"Why Focus-Recompose Sucks" - your solution?

[digital ed]

Panoramic photographers use very expensive fancypants tripod heads that change the center of rotation from the tripod post to whatever the nodal point is. This permits panoramics with no parallax shift. I doubt it's realistically possible to put into practice when handholding. I'm not sure how it helps the focus and recompose problem however.
http://www.photoklarno.com

Let me ask a question. How many portraiture photographers hand hold to take portraits? At the shutter speeds normally used, the potential of camera movement during shutter activation is too high to risk losing the photograph. If you are shooting snapshots then do whatever you can to keep the eyes in focus. If you are seriously wanting to take good portraiture photographs (which I assume the original poster is) then learn the proven techniques in many books and on-line websites. There are no shortcuts.

edited: Shutter speed shows my roots in portraiture using flood lamps not strobes. However, my original question is still valid.

 

[Luke Kaven]

There is a big hole in the technology when it comes to focusing outside the focus points. The last thing you want to do is have the focus points tell you where to put the subject.
...

The idea is to use a focus point that is close to where you want to put the subject. That way, you only need to rotate the camera a short distance if you choose to focus and recompose from that point. That will minimize the focus error.

Just as I said further down in the post. But my point in the first line you quoted is that there is some habitual tendency for people to compromise their work by composing so the subject hits a focus point.

 

[Josefin]

How many portraiture photographers hand hold to take portraits?

I usually do.

At the shutter speeds normally used, the potential of camera movement during shutter activation is too high to risk losing the photograph.

The shutter speed I use for portraiture with the E-3 is almost invariably 1/250s. Not that it matters all that much because the flash duration is much, much shorter. With the amount of light put out by the monoblocs, the lens will not exactly be wide open so DOF is anything but super shallow. Camera shake is pretty far down on my list of things to worry about.

edited: Shutter speed shows my roots in portraiture using flood lamps not strobes.

Ah, you had less lumens to play with. That makes a world of difference of course.

However, my original question is still valid.

About how many shoot portraits handheld? I guess we'll have to have a poll to find out.

--
Rikke

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

I find tripod shots end up very static and lifeless. In any case, with 1/800 sec strobes and a portrait lens, who's worried about shake? The biggest problem is finding modelling lights bright enough for the AF to key in. That and the strain on the knees getting the shooting height right.

 

[Jeff Charles]

There is a big hole in the technology when it comes to focusing outside the focus points. The last thing you want to do is have the focus points tell you where to put the subject.
...

The idea is to use a focus point that is close to where you want to put the subject. That way, you only need to rotate the camera a short distance if you choose to focus and recompose from that point. That will minimize the focus error.

Just as I said further down in the post. But my point in the first line you quoted is that there is some habitual tendency for people to compromise their work by composing so the subject hits a focus point.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. You are right about the tendency to compose based on the selected focus point staying on the subject. I've probably done that myself.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

 

[Jeff Charles]

...
The points of foci are an arc not a plane.

I assume you mean that when you rotate the camera, the points of focus form an arc. When the camera is still, the points of focus are in a plane parallel to the film plane. Right?

Therefore, as the camera is properly rotated so the arc remains on the eyes, the eyes will stay in focus.
...

This doesn't sound right to me. Let me illustrate why with an extreme example: Place a camera on a tripod 200 meters from a 500 meter tall building. Aim the camera at a gargoyle at the top of the building and set focus. Rotate the camera so that the film plane is parallel to the side of the building and take a photo. Will the gargoyle be in focus in the photo? No, because focus is set to 500+ meters, while the gargoyle is now intersected by a plane parallel to, and only 200 meters from the film plane.

How could any camera rotation technique prevent this problem, which is essentially the same as focusing on a person's eyes and then recomposing?

If I am not seeing this clearly, a diagram would help.
--
Jeff

'Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' The Dude

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

i) is it not just a little cumbersome? Would not multi point AF be simpler? Or a tape measure.

ii) Even if you do swing the camera round the entrance pupil, it doesn't actually solve the D/cos θ problem. What it does is ensure that D/cos θ is an accurate measure of the actual focussed distance. If θ is subtended somewhere else than the entrance pupil, there is another small error term that creeps in, but it's so small that no-one had bothered with it. Probably not big enough to necessitate the bother of finding the entrance pupil position for all your lenses, investing in a pano head and tripod and using such a long winded and laborious focussing technique.

The points of foci are an arc not a plane. Therefore, as the camera is properly rotated so the arc remains on the eyes, the eyes will stay in focus.

You are confusing two different things. There is a plane of focus, which is the projection of the (flat) sensor through the lens. Because it is flat, different parts are at different distances from the lens. If you take a line through the axis of the lens, mark a point on that at the focussed distance, then rotate the camera, that point will describe an arc. If you kept the camera still, and placed objects along that arc, you'd find the ones in teh edges of teh frame OOF, because they will be in front of the plane of focus.

The real discussion here (reading between the posts) is whether one is taking snapshots or portraiture photography. Snapshots are easy. Portraiture photography is extremely difficult to get all parameters in artistic balance. Thousands of books are written on this subject as well as college and private courses. If snapshots are the desire then snap away. If proper portraiture is the goal then there are no quick solutions.

I think the question of accurate focus with wide angles and medium to close subject distances is relevant to many more genre than portraiture.

 

[Luke Kaven]

There is a big hole in the technology when it comes to focusing outside the focus points. The last thing you want to do is have the focus points tell you where to put the subject.
...

The idea is to use a focus point that is close to where you want to put the subject. That way, you only need to rotate the camera a short distance if you choose to focus and recompose from that point. That will minimize the focus error.

Just as I said further down in the post. But my point in the first line you quoted is that there is some habitual tendency for people to compromise their work by composing so the subject hits a focus point.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. You are right about the tendency to compose based on the selected focus point staying on the subject. I've probably done that myself.

I've done it too. I think everybody feels a gravitational pull from a focus point. I wonder where the ideal system is. Having focus sensors framewide would help.

I think autofocus is due for a breakthrough somewhere. I keep hearing rumors of new technology coming out of Nikon just down the road, but I've never heard anything specific.

 

[John King]

...

Thanks for providing the diagram, mate. It also explains why the photographer in the OP's original link will never get it right ...
...

Not sure how that can be, since the link and the diagram say the same thing.

No. Same diagram, different procedure, and conclusions ...

As I read the link, it shows the photographer focusing on a point in the same plane as the subject. As Rikke's diagram shows, this will always be further away from the camera than the subject. This will result in the subject being OoF ...

[EDIT]
I just re-read the link.
It clearly shows the photographer's misuse of focus and re-compose.

He is taking a focus point that is in the same plane of focus as the subject point of focus, then moving the camera so that the point focused on is now at a different distance from the lens/sensor ...

He has merely demonstrated his (mis-)understanding of why what he is doing won't work, lol.

It is because he does not understand the fundamental basis of the focus and recompose technique ...
The points must be equidistant from the lens/sensor.
[end edit]

Focus and recompose always requires (doh!) that the focusing point and the subject are at the same distance. Nothing in the same plane of focus as the subject will be, except when that point is very close to the subject itself, and a small distance from the subject relative to the camera-subject distance (angular displacement is small ... ).

If you focus on a point the same distance from the camera as the subject (is that not what equidistant means) then the focus gets set the same as if you focussed on the subject itself, and when you swing the camera, it's wrong again.
Why not focus on the subject?

Read some basic photography books, and take some photographs ...
You will soon learn why ...

[EDIT]

Here is a link that should help your current level of understanding of this technique:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/toptips/focus-method/
[end edit]

Or is that not what you meant?

I will explain it all to you when my elbow has healed up.
Not supposed to use the keyboard or mouse at present.

-

 

[Gregm61]

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....

Those happened to be the ones I uploaded here, but there are other samples from my website where faces are further off-center, with no shift of sharpness as far as I can see. Shooting portraits, I don't think I have ever places eyes much, if any further off-center than these samples.

 

[Gregm61]

It would be interesting to here what this guys does...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35740058

 

[Josefin]

[EDIT]

Here is a link that should help your current level of understanding of this technique:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/toptips/focus-method/
[end edit]

The part where it says " With a DSLR, it is often necessary to compose first . When necessary, manually change the default focus point , usually the center point, so it’s over the area of the subject you want in sharp focus . Then take the picture "?

(my emphases)
--
Rikke

 

[Josefin]

I've done it too. I think everybody feels a gravitational pull from a focus point. I wonder where the ideal system is. Having focus sensors framewide would help.

Actually, one neat thing about a mirrorless system is that contrast AF works everywhere on the sensor. What I would like is the ability to move one (or two) little red markers around in the viewfinder with a little thumb operated joystick, thereby telling the camera that I want this point to be in focus. Using two markers will allow us to tell the camera that we want both this and this in focus and thereby force it to select an aperture that gives us sufficient DOF to include both points. The Canon 1V calls this DEP mode (depth of field mode). On the Canon you aim a focus point on the nearest and the farthest thing you want included. My suggestion is to take advantage of contrast AF and allow you to pick the points anywhere in the frame.

--
Rikke

 

[John King]

Rikke

[EDIT]

Here is a link that should help your current level of understanding of this technique:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/toptips/focus-method/
[end edit]

The part where it says " With a DSLR, it is often necessary to compose first . When necessary, manually change the default focus point , usually the center point, so it’s over the area of the subject you want in sharp focus . Then take the picture "?

(my emphases)

No.1: It's a joke, Joyce ...

No.2: While resting today, I started to write down:

• The permutations and combinations of focus point/composition;
• Complete lack of a focus point (using hyperfocal distances in a variety of different ways and with different subjects);
• Combinations arising from the variety of AF/MF commonly available;
• Combinations of using the above point along with varying camera-specific abilities (e.g. E-510 - E-620 - E-30 - E-3 etc);
• Ramifications of face detect technologies embedded in the Pens, E-620/30 ...

ALL of these techniques have a place. I have used every single one of them at one time or another. I expect that every other serious/experienced photographer has too. For Newman to suggest that they don't exist or have no relevance is ludicrous in the extreme.

Just for starters.

I expect you to understand this ...

Equally, I expect Styrofoam to take issue with anything I say, regardless. That is why Newman registered this particular nick (among others) ...

Well, that's the limit of my 'elbow room' for today. So see you later.

--
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

 

[Josefin]

• Ramifications of face detect technologies embedded in the Pens, E-620/30 ...

What are your thoughts on this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35824053

--
Rikke

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

...

Thanks for providing the diagram, mate. It also explains why the photographer in the OP's original link will never get it right ...
...

Not sure how that can be, since the link and the diagram say the same thing.

No. Same diagram, different procedure, and conclusions ...

As I read the link, it shows the photographer focusing on a point in the same plane as the subject. As Rikke's diagram shows, this will always be further away from the camera than the subject. This will result in the subject being OoF ...

[EDIT]
I just re-read the link.
It clearly shows the photographer's misuse of focus and re-compose.

He is taking a focus point that is in the same plane of focus as the subject point of focus, then moving the camera so that the point focused on is now at a different distance from the lens/sensor ...

He has merely demonstrated his (mis-)understanding of why what he is doing won't work, lol.

It is because he does not understand the fundamental basis of the focus and recompose technique ...
The points must be equidistant from the lens/sensor.
[end edit]

Focus and recompose always requires (doh!) that the focusing point and the subject are at the same distance. Nothing in the same plane of focus as the subject will be, except when that point is very close to the subject itself, and a small distance from the subject relative to the camera-subject distance (angular displacement is small ... ).

If you focus on a point the same distance from the camera as the subject (is that not what equidistant means) then the focus gets set the same as if you focussed on the subject itself, and when you swing the camera, it's wrong again.
Why not focus on the subject?

Read some basic photography books, and take some photographs ...
You will soon learn why ...

[EDIT]

Here is a link that should help your current level of understanding of this technique:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/toptips/focus-method/
[end edit]

Nope. That confirms my understanding (and that of the author of the page cited in the OP) of how focus/recompose works, that you focus on the subject with it in the centre of the frame, the recompose . You on the other hand seem to be saying either that it's a technique in which you focus on an object that you know will be at the distance of the subject in the focus plane as it will be positioned in the final print and then recompose or that you ensure that the subject is at the same distance after you recompose as it was when you focussed. I just can't see how either of tehse techniques could work.

All I am asking is my understanding of the technique that you say is f&r correct, and if not, what is your technique for overcoming the D/cos theta issue, other than 'practice', because usually practice doesn't work very well unless you know what it is you're aiming for.

Or is that not what you meant?

I will explain it all to you when my elbow has healed up.
Not supposed to use the keyboard or mouse at present.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

[EDIT]

Here is a link that should help your current level of understanding of this technique:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/learn/toptips/focus-method/
[end edit]

The part where it says " With a DSLR, it is often necessary to compose first . When necessary, manually change the default focus point , usually the center point, so it�s over the area of the subject you want in sharp focus . Then take the picture "?

(my emphases)

No.1: It's a joke, Joyce ...

No.2: While resting today, I started to write down:

• The permutations and combinations of focus point/composition;
• Complete lack of a focus point (using hyperfocal distances in a variety of different ways and with different subjects);
• Combinations arising from the variety of AF/MF commonly available;
• Combinations of using the above point along with varying camera-specific abilities (e.g. E-510 - E-620 - E-30 - E-3 etc);
• Ramifications of face detect technologies embedded in the Pens, E-620/30 ...

ALL of these techniques have a place. I have used every single one of them at one time or another. I expect that every other serious/experienced photographer has too. For Newman to suggest that they don't exist or have no relevance is ludicrous in the extreme.

Could you please post a link to where anyone has said or suggested that these techniques 'don't exist or have no relevance'. If you can't, your lame attempt, once again, to cover for your mistakes by misrepresenting what others say will indeed appear to be 'ludicrous in the extreme'.

Just for starters.

I expect you to understand this ...

Equally, I expect Styrofoam to take issue with anything I say, regardless. That is why Newman registered this particular nick (among others) ...

What I expect you to do is answer the simple question set to clarify what you say, rather that trying to cover by lying about what others have said. So, once again:

1. If you focus on a point the same distance from the camera as the subject (is that not what equidistant means) then the focus gets set the same as if you focussed on the subject itself, and when you swing the camera, it's wrong again. Why not focus on the subject?
2. You seem to be saying either that f&r is a technique in which you focus on an object that you know will be at the distance of the subject in the focus plane as it will be positioned in the final print and then recompose or that you ensure that the subject is at the same distance after you recompose as it was when you focussed. Is this understanding of the technique that you say is f&r correct, and if not, what is your technique for overcoming the D/cos theta issue?

Well, that's the limit of my 'elbow room' for today. So see you later.

Glad to see that your elbow's not stopping you putting in a few of the usual gratuitous lies and insults. Why not try devoting what elbow power you have to answering the questions ?

 

[John King]

In your dreams, Newman.

I don't come and go at your beck and call - and you patently cannot stand that ...
See a caring professional, don't whinge and moan at me about your problems.

Seeing as how you never answer straight questions, why do you expect others to treat you differently?

Your resorting to abuse and invective merely encourages the same in others, whom you then blame for their response to your uncivilised behaviour ...

I told you, I will do this when my elbow is healed ...
IF you start behaving like a civilised human being ...
AND IF I feel like doing so.

I am now going to bed, having taken a whole swag of pk's etc, and hope (perhaps) to get a fair night's sleep ...
Fat lot you care about anyone but your precious self ...

Get used to it Newman.
We are not your lackeys.

AND: Every silver lining has its clod.

-

 

[Tyrone Wellhung]

In your dreams, Newman.

I don't come and go at your beck and call - and you patently cannot stand that ...
See a caring professional, don't whinge and moan at me about your problems.

Seeing as how you never answer straight questions, why do you expect others to treat you differently?

Your resorting to abuse and invective merely encourages the same in others, whom you then blame for their response to your uncivilised behaviour ...

I told you, I will do this when my elbow is healed ...
IF you start behaving like a civilised human being ...
AND IF I feel like doing so.

I am now going to bed, having taken a whole swag of pk's etc, and hope (perhaps) to get a fair night's sleep ...
Fat lot you care about anyone but your precious self ...

Get used to it Newman.
We are not your lackeys.

AND: Every silver lining has its clod.

-

 

[rovingtim]

What's wrong with Panny's touch screen on their micro cameras?