Forsyth said:

An image can be in focus and not be sharp.

I have several lenses that are not sharp but having focus not on fall on the subject can diminish the quality and the success of the photograph.

Click to expand...

There are of course two things, on is a lens quality / design thing - how much "smudge" is there at transition from back to white - we can measure who much light falls in the dark zone, or close pairs of lines need to be before the smudge renders them as one.
But also the shaking of the photographer's hand or the movement of the subject can render things blurred (and we can pan with moving subject keeping it sharp and streaking the back ground)
AND
Where the lens is focused. An unsharp lens with its centre of focus a given distance from the image will focus light from a particular distance

James O'Neill said:

One can see by how the amount of blur increases and where it happens can have impact on the photo, if the nose or the ears are in focus while the eye or eyes are not that can be distracting.

Click to expand...

I think there is a stage when we first pick a camera where we think everything should be sharp and the subject should be in the middle and then we find "hey I can make a tiny bit sharp in a huge picture (and it can be off centre)" and then we learn how to use what. We also quite quickly learn - even if we don't always know that we know - that the eye goes to what's got clear edges, patterns, shapes, colours, faces (and how it picks one face over another). We get a conflict - you say distracting to me it's more cognitive dissonance - where the more conscious process says we should look here and the more reflex one says look there. Because seeing where people (and predatory and prey animals) are looking is important we go to the eyes in a face. As you say if they is unsharp and the ear is sharp our brains often don't like it.

James O'Neill said:

I point this out because many people clump focus and sharpness to mean the same thing when they are not.

Many times, people will clump too sharp with in fact it can be processing that are causing the problems. This can be caused by the use of sharpening to correct for miss focused. This can cause noise, reduce the quality of how the in focus transition into out of focus and even decrease the look and the quality of the bokeh.

Click to expand...

I am starting to think I've been underestimating the significance of sharpening in the process. Because there is a "pretty much sharp" zone, a "really unsharp" and a transition zone, what is in each and how rapid the transition is forms part of the composition, sharpening in processing messes with what is those zones and with the rendering of the out of focus parts.

Click to expand...

It is kind of a catch 22, If we need to apply sharping to give the appearance of sharpness in a missed focus shot just as you say it messes with those other zones. We also see that as iso is increased we have to contend with noise and that sharpening will exacerbate that noise so start to use more aggressive NR, this then requires more sharpening that can lead to unnatural looking details and that fine detail.

So instead of having nice looking hair, feather and fur detail that should look 3D and soft look we are left with flat looking with very little dimension to the structures. One that really bothers me is peoples need to sharp the eye to an unnatural look and loose the fine details around the eye and then there is also the ridged look to the catch light in the eye from over sharping when it should look smoother.

James O'Neill said:

James O'Neill said:

Another problem when introducing sharpening to correct for focus error there can be sharping that is also being applied to artifacts and moire. We also run into the problem that sharpening will also be applied to spurious detail, this is a problem I see regularly with bird and wildlife we will see unnatural detail in fur and feather detail and the leading problem is sharping for missed focus.

How much a missed focus can impact the image is really up to the user, but one also has to consider that where you place the focus is as much a component of composition as to how you frame the image.







I don' think the impact of the photographs would convey as much if I have missed the focus.

Click to expand...

You're right they wouldn't... but it depends where you call a miss. With the ant the eye is the sharpest point, zoom in enough the bases of the antennae aren't as sharp would you have lost the impact if the antenna base was sharpest ? How small does the error need to be before it's a "hit"

James O'Neill said:

There is also the issue of using DOF to hide missed focus, this will impact your subject isolation and noise

Click to expand...

And this is the big one for me. The size of of the circle of confusion at infinity varies with aperture. Double the aperture and you halve the circle size at every distance all the way to infinity. What had become a mush now has identifiable features and what wasn't quite sharp is now indistinguishable from sharp. In my photo with the rings I don't want the rings with their bright finish, patterns, and well defined edges to be sharp because it will pull the viewers eye away from the face.

James O'Neill said:

There is also even when you increase the DOF you can still see that there is a missed focus when viewed at smaller prints.

Click to expand...

Again, degree of miss. If you can see it in a given print it's a miss. D.o.F helps to hide it.

James O'Neill said:

One of the number one problem I see when people evaluate quality of a lens and how sharp it is, is down to the quality of focus.

Click to expand...

If you're saying what I think you are, that people say good lens or bad lens when actually, it is well focused / badly focused - there are a lot of cases where that is true.

James O'Neill said:

Would you be shocked to know this was taken with a kit zoom wide-open, without the need for heavy sharpening in post you don't see the many of the distracting artifacts from missed focus.

Click to expand...

I'd say DPR is showing me the wrong exif data then. But I take the point that it is well focused

Click to expand...

It was taken with a kit zoom

James O'Neill said:

James O'Neill said:

I have many old lenses that many would consider as very poor when shot wide open but much of that was from focus error.



This was taken with a 50mm lens from the 70's shot wide-open at ƒ1.2. everyone tell me this lens was not very sharp but when focused correctly it really is.

Click to expand...

I think this is from things like "but wide open are the corners sharp?" (answer "How would I know, I never put what I want to have maximum sharpness in the corners")

Those no lack of sharpness in that picture overall.

Click to expand...

One of the problems I have with DLSR is that when shooting wildlife often times I am placing the eye or the point of interest near the outer limit of my AF points. If I want to place a bird in portrait orientation while filling the frame with the subject the eye falls at eh very edge of the AF coverage.

James O'Neill said:

James O'Neill said:

Much of the sticklers for me when it comes to focus is that it reduces the need to stop down the lens, you can reduce the noise at the time of capture, for me where the focus point fall is a component to composition and mainly I don't take photographs to please other people and if it can be done correctly the first time it saves me a lot of time to enjoy the process of taken photo's

Click to expand...

The K1 issue is that it can't be left to chose the focus point(s) for itself and the attention a photographer needs to devote to keeping the selected point on the key part of the image.

Click to expand...

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release