>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>253986 >Sharpen up your images and dont shoot wide open. go to f/4 or f/8 and your lens might produce better results. I wasn't shooting wide open. These were taken with my 35mm f/2.0, and exif says I was at f/2.8, so I was closed up one stop.
More likely the problem is that all three of these were shot from the chest while both I and the subject were moving, which means: 1. There's double the chance for motion blur 2. My camera got to choose the focus point. 3. If my camera's not fast enough going from focus to shot, we'll have both moved so that she's no longer in the depth of field that got locked in when it focused.
In the one with the parasols, for instance, my camera chose to focus on the further girl, which put the closer one a smidgen out of focus.
Going all the way down to f/4 might help with all of the depth of field issues, but I worry about the motion-blur that cutting my shutter speed in half again will cause. I'll try it next time I'm out. But honestly, these shots *do* look sharp enough to me...
>>254036 >You shouldn't have cut the top of the girls head off, also, people get beaten up for taking photos like this. Yep. Like I said, shooting from the chest and moving quickly. The "Don't want to get beaten up" thing was a big reason for that. It also explains (but doesn't really forgive) why I cut off the top of her head--that bugged me too, but I still thought it was a good shot.
>the subjects are ugly as sin... Er. So you think I should only take pictures of *sexy* children?
|