Focus in photos

[zzkmzy]

Hi,

I thought I could write about a subject that I've noticed while viewing the photos. Focus. Could you please pay some more attention to focus?

Some examples:
http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/ale.../stills?page=8 photos 181-183

http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/irm.../stills?page=5 photo 119

http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/lew.../stills?page=8 photos 192,194,195

In all of these photos, the pussy is apparently the main target of the photo, yet it is out of focus. Instead, the correct focus is somewhere else; the legs, or the ass.

I'm not saying that this is a terribly common problem, nor that it is ruining the experience, nor that I could focus better myself. Still it's a common enough problem that I've noticed in various different shoots, without having gone through all the photos in all the shoots.

[mrpinkeyes]

Think this probably belongs in this thread.... "Share with the shooters"

ummm...can't say I would have looked at any of those pics and thought them to be out of focus... Even on second look only the Lewa ones look like they maybe... except my understanding from the pictures that the main focus was the pee and the daisy (?? flower) more than the pussy so No not out of focus.

[zzkmzy]

If you can't see those photos are out of focus, then please look closer. Of course it won't be noticeable if you are only looking at thumbnails or the photos scaled down on a small screen. Zoom in to 1:1, then locate the sharpest area in the photo, i.e. the area where you can clearly see the skin texture.

[wolfgangbuster29]

I gave the photo sets you referred us to a fair look-see and it appears to me that the focus is tight and sharp in most if not all the photos. You can count the hairs on the heads of each of the models, it's that sharp.

But one thing to consider, especially when viewing photos that were taken with a professional, 35mm lense, is that the field of focus is narrower than what could be more commonly found in a video camera. This helps the photographer really focus in tightly on a subject. But it's this narrower field of focus the still cameras have that gives the photo more depth and fidelity because the 35mm lense focuses on things much like the human eye, that's what gives things more of a 'life-like' look in professional photos where as a common video camera lense tends to capture the image over such a broader range of focus and that's one of the things that gives video more of a 'flat' look than something that was shot with a still camera or a 35mm motion picture film camera. Because of this the 35mm lense can capture much more detail in a subject but because not everything can be arranged within a shot to be strictly within one plane of depth or distance in a scene, you're gonna have that depth of field effect and that in itself does not constitute an intentional error in focus by the photographer.

[pippa]

I gave the photo sets you referred us to a fair look-see and it appears to me that the focus is tight and sharp in most if not all the photos. You can count the hairs on the heads of each of the models, it's that sharp.

But one thing to consider, especially when viewing photos that were taken with a professional, 35mm lense, is that the field of focus is narrower than what could be more commonly found in a video camera. This helps the photographer really focus in tightly on a subject. But it's this narrower field of focus the still cameras have that gives the photo more depth and fidelity because the 35mm lense focuses on things much like the human eye, that's what gives things more of a 'life-like' look in professional photos where as a common video camera lense tends to capture the image over such a broader range of focus and that's one of the things that gives video more of a 'flat' look than something that was shot with a still camera or a 35mm motion picture film camera. Because of this the 35mm lense can capture much more detail in a subject but because not everything can be arranged within a shot to be strictly within one plane of depth or distance in a scene, you're gonna have that depth of field effect and that in itself does not constitute an intentional error in focus by the photographer.

You also have to take into consideration the quality of the computer used to view the photographs and the resolution of the computer screen used to view them!

[wolfgangbuster29]

I gave the photo sets you referred us to a fair look-see and it appears to me that the focus is tight and sharp in most if not all the photos. You can count the hairs on the heads of each of the models, it's that sharp.

But one thing to consider, especially when viewing photos that were taken with a professional, 35mm lense, is that the field of focus is narrower than what could be more commonly found in a video camera. This helps the photographer really focus in tightly on a subject. But it's this narrower field of focus the still cameras have that gives the photo more depth and fidelity because the 35mm lense focuses on things much like the human eye, that's what gives things more of a 'life-like' look in professional photos where as a common video camera lense tends to capture the image over such a broader range of focus and that's one of the things that gives video more of a 'flat' look than something that was shot with a still camera or a 35mm motion picture film camera. Because of this the 35mm lense can capture much more detail in a subject but because not everything can be arranged within a shot to be strictly within one plane of depth or distance in a scene, you're gonna have that depth of field effect and that in itself does not constitute an intentional error in focus by the photographer.

You also have to take into consideration the quality of the computer used to view the photographs and the resolution of the computer screen used to view them!

Yep. Those elements do indeed play a crucial role to the clarity of the photos and videos as they are viewed. I have my monitors set at 1920x1080 resolution. Some monitors out there won't go that high in resolution.

Also to consider is the computer's video display card and its driver. Be sure the driver for your video card is up-to-date.

Another thing you can do in most browsers is to go into the browser's Advanced settings and make sure the 'Automatic Resizing of Images' is deselected in there. If your browser is otherwise automatically re-sizing the images displayed on a page then you could notice a considerable drop in clarity of the photo being viewed.

[garionhall]

I thought I could write about a subject that I've noticed while viewing the photos. Focus. Could you please pay some more attention to focus?
http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/ale.../stills?page=8 photos 181-183
http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/irm.../stills?page=5 photo 119
http://www.abbywinters.com/shoot/lew.../stills?page=8 photos 192,194,195

First, let me assure you, that our shooters pay attention to the focus in images and videos. However, when doing any shoot, there are always focus problems, usually because the distance from the camera to the subject changed while focus was locked (model or photographer movement).

Incorrectly focussed images are removed during the editing phase, checked for in the processing phase, and checked again in the final review. This is done by two seperate people, so out of focus images should never appear on the site. However, in the examples you cite, I agree they all are out-of focus images (that is, where the intended subject is not included in the zone which is in focus).

I am disappointed to see this, and will look into why it's occuring, and fix it - thanks for bringing it up, and I apologise. There is no excuse for it occuring.

[mrpinkeyes]

If you can't see those photos are out of focus, then please look closer. Of course it won't be noticeable if you are only looking at thumbnails or the photos scaled down on a small screen. Zoom in to 1:1, then locate the sharpest area in the photo, i.e. the area where you can clearly see the skin texture.

Sharper eye than me... and obviously a more trained eyes than me also.... as it appears. After reading Garion's and your post I had another close look and I can see it.... But without your guidance (locate the sharpest area...) I would never have noticed anything wrong...Good spotting zzkmzy...

[Frans]

Worse here, I still don't really see much of a problem. When *I* take an out-of-focus picture rest assured it can *easily* be spotted as such, 'cos it will be blurry as heck. Which will teach me to keep the flashlight of in low-light situations I suppose . Hmm.. this means my eyes or getting bad.. must be old age, yeah that's my excuse

[izzy]

As Garion said above, incorrectly focused images are removed in different steps by different people. The images which are in the examples posted by zzkmzy are very good examples of this what should never be included in a set. We are already working to solve the issue.

Thanks for bringing it up.