ReefMatt
New Member
CA2OR,
Before anything else, let me say this: "what is wrong" with any photo is a very subjective thing, and it really depends on what you're trying to achieve. For example, I probably would have gone with a slightly darker exposure because it drives me crazy when highlights are blown out... but for some people, having more shadow detail is more important and they're willing to sacrifice some highlights.
I see that you did use a smaller aperture on these (larger number), and it certainly helped you get more depth of field... nice job on that.
They're still not tack sharp, but they're not going to be unless you use a tripod when you're shooting this close... there's no way around that (unless your only light source is flash, and that has its own problems). They do seem to be a little sharper in general, so you must be doing something right.
You'll want to keep in mind that shooting at ISO 1600 (really, anything above 400) is also going to lead to some serious digital noise. In this case, it was probably the best option, since slowing down the shutter speed would have led to more camera-shake blur.
Good progress!
- Matt
Before anything else, let me say this: "what is wrong" with any photo is a very subjective thing, and it really depends on what you're trying to achieve. For example, I probably would have gone with a slightly darker exposure because it drives me crazy when highlights are blown out... but for some people, having more shadow detail is more important and they're willing to sacrifice some highlights.
I see that you did use a smaller aperture on these (larger number), and it certainly helped you get more depth of field... nice job on that.
They're still not tack sharp, but they're not going to be unless you use a tripod when you're shooting this close... there's no way around that (unless your only light source is flash, and that has its own problems). They do seem to be a little sharper in general, so you must be doing something right.
You'll want to keep in mind that shooting at ISO 1600 (really, anything above 400) is also going to lead to some serious digital noise. In this case, it was probably the best option, since slowing down the shutter speed would have led to more camera-shake blur.
Good progress!
- Matt
I see that you shot it at 1/40th sec f2.8 at ISO 80. I like the fact that the eye is nice and sharp. If you had shot it at f8 and ISO 360 (or whatever the -1/3 stop works out to be on your camera), you might have been able to get the mouth in focus too... or at least more in focus. Still... very striking photos 
