Rumors > EOS Bodies

Samples from the Canon T2i / Last night out with the T2i

(1/3) > >>

canonman:
My company had the usual boring Christmas Party tonight and this is my last time with the T2i.  I am selling this and upgrading to the EOS 60D.  I took a few pictures of the ladies who work up in the front office.  I know a few of the photos are a little soft.  I have much sharper examples, but sometimes I like to make portrait pictures soft.  It sometimes does more justice for the subject of the photo;) 

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6861/img1214q.jpg

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/5638/img1339od.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8803/img1361z.jpg

Edwin Herdman:
Well, my T1i is still going strong.

From what I understand, the 60D might help with focus, which appears to be the problem here.  But I would rather invest in lenses which will make even that seemingly poor-performing camera work better, and not get frisked for cash every cycle when buying a new camera - if you're interested in candids you might like a faster prime...I'm guessing these are taken with the kit lens?  (I sold mine straight away so I have no idea what it's like).  Ideally, you'd be able to get the 50mm 1.2 to duplicate that sharp-but-not-unflattering look you're aiming for, but the 50mm 1.4 seems to be good enough in my view (plus on APS-C 50mm is too long for close quarters shots unless you're just going for head and shoulders portraits).  I've taken a couple good portraits with it in lower light.

The 60D's focus system has rave reviews, but those like Osiris posted are using better lenses.  I would think that if you're just going from one camera with the 18-55mm consumer zoom to another, you might not see nearly as big a difference as getting a better lens.  If I were you I'd get the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S and save on weight, and just use the center dot for focus.  Or you could save a lot of money and just get a faster prime lens.

canonman:
That was taken with the 50mm 1.4.  I purposely knocked the focus off in the first shot because it wasnt to my advantage to have that shot in sharp focus.  If that was in sharp focus, then you would see all the imperfections of the model to include those skin spots on her chest and face.  Now the #2 and #3 photos are sharper and you can see all the skin stuff. 

Older persons, I have found, appreciate a very soft focus...almost to the point where its clearly out of focus.  That is so they can hide the imperfections. 

I don't use photoshop.  Dont have that time nowadays to play with it so just go with a soft focus for some portrait shots.

canonman:
This article explains it pretty well.  The older woman in the background just does not look that good with a sharp photo and when they blurred it...it came out better.  When I first saw "Gausian blur" in these image editing photos I wondered why anyone would want to purposely blur their photos, but then I saw how it would be good for portrait work.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/ht/apssoftfocus.htm

Edwin Herdman:
Huh, I wouldn't have guessed.  f/1.4 and you're getting color like that?  You used the flash, right?  Personally I don't think that skin imperfections should be the major focus there - looking at it again, it's blotchy in places (especially images 2 and 3), so maybe there you're right, and a better body would make a difference.  But I wonder if better post-processing wouldn't do it:  I don't mean photoshop, but rather in-camera JPEG vs. RAW conversion via DPP.  Are you using RAW?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page