Best Equipment for Portraits??

kira said:
Nahh not gonna happen!

Just went in the garden with my 70-300 lens, and used the tripod and even the self timer..... not one shot in focus, in fact that were out right awful.

what am I doing wrong I actually can't understand!
Click to expand...

Post some pictures on Flickr so we can see your exif data - doesn't matter if they're not so good, you can delete them later!!
 
kira said:
I can't even deal with it anymore, it's too hard and all I'm doing is trying to practice and read and the majority of it I don't understand

Nothing works and I just want to smash it up now!

Getting me down too much now

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kira_farrow

I put 3 up
Click to expand...

Now, now.

The shots look okay. That's not the sharpest lens ever made. And there's no IS, even on a tripod try and keep your shutter speed high to keep any sort of movement away.

Did you use "M" mode? One step at a time. Stick to P or Tv for now, if I were you.

Also, really it doesn't matter how sharp your shots are, it's more about learning composition, lighting techniques and so on. Keep trying. You'll get it.
 
Bidz said:
Now, now.

The shots look okay. That's not the sharpest lens ever made. And there's no IS, even on a tripod try and keep your shutter speed high to keep any sort of movement away.

Did you use "M" mode? One step at a time. Stick to P or Tv for now, if I were you.

Also, really it doesn't matter how sharp your shots are, it's more about learning composition, lighting techniques and so on. Keep trying. You'll get it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I used the M mode, thing is I used the centre focus point and it was on a tripod so why is the leaves in focus and not the flower? I really don't understand

I've also been advised not to go lower than 1/80 and also 1/60 on my shutter speed so I don't?
 
kira said:
Yeah I used the M mode, thing is I used the centre focus point and it was on a tripod so why is the leaves in focus and not the flower? I really don't understand

I've also been advised not to go lower than 1/80 and also 1/60 on my shutter speed so I don't?
Click to expand...

So don't! Higher than what you used might have been better. In Tv mode you can dialt his in and the camera works out the rest.

Did you focus on the pot plant while it was in the centre of the frame, and then recompose the shot? Or just line up your shot, focus and fire?
 
Surely there's someone here local to you who can meet up and help?
 
Sounds like you did everything right with the flower shot, although when you're on a tripod with a static subject, the shutter speed can go as long as you want.

I can only think that it's that Tamron 70-300 lens, which if it's their cheapy 90 quid one, is not much good at the best of times and even worse at the long end. The lens is possibly misfocusing too :(
 
Last edited:
kira said:
Nahh not gonna happen!

Just went in the garden with my 70-300 lens, and used the tripod and even the self timer..... not one shot in focus, in fact that were out right awful.

what am I doing wrong I actually can't understand!
Click to expand...

Do you want to send the RAW file to me and I'll have a look...?
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Sounds like you did everything right with the flower shot, although when you're on a tripod with a static subject, the shutter speed can go as long as you want.

I can only think that it's that Tamron 70-300 lens, which if it's their cheapy 90 quid one, is not much good at the best of times and even worse at the long end. The lens is possibly misfocusing too :(
Click to expand...

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/66320/show.html

This is the lens I used, I actually had it bought for me at £169 aswell. The guy from jessops was selling it to us saying it was really good and not to go for the more expensive canon ones because 'You're only paying for the name'
 
kira said:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/66320/show.html

This is the lens I used, I actually had it bought for me at £169 aswell. The guy from jessops was selling it to us saying it was really good and not to go for the more expensive canon ones because 'You're only paying for the name'
Click to expand...

Yes that's the one - £99. Tamron do a rather better 70-300 version for £400 - what price the name on that one?

The lenses to get around that focal length, range in price and quality from the Canon 55-250 (bargain £190) to the 70-300L at £1200, with several other options inbetween. You don't 'pay for the name' with any of them.

Given your fondness for portraits, maybe a lens for you might be the 85 1.8 at around £300, though there is lots of choice and as already mentioned the other lenses you have (apart from the cheap Tamron) have plenty of potential.
 
HoppyUK said:
Yes that's the one - £99. Tamron do a rather better 70-300 version for £400 - what price the name on that one?

The lenses to get around that focal length, range in price and quality from the Canon 55-250 (bargain £190) to the 70-300L at £1200,.
Click to expand...

70-300L ??

Really? Not come across that one yet... ;0)

70-200 f4 IS L/f4 L/ 2.8L and 2.8 IS L......

Portrait lens on a 400D as well might be best suited to a 50mm 1.4 USM. 1.8 is nice but the 1.4 is superb.
 
Last edited:
What makes you say you "can't" do this???

It's a learning curve and I've been doing the business for 5 years and everytime I shoot I learn something new....

If you want to learn have a look at the top dogs in the industry and try to work out "how" they got the shot....

http://www.jeryghionis.com

Have a look and trust me... His work will blow your mind.

http://www.jeffascough.net

I would live to be able to shoot like these guys.... But... I can't.... "YET!!" lol

Everyday is a school day with photography. You will learn and you will love it & hate it too.

You just have to decide how important this is to you. Do you want to do it as a business or just as a hobby? Do you want to go Pro at fashion, landscape, wedding, glamour?

It's up to you but the learning curve will be steep now and again. But when your images improve and you spend more cash on good 'glass' (Lenses), such as Canon L lenses you will start to feel the passion grow. Don't give up, send some files and I will return them with constructive comments. It might be your lens is a 'bad' lens, I have had a few.
 
Last edited:
John Doran said:
70-300L ??

Really? Not come across that one yet... ;0)
70-200 f4 IS L/f4 L/ 2.8L and 2.8 IS L......

Portrait lens on a 400D as well might be best suited to a 50mm 1.4 USM. 1.8 is nice but the 1.4 is superb.
Click to expand...

Really ;)
 
kira said:
I sent you 2

they were with the Tamron lens which I never use

I was only practising with it because people were suggesting I use a longer lens to take photo's of the little one I look after but that is not going to happen now

I obviously can't use it or it's just awful!
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll have a look at them tomorrow and get them back to you.

Ok?
 
Last edited:
Good evening Kira

Sadly my suggestion that you use a longer lens and stand back does not look like you will be getting into a happy zone. All I have read of the Tamron lens points to it being unfortunately not the "sharpest tool in the box" when it comes to lens choices.

Setting aside for the moment ~ have you seen my post with the Post Processing edits I prepared? Do they satisfy you in regards to the sort of quality you were hoping/expecting the achieve??? Yes? then as noted you have to accept that the learning curve may be steeper than you had hoped.................based on those I edited you are already able to create some nice images. Please do not get too wound up & frustrated IMO you have shown that you are able to take som e nice & pleasing photographs.

As mentioned by me & others taking pictures of a 2 year old who does nothing but 'mess with you' by never staying still long enough would & does tax even the very best of photographers.

Not sure whether on this fora there are local groups but I surmise you could benefit by meeting with a group who are able to talk you through some basic camaera handling to increase your understanding of exposure and how to get that as "perfect" as possible.

Were I you if (and I know you said it was gift) that Tamron is failing you be your friend I would stop using it and work harder at getting the best out of the 50mm and save for better lens such as suggest the 85mm f1.8 which incidently is on my wishlist :)

I had a very quick look at the cataplliar images and could not see anything too wrong with them!

If you can justify hiring a lens or two I have a recommendation for a good lens hire company who are based in Maidenhead though they dispatch over the whole of the UK.

Stick with it..........................and I did say to only consider spending money on lenses and new bodies only when you have exhausted and found the limits of the kit you already own.
 
John Doran said:
You got a link to one?? Or have I missed the new releases?
Click to expand...

Scratch that....

When did this come out?? b****r me sideways.... An L lens that I didn't hear about... Lol
 
Last edited:
kira said:
I just don't think I'm up to this

Have you seen this thread and the amazing photo's on there?
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=334347

I can't do it :'(
Click to expand...

Kira, I have a quickish look at the threads opening post ~ firstly he has used the 85mm Sigma this has in effect allowed him to stand that bit further back compared to your 50mm. On a crop body like the 400D, 40D et al the 80mm equates to a 136mm, now in the says of film a 135mm prime lens was considered to be the best lens a portrait photographer could have in his kit bag ~ this focal length allowed for usage in reasonable sized studios for 3/4 & full length portraits and when for headshots you could fill the frame without getting so close you wer alomost on top of some subjects! With smaller studios & folk taking pictures in the average home the 50mm (crop usage being 80mm) you could get away with being closer because of the constraint of the available space. Of course if you are out in the open such restrictions of choice are not relevent?

Note the narrow DoF in the first and third images (just the eyes in sharpest focus in #1 and only the subjects right is sharp in the #3 image) also I would venture to suggest he has done some vary carefull and quote subtle editing to emphasis the eyes and the whites of those eyes in #1 & #3 ~ yet again I say to you it is not all about what the camera records but what you do with it afterwards by (initially as a novice or more experienced) way of contrast adjustments & sharpening at the very least ;)

Oh and what possessed him to cut off the lads left foot in image #2 :bang:

Edit ~ but did you notice all the subjects are posed i.e. static ~ like your ones I edited :clap: Not with little 'uns tearing around!
 
Last edited:
John Doran said:
Scratch that....

When did this come out?? b****r me sideways.... An L lens that I didn't hear about... Lol
Click to expand...

??? not only that Canon in their wisdom have made it a very expensive lens because on the L improvements. But it has been getting some good reviews :thumbs:
 
Box Brownie said:
??? not only that Canon in their wisdom have made it a very expensive lens because on the L improvements. But it has been getting some good reviews :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Fair one... I've not been following new (ish) kit and rarely use forums. Hence not hearing about this little number.

Not sure I would get it though... :0/

Just read some reviews and they seem positive enough but the lens isn't fast enough...
 
Last edited:
John Doran said:
Fair one... I've not been following new (ish) kit and rarely use forums. Hence not hearing about this little number.

Not sure I would get it though... :0/

Just read some reviews and they seem positive enough but the lens isn't fast enough...
Click to expand...

I have the earlier non L version and it has served me reasonable well (was a bit soft for my liking from 250mm to 300mm) now have the 100-400 and though this is slow for some usages I am more than happy with it for wildlife, airshows, motorsports and a recent Football Tournament where I was 2nd photographer though a 70-200 f 2.8 would have been the best for that but heh you work with what you have :thumbs:
 
I had a 90-300 4-5.6 USM years ago and managed some nice shots but since having the 2.8 IS L I won't go back... lol

Bloody heavy mind... Lol

;0)
 
Last edited:
John Doran said:
I had a 90-300 4-5.6 USM years ago and managed some nice shots but since having the 2.8 IS L I won't go back... lol

Bloody heavy mind... Lol

;0)
Click to expand...

Yup, I was in two minds whether the 70-200 f2.8 and a x2 converor could be justified for the weight and the hit on my wallet :bonk: having used the 100-400 on hire for airshows and a borrowed one for a Triathlon and a 10km race I decided I could justify that though my 24-105mm is an absolute cracker of a lens andwas also used on the 10km race. FWIW almost 100% used with a monopod those events.

Now where is Kira with her feedback :thinking:
 
kira said:
Yeah I used the M mode, thing is I used the centre focus point and it was on a tripod so why is the leaves in focus and not the flower? I really don't understand

I've also been advised not to go lower than 1/80 and also 1/60 on my shutter speed so I don't?
Click to expand...

You say you are using the Tamron zoom at a shutter speed of between 1/60 and 1/80? Still not fast enough, considering you are using a camera with a crop sensor whatever the zoom lenth you are using, multiply that by the crop factor. For example, 1/80 would be no good on a zoom length of 300 mm (1.5 x 300 = 1/450) even on a tripod, if there is a slight breeze making the flower move very slightly. You'll get there. You just need to practice, and it'll all fall into place.

Ooops. Didn't realise there were more pages to this thread. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Nah... I've checked those pics of catapillars.. nice :)



Don't give up. But perhaps go to a tp meet near you? There are usually other canon users (nikon and others seem lacking for some reason) and you can get their advice, try a few settings that they suggest.

My personal preference would be as low iso as you can get (100 or 200?).
F# as low as you feel you need, so try f4 for one person and perhaps f8 for more than one. Us the A or Av mode (camera is dependant on your f# setting).

If it is still too slow, pop the flash on.

If you get the chance, take at lowest f# and f4 and f8 on the same subject, keeping iso as low as poss to reduce noise...

Your photo stream is good. If you need more crispness, you may want to consider hiring a better lens to see whether it suits you, or meet some tp *** and borrow some of their lenses?

Keep shooting!

Edit: same as wilko ;) didn't read them all - so this was from page 1...
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Yup, I was in two minds whether the 70-200 f2.8 and a x2 converor could be justified for the weight and the hit on my wallet :bonk: having used the 100-400 on hire for airshows and a borrowed one for a Triathlon and a 10km race I decided I could justify that though my 24-105mm is an absolute cracker of a lens andwas also used on the 10km race. FWIW almost 100% used with a monopod those events.

Now where is Kira with her feedback :thinking:
Click to expand...

The 24-105 f4 IS L is an awesome lens. I just wish it were a 2.8. Lol
 
Last edited:
kira said:
One I took today..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/kira_farrow/5975440235/in/photostream
Click to expand...

Bidz said:
That looks good to me, Kira - certainly in terms of sharpness. What do you think of it?
Click to expand...

As per the others you said it would be OK to edit I have had a "look" at this one and it this does sharpen & boost quite nicely. Though I can see why you have left so much fence in the background because of her hair being caught in the breeze but the only thing I would do is crop that upper part to remove a good part of the reddish fence, that way the viewers eye is kept on her face and does not drift away to the red fence!

And as Bidz asks just like I did about the edits posted "what do you think of the images..............???" How pleasing are they to you?

I was typing as you posted again ~ have you even looked at the edits I posted and my feedback about the 'portraits thread' you linked to??? I will repeat ~ it does not all happen in the camera>>>>> apart form the fact that the guy was using a different (better?) lens all the images you will ever see onthe web have had post processing applied to them! And that as stated is another part of the learning curve :bang:
 
Last edited:
kira said:
I don't know.... it's better than when I first tried I guess

But it's not this...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sundustphotos/5642978868/in/set-72157625916636086

I just do not know how to get that sharpness or that clear

And look at these eyes....
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5036/5887042053_b351ab742f_z.jpg

:'(
Click to expand...

Kira have you tried shooting someone with big light coloured eyes? Its not easy to get such detail in someone with dark/small eyes regardless of what lens/camera you're using straight out of the camera.
 
Box Brownie said:
As per the others you said it would be OK to edit I have had a "look" at this one and it this does sharpen & boost quite nicely. Though I can see why you have left so much fence in the background because of her hair being caught in the breeze but the only thing I would do is crop that upper part to remove a good part of the reddish fence, that way the viewers eye is kept on her face and does not drift away to the red fence!

And as Bidz asks just like I did about the edits posted "what do you think of the images..............???" How pleasing are they to you?

I was typing as you posted again ~ have you even looked at the edits I posted and my feedback about the 'portraits thread' you linked to??? I will repeat ~ it does not all happen in the camera>>>>> apart form the fact that the guy was using a different (better?) lens all the images you will ever see onthe web have had post processing applied to them! And that as stated is another part of the learning curve :bang:
Click to expand...

I was having another little think and was going to come back and setty pretty much all this. :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top