Hi Bruce, Quite some time back in a discussion here about autofocus a question was posed concerning the specificity of the area that the camera will focus on, specifically the eye and a very precise part of the eye. Comments from some of the AF devotees were that, while the camera probably couldn't focus on the pupil, it would focus well enough for all practical purposes - and that there would be no problem as long as the lens was stopped down enough to give adequate DOF. Peter's shot clearly shows that AF may not work well enough in such circumstances, especially if the photog wants to minimize DOF.
If there were a pair of glasses in front of those charming, doe-like eyes where would the camera focus? On the eyes or on the lenses of the glasses? Stopping down to let the DOF handle the focusing inaccuracy gives two problems. First, it reduces the creative elements that the photographer has to work with , namely the soft focus or OOF areas, and, secondly, any minor focusing error is greatly magnified when the print is made larger, so, in some instances, AF could well limit creativity and the viability of making a large print. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Shel Belinkoff <[email protected]> > Date: 1/12/2005 4:45:40 PM > Subject: Re: PESO--The Girl Living in the Accountants Spare Room > > This is exactly what I mean about AF. The sensor area may be larger > than the target you want in focus. This means that it will pick > within the area. That doesn't make the autofocus wrong, just the > application of it. Not much different really than using a reflective > meter poorly with snow or coal. > > I still don't get why so many people use AF when there is no benefit. > This image is what many of my niece's (pro photog using D1X AF) pictures look like. The focus > isn't bad, but it's not great either. If you can't see to focus, > either get a camera that you can see out of, or get your eyes > corrected enough to see. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 4:36:36 PM, you wrote: > > SB> Hi Peter, Frank ... > > SB> I'd not noticed the softness in the eyes as the dark strip grabbed my > SB> attention, but you're right Frank ... the eyes are a bit of a problem here. > SB> Just a thought - and it'll work - sharpen each eye individually until > SB> they're both equally sharp to a satisfactory degree. I played with it a > SB> bit in PS, gave it a little crop, and voila - the true genius of the > SB> portrait becomes perfectly obvious. > > SB> Lose the autofocus, Peter ... not needed at all on such a subject, and that > SB> 43mm focuses manually quite nicely. > > SB> Shel > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:13:33 -0500, Peter J. Alling > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_tglitasr.html > >> > > >> > In case anyone cares: > >> > > >> > Pentax *ist-D 1/30 sec (ISO -- 400) > >> > SMC Pentax FA 43ltd f1.9 @ f2.8 > >> > Autofocus (Autofocus sucks no matter how good the camera IMHO). > >> > > >> > >> I gotta agree with Shel; that dark stripe down the right side is a > >> needless distraction. I was going to wonder aloud (or however one > >> wonders on a keyboard) if maybe you focused on the wrong eye - her > >> left eye (the one on the right of the frame) seems just a tad soft, > >> but I think that's the one which should be sharpest (since it's > >> closest to the camera, no?). Then, I noticed that you autofocused, so > >> that's (likely) that. > >> > >> Well, here I am, starting off with negative stuff, when really, it's a > >> lovely portrait. I like that she looks very relaxed and comfortable. > >> There's something about the placement of her hand on the vertical > >> thing (is it a frame of some sort?) that I like - it seems rather > >> "unposed" and natural looking. > >> > >> Overall a very nice photo. Can't do anything about the softness, but > >> you can crop. I think it would be a better photo if you did. > > > >
