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



## skoobey (Jun 21, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2014)

skoobey said:


> Single AF point, recompose. Shoot. It's not hard.



True. If you're shooting with a fast prime wide open and you like backfocused shots, it's not hard at all to get them…and you have just described a guaranteed method! Personally, I prefer that my focal plane remain where I want to…


----------



## skoobey (Jun 21, 2014)

I shoot a fast prime. Have no problems at all.


----------



## TeT (Jun 21, 2014)

Geesh, its a know fact that autofocus is not perfect on ANY camera. Add trying to take a portrait at f1.2 to the mix and you get flaws... its simple fact.

If you want perfect quit whining about it and put in the work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2014)

skoobey said:


> I shoot a fast prime. Have no problems at all.



Glad it works for you. 

In fact, the back focus isn't a big deal with relatively distant subjects. But, with close subjects it's unavoidable (simple geometry). With longer focal lengths, the issue is mitigated – not as big a deal with a 135/2 as with a 50/1.2, for example.


----------



## tiger82 (Jun 21, 2014)

And the autocompose doesn't seem to work either


----------



## skoobey (Jun 21, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> And the autocompose doesn't seem to work either



That would be it.


----------



## chauncey (Jun 22, 2014)

Front focus/back focus...does no one bother with micro focus adjustment...it's a no brainer!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

chauncey said:


> Front focus/back focus...does no one bother with micro focus adjustment...it's a no brainer!



The back focus caused by focus-recompose isn't something you'd use AFMA to correct. Read this:

Why Focus-Recompose Sucks


----------



## sdsr (Jun 22, 2014)

skoobey said:


> So, I've noticed so many fashion photographers are bashing the autofocus on Canon Gear, specifically 6D and 5DIII.
> 
> ....
> 
> I'm getting tired of being Canon's advocate. Single AF point, recompose. Shoot. It's not hard.



Do the photographers you're referring to only say this about Canon cameras and not about Nikon etc.?

As for whether point + shoot + recompose isn't hard, as Neuro points out that depends in part on how shallow the depth of focus is (of course, it also matters how exacting your standards of focus accuracy are...). It makes life much easier if you can put a focus point on the subject and not have to move the camera at all (it's one of the huge advantages of mirrorless cameras over dslrs that you can put the focus point almost anywhere in the frame).


----------



## skoobey (Jun 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > Front focus/back focus...does no one bother with micro focus adjustment...it's a no brainer!
> ...



Everyone who knows what they're doing stops the aperture down. Clothes must be in focus, so minute differences won't benefit you.

And, when you're shooting jewelry you need to manually focus at a couple of points to achieve the focus on every part of the piece.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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...

:


----------



## klickflip (Jun 22, 2014)

I find it mainly depends on lens and distance, obviously if you're shooting into the sun focus rate is going to be a lot less too. 
On 5D III, 85 1.2L II is pretty much spot on most of the time., 50L is a different story, closer I find it fine but it does give a 50% keeper rate even with taking care, sometime it just pops out and especially at 5m plus distances. Remember AMFA is only accurate to the distance you calibrated it at. I'll often do a quick shift in it on the field if I notice it going out at a certain distance. 
35 art very good and 135L very good. 
I generally shoot 1.4 - 2.2, which helps a bit also sharpens up a bit not wide open. Though even if I shoot at 4-5.6 to give a bit of context to the location and not just a beautiful blur and its not spot on you can still tell, also depends how it's being used.
For me and prob a lot of others the 50L is problem being quite erratic and at 1.4 etc even if its 1cm out thats enough. Depends what your doing tho, something like editorial reportage fashion thats more of a feel can cope with this. 
Catalogue your going to use a more consistent lens like 85 or 70-200 and many companies will dictate to not shoot wider open than F4. Everyone know sot shoot more than you need in case of a focus pop anyway. 
1Dx and 5D III do a great job but nothings perfect.. I await the 50L II patently tho!


----------



## skoobey (Jun 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone who knows what they're doing stops the aperture down.
> ...



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


----------



## wtlloyd (Jun 22, 2014)

Easy to discount people knocking focus-recompose if it works for you...and it's always worked for me.

Then I got curious. Lightroom says that 76% of all pictures I've shot this year have been at 400mm and greater. 10% have been shot with my fastest lens - f2.8, between 16 and 35mm! 

So what do I know : 
Depth of field - that's for other people to worry about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

skoobey said:


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



No, thank _you_ for sharing your poor recollection of the title you chose for this topic, "PORTRAIT and fashion shooters..." 

As I stated, if focus-recompose works for you, great – keep doing it. But don't assume the way you shoot is the way 'everyone' shoots.


----------



## skoobey (Jun 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist, you're not being helpful, and as someone who shoots portraits on regular basis, I still have no problem with the way I use my camera.


I don't get at what point do they "loose" focus. Of course the frontal head shot at 1.2 on 85mm lens will have one eye sharper than the other, but I've seen the kind of images people complain, and they are truly OOF. Do they move? Does the subject move?


----------



## PhilippP74 (Jun 22, 2014)

Has anybody here had the chance to work/play with the True Focus system on a Hasselblad? Curious if this really makes a difference and is a useful feature in everyday's work (of course only where appropriate) or if it's just a cool/geekish feature which you'll use once or twice and then don't use.

http://htv.hasselblad.com/video/using-true-focus-how-and-when-to-use-true-focus


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2014)

skoobey said:


> neuroanatomist, you're not being helpful, and as someone who shoots portraits on regular basis, I still have no problem with the way I use my camera.



I'm not saying you are, stopping down to a narrow enough aperture masks the backfocus caused by focus-recompose in the deeper DoF. What I'm saying is that your advice – single AF point, recompose, shoot – is bad advice for anyone shooting with a thin DoF. In other words, "the way I use my camera," is not the way everyone uses their camera. Or to put it another way, a more generally applicable piece of advice would have been, "Single AF point, stop down, recompose, shoot."




skoobey said:


> I don't get at what point do they "loose" focus. Of course the frontal head shot at 1.2 on 85mm lens will have one eye sharper than the other, but I've seen the kind of images people complain, and they are truly OOF. Do they move? Does the subject move?



With focus-recompose, the further you move the camera the greater the backfocus. Recomposing from the center AF point to a 'rule-of-thirds' intersection or further is worse than starting that composition from an outer AF point. If you try the former with thin DoF, say eyes on the same plane, focus will end up closer to the ears, and the critical sharpness on the eyes will be lost. 

Also, many people don't AFMA their lenses (or don't do so properly). Stopping down really does hide a multitude of problems. But if you want a thin DoF for your shot, you need to pay attention to the details. 




PhilippP74 said:


> Has anybody here had the chance to work/play with the True Focus system on a Hasselblad?



Obviously Hasselblad is paying attention to the problem caused by focus-recompose, and came up with a nice technical solution (one that could actually be implemented by Canon in bodies with a dual-axis electronic level). 

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. :


----------



## BoneDoc (Jun 22, 2014)

As always, when it comes to technical matters, Neuro is spot on . You can often get away with focus recompose on 2.8, but when you try shooting at 1.4, it's not very forgiving.

That was an issue when I had the 6D. But with the 5D3, that all goes away by using the outer point for composing so that even if I have to recompose, it's minimal movement.

Now that I know how to properly do this, I'm trying to learn how to do this manually on the 6D. So I got myself the Eg-S screen that allows me to see the thinner DOF. It's quite amazing to see in person how focus-recompose alters the focus point as you move (as Neuro said, it's just a matter of geometry, simple as that). So what I'm learning is just the right amount of focus-recompose-move my neck back . Definitely a better keeper rate that way. Works great for portrait at thin DOF this way.

However, with moving kids... forget it. This is where the 41 X point AF on the 5D3 saves the day. Just put it on servo ai, keep that focus point on the eye, and hit the shutter button when the expression is just right. I imagine it's even more glorious on the 1Dx . But I can't / don't want to swing that kind of cash right now .


----------



## skoobey (Jun 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2014)

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 (Jun 23, 2014)

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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2014)

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 (Jun 23, 2014)

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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



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 (Jun 23, 2014)

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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 23, 2014)

skoobey said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 23, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## sanj (Jun 24, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



That seems so nice.


----------



## TeT (Jun 24, 2014)

sanj said:


> That seems so nice.



too dry


----------

