On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in very
sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

I appreciate your suggestions.
--
John H

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.


Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!

--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:47:00 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Eh - you can do the same thing with a modern digital.

John's problem is that dark background confusing the light sensor. He
needed to back off a tad and bounce the flash to create some back
light so the light sensor had a chance to work properly.

Plus, he was way too tight on the shot with the results as I detailed.
Digital cameras are wonderful machines, but you have to compensate for
their weird and quirky ways.

The flash was bounced, damnit!

Tightness may be a problem, but I try not to crop a lot.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg
Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!



Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it?

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in
very
sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

I appreciate your suggestions.
--
John H


You could also turn OFF the silly auto focus.

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".

I appreciate your suggestions.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:14:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg

Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

OK, I'll accept all the other faults, with the exception of the flash,
which was bounced off the ceiling.

Yes, as it stands the focus isn't too bad. However, if you crop the face
even more, the freckles, hairs, etc, become very blurred.

Your comment about 'narrowing the auto focus' is interesting. I set the
camera for center spot focusing, as opposed to 'area' focusing. I'm
expecting to see the center of the picture, or whatever I focus on, in
very
sharp detail. This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

I appreciate your suggestions.
--
John H


You could also turn OFF the silly auto focus.


Not with my eyes. Also, the auto focus is very fast, much faster than I
could possible focus. For quick shots of kids the auto focus is the way to
go. On my 18-70mm, the auto focus is spectacular.
--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'. I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.

All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".

I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to be a
damn IT professional to take a picture.
--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg
Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.

Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.

Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!



Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it?

I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:10:12 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:38:19 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:17:31 -0500, John H.
wrote:

The problem is a focus problem. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm
just stating a fact.

Here's an example:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...wenblurred.jpg
Not to be argumentative, but no it's not out of focus. You can see
the flecks in the iris of his eyes and individual hair strands and the
cord in the weave of his shirt. Look at his eyelashes - nice and
crisp.

It ain't out of focus.

What you have is a flash feedback. Look closely at the left side of
his face and see how sharp that is compared to the right side? Plus,
like most red heads, he has very fair skin and the flash was set way
to hot which washed out his face, but left the rest of his features
intact - it's like seeing the blood under the surface of the skin
that's how hot that flash was. Remember when you were a kid and put
your thumb on top of the flashlight to see it turn red?

That's what happened here.

The second thing is you shot into a dark background which acentuated
the feedback to the camera - you confused the camera would be one way
to put it.

The Third thing is that you narrowed the auto focus too much which
also contributed to the overall skin tone problem.

Kids like this - hell, people in general with fair skin - do well
with a bounce flash or a diffuser for the flash set at an angle up
rather than straight on.

It's not a focus problem, it's a picture taking problem.

No offense.
Kodachrome II, a nice 85 or 105 mm fixed focal length lens, a couple of
modeling lights, a decent meter and voila! a nice slide, properly exposed.
Hell yes! Setting all that up in a dining room on the Disney Magic while
dinner is being served would be a breeze!


Oh. It was a snapshot. Then why worry about it?

I expect my snapshots to have a bit of quality. You know, like the owls.


Learn how to use your camera.