Portrait and fashion shooters bashing autofocus? Learn how to use the camera :D

[skoobey]

I wonder, skoobey – do you suppose portrait/fashion photographers use Hasselblad cameras (those good enough to afford them, that is)? Do you think Hasselblad spending R&D money to develop a system to compensate for the backfocus caused by focus-recompose demonstrates their ignorance of FASHION photography? Perhaps you should ring them up and tell them they're wasting their time and money, because you have no problem with the way you use your camera. :

That is my point. Where is the problem? Why is everyone so concerned with this, when the problem doesn't exist. They should work on cleaner higher ISO instead.

Well, I just tried to see what is it that I do for close portraits at shallow DOF. Well, center point is quite close to the eyes anyway, so I just move it a bit to the left.

But, I have to say that I use my Canon as a 3x4 or 4x5, effectively not using the top of my sensor. I navigate by grid of the focusing screen. That means my center point is a bit higher then if I shot 16:9.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That is my point. Where is the problem? Why is everyone so concerned with this, when the problem doesn't exist.

So...you know more about photography than Hasselblad, and the principles of geometry do not apply to you.

I'm done having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, if you want to continue embarrassing yourself, by all means keep posting on an issue that you totally fail to comprehend.

 

[Meh]

Oh Neuro why do you bother. You just can't help some people.

Such a typical post.... the logic goes something like this.... "people are complaining about X, I don't have a problem with X, I'm a good photographer, therefore the people complaining about X must be bad photographers and should learn to use their gear better, I think I'll post on CR about how awesome I am"

 

[skoobey]

That's why I am asking. I don't understand where is the issue? So many are complaining about it, so it does exist, I just can't get it.

 

[RLPhoto]

So, I've noticed so many fashion photographers are bashing the autofocus on Canon Gear, specifically 6D and 5DIII.

I mean, I use a 5dII and it always focuses accurately. Is there a problem with these two cameras, or people who just don't know what they're doing?

I'm getting tired of being Canon's advocate. Single AF point, recompose. Shoot. It's not hard.

I think you mean the AF on the 6D/5D2/5Dc/20D are the systems being bashed. The 5D3/1Dx are superb.

 

[sagittariansrock]

That's why I am asking. I don't understand where is the issue? So many are complaining about it, so it does exist, I just can't get it.

Neuro put this link in one of his earlier posts. Click on the link- the phenomenon is quite nicely illustrated.

http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

Cheers.

 

[sanj]

Skooby go easy on Neuro, he is trying to explain to you something which is nice to know. He is saying that when you have very shallow depth of field because of aperture/lens combo it is always best to focus with a focus point closest to the subject so when you move the camera to recompose the focus plane does not shift. Nothing wrong with that right?

And to say that all fashion or portrait photographs require lens to be closed down is not correct, is it? There are lovely fashion photos with no depth of field at all….

To reply to your original question, I think people complain about auto focus because many times because of various reasons like lack of contrast or light, the camera fails to lock focus. Or you asking something else?

 

[sanj]

This photo has shallow depth. It may not be a great photo but comes under the category of fashion/portrait.

I hope fashion does not mean to you catalog photos. God forbid.

 

[kbmelb]

Everyone who knows what they're doing stops the aperture down.

So anyone who shoots wide open doesn't know what they're doing? I see. Thanks for sharing your vast knowledge of the ONE RIGHT WAY to take a photograph. It's wonderful that Canon has someone as knowledgable as you to advocate for them. Carry on...

:

No, thank you for sharing your ignorance of FASHION photography.

I'm pretty sure Victoria Secrets constitutes "fashion" photography and Russell James is huge advocate of the 85II fairly wide open. Besides it's obvious appearance, I know a guy that works at a printer in NYC and they print a lot of stuff for Russell personally and can attest (via EXIF) to the fact the guy rarely shoots over 1.8.

I try to never focus and recompose even shooting higher f-stop. That was my one main complaint of the 5DII is it was nearly impossible to not recompose. Rarely was one of the AF points Where I needed it. 5DIII this almost never an issue. It is occasionally an issue on my 1DsIII.

 

[skoobey]

What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

 

[Sporgon]

That's why I am asking. I don't understand where is the issue? So many are complaining about it, so it does exist, I just can't get it.

It all depends upon how much you are moving the camera after focusing. Generally the dangers of back focus from 'focus and recompose' are way over stated nowadays.

If you want to create the effect for yourself shoot a subject from around three feet away, focus and re compose moving the camera at least six inches ( on the subject ) down/across between focusing and shooting. Then compare this with using an outer point which enables much less movement of the camera plane. You will clearly see the 'focus recompose' is back focused when using f1.2 to f2 or so.

In most situations you are not moving the camera enough to cause a problem, or the depth of field is covering the issue, or both. I'm surprised at the Hasselblad video showing such a tiny movement as a demonstration of it's intelligent focus system; moving from the eye to nose: indeed different focus distances but not plane, which is what their system is about.

Likewise the example always given of woman/camera at waist height/distance/angles. For this to work the camera must be held at waist height and very close; a full length portrait with 'focus/re compose on the eye, a large camera movement. So if you are ever going to take a full length shot filling the frame with a 50mm lens at f1.2-f2. holding the camera at waist height and 'focus/re compose will be a problem. But the point is that in the vast majority of situations you won't be moving the camera this much. This is why many people think the problem doesn't exist; it does, much of the time to a degree, but it can only be seen given the right circumstances.

 

[sanj]

What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

No. Fashion is about creating mood, catalog is about clothes.
Your point about how to apply better focus techniques when there is only one focus point is of interest to me. I would like to learn that as well.

 

[RLPhoto]

What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

MF Hasselblads have a focus system that readjusts itself when you recompose.

 

[sagittariansrock]

What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

MF Hasselblads have a focus system that readjusts itself when you recompose.

That's the True Focus PhillipP74 mentioned. Now, that is quite revolutionary.

 

[sanj]

What I'm trying to explain is that in fashion you rarely/never shoot in a way to get most of the model lost in bokeh. Wide open or not, it's about showing the clothes. So if I shoot at 1.8, It's likely a full body shot, or at least a bust, but even when it's a bust, it's likely to have focus on something in the shot, like accessories.

I'm trying do distinguish popular wedding look, which is bokeh, bokeh, more bokeh, from actual commercial way of shooting which is product, product, more product.

Yes, I understand why event photographers that shoot wide open might find their focus lacking.

However, I don't get why people complain for "still" work. So, okay, yes, my camera would probably search for focus endlessly if I set it to a focus point other then the center one, especially in low light, so I don't.

I'm trying to learn here. I guess my question should be: What/how/when do you use those other AF points for? And how do people do it on MF systems where there is only one, is there a way to apply same techniques?

MF Hasselblads have a focus system that readjusts itself when you recompose.

That seems so nice.

 

[TeT]

That seems so nice.

too dry