What am I doing wrong?

[Kellie]

I am being brave and sharing a picture of my 6 month old, Trey. I am having issues getting color, sharpness, etc right with my 50mm f1.8. I am open to any cc! My pictures using natural light (indoors) seem soft and dull, but I don't want to up the saturation or I end up with red cheeks. I didn't do any of my normal pp, just cropped. I use PSE 5, but am about to download a trial of Bibble. I also have Capture NX (but have yet to shoot RAW :p).

Exif:
1/80
f2.8
ISO 800
CW metering (metered off his face)
Auto WB

I used portrait in optimize image which I believe puts sharpness at +1 and color at Ia. I put the AF point over his eye, but I didn't use the center AF point because I am trying to move away from focus-recompose. Maybe the outer points just aren't strong enough? All of my pictures seem soft. I don't even bother with f1.8. It looks underexposed, but if I go up even 1/3 stop, it blows highlights. What can I do to make this better?

[jcon]

First of all, beautiful child! Thanks for sharing!

For the editing, I would suggest try shooting a few in RAW and editing that way. You are able to do so much more with RAW and I think you will find it easier to get the results you are looking for. Its hard to give specific settings or adjustments as it changes from picture to picture.

Capture NX can be used with either RAW or JPEG.


In my own personal opinion, the picture you posted here looks good to me.



*** Forgot to mention, I do ALL of my sharpening in PP, I almost always have it set to off on the camera.

[Kellie]

Thanks - I think he's pretty cute, too. :)

I'm going to brave RAW. I might as well since I have Capture NX, lol.

His hair is not that orange (slight reddish tint, but much less pronounced than in that picture) and his skin is not that red. My main issue is with the red cast and softness. I'll see how it works with RAW if I can get him to sit still again....

[jcon]

That may be a WB issue then. Open the JPEG with NX and play around with WB and see what you get. OFcourse you could do the same with RAW, but you currently have the JPEG already taken:D

I have noticed that my indoor non flash shots have come out a little on the "warm" side aswell. I really think its WB.

[VTEC_EATER]

I have noticed that my indoor non flash shots have come out a little on the "warm" side aswell.

However, her photo doesn't look very warm. Its seems very blue, and cold making the child's face look pale and far too "rosey" in the cheeks. The problems is with auto white balance that it will not always produce perfect results. Setting up a custom white balance is something I would recommend trying, and then adjusting it from there. Since I do not know the in's and outs of of a D80, I am not familiar with the adjustment options you have with your custom white balance settings. With the D50, I usually set up a custom white balance and then WB bracket from there. I will chose the best of the 3 and use that as my "custom" white balance.

The unfortunate downside to this is that if the lighting changes, the white balance is messed up again.

[Riley]

you might desaturate the portrait,
it looks more flattering, and softer

hes cute isnt he

set your WB from an 18% grey or white card
use your hand if you are in a rush or dont have a card

[Kellie]

I just noticed that Thom Hogan has quite an extensive chapter on white balance in his D80 eBook (I love this book!). I'll start there and mess around with WB in Capture for this jpeg.

[Kellie]

you might desaturate the portrait,
it looks more flattering, and softer

hes cute isnt he

set your WB from an 18% grey or white card
use your hand if you are in a rush or dont have a card

Good idea. I will try a B&W conversion as well. I'm not fond of desaturate, but I have several B&W actions that I can try.

[fugufish]

I recently picked up this lense for my D80. I would try a smaller aperature, say f/5.6 or f/8 to help with the sharpness issue.

http://aaronlinsdau.com/gear/articles/lens_comparison50.html.

One issue I have is that my D80 totally overexposes using it with the built-in flash. I have to dial in -.7 or -1 EV or else everyone looks like ghosts.

[Kellie]

However, her photo doesn't look very warm. Its seems very blue, and cold making the child's face look pale and far too "rosey" in the cheeks.

Exactly! It is way too blue and his skin is too red. I'm a WB dummy. If I am using Auto, I can go -3 to +3 from there. Which direction would warm it up, but not make the skin red? :o

[tcadwall]

Yes... I agree with the consensus. There is a white balance issue. I know this was just brought up in another thread.

Yes... shoot it raw. This gives you WAY more leeway in adjusting the white balance.

White balance is less accurate during indoor lighting.

This lens is sharp. At f/8 you should get very sharp shots... Portraits normally aren't trying to achieve complete sharpness (Remember how much the tv personalities aged when you upgraded to HD tv?). Portrait mode on the camera is supposed to soften slightly (or at least sharpen less) if I recall correctly.

I also agree that the image looks cool, yet the red is wrong. White balance adjustment coupled with the Gina plugin (or a red-channel adjustment) that I mentioned in the other thread will fix this easily in Bibble. And as pointed out NSX will work as well.

--- meant to say this ---

Trey is adorable!!! you must be proud!

[tcadwall]

If you know what your primary light source is, you can just choose that for your white balance. That will pick your temp, and might also include a tint adjustment (ie incandescent or flourescent).

[tcadwall]

ok I might be over posting...;)

You might experiment with this lens regarding sharpness by getting the eyes tack sharp and throwing the face out a tad... I like portraits with that trait. Every detail showing in the eyes and eyelashes, but softer details in the rest of the face helps hide wrinkles in adults, and dried snots on kids!

Correcting :

I had mentioned a different ISO / shutter speed, but it was really a brain fart.

[jcon]

... (Remember how much the tv personalities aged when you upgraded to HD tv?).

No:( Still "regular" TV for this poor lad. LOL

[Kellie]

Wow, I love this WB fine tuning. I have been using WB bracket and so far auto -2 is looking the best.

(gotta love snow days when there is nothing else to do but sit around and take practice shots of the kids :rolleyes: )

[jcon]

Wow, I love this WB fine tuning. I have been using WB bracket and so far auto -2 is looking the best.



Glad to hear its working out and that you were able to eliminate the problem:D




(gotta love snow days when there is nothing else to do but sit around and take practice shots of the kids :rolleyes: )

No I dont!! LOL, and I gotta go drive in this crap in 30 minutes:mad:

[Kellie]

Oh, I wouldn't say the problem is eliminated - I'm just learning more. Thank goodness for these extra D80 features.

Still have to attempt RAW at some point today.

And work on getting those eyes sharp....

[tcadwall]

No:( Still "regular" TV for this poor lad. LOL
Sorry man. I thought everybody was HD now. ;)

We are on the second set. 1080p ROCKS!

(Just found a soft spot, thought I would push it since I have to keep reading your signature every day)

[jcon]

Sorry man. I thought everybody was HD now. ;)

We are on the second set. 1080p ROCKS!

(Just found a soft spot, thought I would push it since I have to keep reading your signature every day)



LMAO.. touche! You flaunt your HD and I will flaunt the D200:cool: :p

I have a feeling though that eventually we both will have the same things;)

[Rooz]

kell, in my humble opinion...

1. if you cropped it, you should move closer to get a broader focus point with that lens
2. distracting foreground,
3. its shallow at 1.8 so i find its better to get real close for portraits using that lens cos its bound to throw a fair amount into the soft area
4. nx is brilliant for a quick level/ curves or a control point
5. i almost always, (90%) of the time use the sb-600 when i'm taking photos indoors of people and i'm thinking that i will get some keepers out of it. the skin tones turn out much better. snapshots i may not bother.
6. if you have cs2, use the "bandaid" for overly flushed cheeks.

hard to work with that photo at that web size, but i did a real quick adjustment making the photo warmer but using the minus brush just over his gorgeous cheeks. if you like the kind of effect PM me and i'll run you thru a couple of quick steps. that took me less than 30seconds.

most importantly of all with the 1.8 from my experience with portraits is to get nice and close OR bump your f up to at least 3-4, (which kinda defeats the purpose of the low light capability anyway !). but i will even try and hit 7-9 to really limit light and get rid of any background to make the focal point purely the subject.

[Rooz]

that looks perfect imo. i was discusseing this with someone a while ago, the composition of a photo is as important if not more so than the lens and camera being used. that crop is well framed, no distractions behind or in front and capturing the great look on his face.

with an f1.8 its going to be shallow DOF. so in particualr in low light with no flash, if you aren;t close enuf to your subject it will only gather enuf light to hit certain particular points and render them sharp, while the rest becomes more blurred and less sharp. thats really almost the whole idea of a "portrait lens". almost for indoor photos.

outside its perfect cos you can get heaps of light in there.

[tcadwall]

Kellie,

that is quite an impressive, and very nice job.

B&W with that framing changed the whole picture.
(edit - I am an idiot today because I am in too much hurry - your 50 is like a 75mm - the 60mm is like a 90mm - so I just re-adjusted what I said below accordingly)
As far as the 85mm, that is very typical lens for film portraits. But really your 50mm ends up being around 75mm (film comparison) so that is close but shorter than what many used for film portraits. But even 85mm isn't a rule and longer lenses are also often used. I would prefer a little longer lens than the 50m for portraits myself - at least for headshots like this one. Because when you get close enough to frame this with a 50mm you are really close (almost uncomfortable for the subject). So the 85mm would still be good IMO for headshots.

Because that is a prime lens, it will still be tack-sharp for the headshot. And my preference would be to use a shallow depth of field and manual focus on the eye. The 50mm doesn't let you override the AF, so it isn't as easy to work with as far as letting the camera get close and then you tweak it - but hey you can still flip the switch on the camera to go MF once you are close.

If the shot is not a close-up headshot, you probably want more DOF, in order to keep the image relatively sharp.