That's some detail!!

[poker]

I was practicing portraits with my reflector yesterday at a party. Most of my shots had problems with exposure or softness (live and learn). The following photo was overexposed but I wanted to try and salvage it in PS. Here is what I came up with:



I then remembered the big debate about catchlight on the PR forums. I was wondering why this shot had so much catch light. Can you see all the detail my rig picked up?



This is a 4 year old and the camera picked up the ridges on her skin. I think that's pretty damn good. Notice her pupil? This is probaby my first self portrait I've ever posted on PR.

[Ronnoco]

If you were using what you call your cheap lenses, your results would tend to imply that there is not any huge difference in sharpness between cheap and expensive lenses.

Ronnoco

[dmm96452]

If you were using what you call your cheap lenses, your results would tend to imply that there is not any huge difference in sharpness between cheap and expensive lenses.

Ronnoco

I'm not certain I agree. All lenses, even the cheap ones, will have a sweet spot. A portion of their zoom range and after they are stopped down far enough. I have an older Sigma 70-300 lens that I bought a while back. Most of the shots I've taken with it are fairly soft. However, two of the sharpest shots I've taken I took with that lens. I went back and looked at the data in the raw files and found that those shots and all of the better shots I've taken with that lens were shot between 190 and 200mm and with an apeture of f/8 or smaller. Kind of a small range to have to shoot in with a 70-300 to get a good result but the results from that range are awesome.

[Ronnoco]

I'm not certain I agree. All lenses, even the cheap ones, will have a sweet spot. A portion of their zoom range and after they are stopped down far enough. I have an older Sigma 70-300 lens that I bought a while back. Most of the shots I've taken with it are fairly soft. However, two of the sharpest shots I've taken I took with that lens. I went back and looked at the data in the raw files and found that those shots and all of the better shots I've taken with that lens were shot between 190 and 200mm and with an apeture of f/8 or smaller. Kind of a small range to have to shoot in with a 70-300 to get a good result but the results from that range are awesome.

Good point, however if all lenses have their sweet spot, f 8 could just as easily be the sweet spot on the more expensive lens. My lenses are best at f 4 and a few at f 2.8, luckily. Quality at different focal lengths changes in all lenses too.

I guess what it really comes down to, is comparing the weaknesses and strong points of various lenses and matching the strength of the particular lens with the style and type of shooting that you do under your most common lighting conditions.

Ronnoco

[poker]

Av(Aperture Value): F2.8
Lens: Canon EF85mm f/1.8 USM

This is the lens and aperture used for this shot. It would be nice to know the sweet spot settings of all the lenses in my bag. I'm sure that wouldn't be hard. There's probably a professional lab review of every lens out there. This particular lens is my favorite. Pricey for some people and inexpensive for others.

Hope all the Americans had a good three day weekend. Bless those who fought and continue to defend our country!

[Photo-John]

Av(Aperture Value): F2.8
Lens: Canon EF85mm f/1.8 USM

This is the lens and aperture used for this shot. It would be nice to know the sweet spot settings of all the lenses in my bag. I'm sure that wouldn't be hard. There's probably a professional lab review of every lens out there. This particular lens is my favorite. Pricey for some people and inexpensive for others.

That's a very nice lens. Please make sure to post a review for it when you're ready.

My experience is that most lenses have a sweet spot 2 or 3 stops in from their maximum aperture. That's based on darkroom experience and enlarger lenses where it's easier to see if there's a problem or not. It's important not to get too caught up in worrying about stuff like that, though. If you need to stop down for more depth-of-field, or you want to open up for less depth-of-field, then that's what you should do. I think creative expression should always be more important than perfect image quality.

[Lionheart]

ahh. EF 85mm f1.8. One of my favorite primes, and it is razor sharp. I chose it over its f1.2L sibling because the performance margin between them is negligible in view of the vast price difference. I use it a lot as my portrait lens around my children. :-) It might be cheap, but it is a stellar performer in my experience.

[Speed]

I agree with you. That is some detail!

Very impressive.

[photophorous]

That is a lot of detail. Even I can see that. But, I don't see the overexposure. Why do you say it's overexposed?

Paul

[poker]

That is a lot of detail. Even I can see that. But, I don't see the overexposure. Why do you say it's overexposed?

Paul

The posted pic is after I worked on it in Photoshop. My wife said the post work looks 'alright' but not accurate to her niece's skin tone. The original is terribly over exposed.

Using the flash, reflector, and day light killed my shot or my camera just didn't it read it right. It took me a while to figure out what to do. I had to go one full stop down to get it right but by that time my subject left me. Live and learn.

[Glycerin19]

That's the kind of detail I keep dreaming of getting. That's awesome.