O.O.F.

February 21st, 2010
By

OUT

OF

FOCUS

I just shot the Hawaii Rainbow baseball team’s come-from-behind victory over 10th ranked Oregon State, and the jubo that followed was ruined–thanks to my ubiquitous and ever-reliable Mark III.

The Hawaii Rainbows mob team mate Collin Bennett, top, OUT OF FOCUS, after Bennett's game-winning RBI in the bottom of the ninth inning of a college baseball game between the Oregon State Beavers and the Hawaii Rainbows Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010 at Les Murakami Stadium.  Hawaii came from behind in the bottom of the ninth inning to win 5-4.  (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Bulletin).

The Hawaii Rainbows mob team mate Collin Bennett, top, OUT OF FOCUS, after Bennett's game-winning RBI in the bottom of the ninth inning of a college baseball game between the Oregon State Beavers and the Hawaii Rainbows Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010 at Les Murakami Stadium. Hawaii came from behind in the bottom of the ninth inning to win 5-4. (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Bulletin).

I’ve been a loyal Canon guy since 2002, when the first 1D series camera came out, and have shot with all the successive models that have come out.  I’m just so disappointed yet again with the lack-lustre performance of this camera.  There’s is absolutely no excuse why this shot just isn’t in focus.  Luckily I was able to redeem myself with this shot:

 Team mates mob Hawaii's Collin Bennett, second from left, after Bennett's game-winning RBI in the bottom of the ninth inning of a college baseball game between the Oregon State Beavers and the Hawaii Rainbows Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010 at Les Murakami Stadium.  Hawaii came from behind in the bottom of the ninth inning to win 5-4.  (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Bulletin).

Team mates mob Hawaii's Collin Bennett, second from left, after Bennett's game-winning RBI in the bottom of the ninth inning of a college baseball game between the Oregon State Beavers and the Hawaii Rainbows Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010 at Les Murakami Stadium. Hawaii came from behind in the bottom of the ninth inning to win 5-4. (Jamm Aquino/Honolulu Star-Bulletin).

Personally, I thought the other shot was a better moment, as it was more defining–ironic as it’s just O.O.F.–

Out

Of

Focus.

*SIGH*

11 Responses to “O.O.F.”

  1. Tracy White:

    I’ve had a Canon Rebel since 2006 and have been generally fairly happy with it, but I have noticed that it tends to favor focusing on the near, even when the subject is square on center. I haven’t played around with restricting the focus point to just the center point though.

    It also HATES focusing on items in the sky (I like shooting airplanes and helicopters) for some reason.


  2. Charles Freeman:

    Why blame the camera? Photographers got along for over 100 years without auto-focus.


  3. jammaquino:

    That’s a great point Charlie, but if you had an idea of the type of work we do and the equipment we are issued, there’s still no excuse. If you drive a Toyota and it accelerates on its own, will you say “why blame the car, drivers have been licensed to drive for decades because they know how to brake and accelerate.” The auto-focus is there, so we use it.


  4. erick:

    You didn’t have to pay for AF 100 years ago. If you pay for it, it should work. I read there is a fix for the AF.


  5. SprayHawk:

    I fight this some with my 1dMkii, but I’ve turned off all of the autofocus points except the center focus.

    It limits what the camera can do, but it does focus on what I am aiming at.


  6. AddisonC:

    I’ve also been shooting Canon DSLRs since around 2002/2003 and I’ll admit, the tendency to purely foreground focus gets annoying, even when you have the AF point locked. The Mk3 seems to have been universally pandered for its poor AF accuracy, though the Mk4 seems to have finally made good on the promises. The 7D also feels a lot more accurate even in the zoned mode. If only we all had the resources to use both Canon and Nikon…

    Feel your pain Jamm.


  7. whome:

    Perhaps if you didn’t shoot at f/2.8?


  8. Monkey:

    You shot is in focus, it is your depth of field that is week, your circle of confusion could not carry through the field to your subject of interest. Your issue is selective focus, the foreground is in focus (you have a shallow depth of field). If the foreground was out of focus all the way through to the back, then yes you would have been O.O.F. Don’t blame the camera, it doesn’t look good on your behalf, especially, if your are a professional. (Did your editor say anything regarding this post)?

    As photographers, we have to take responsibility for poor technique or lack their of. If photography was that easy, then all the writers would be able to do your job and you would be out of work. Zone focus or manual focus were options, as well as one point focus point. I am assuming you had all points of focus active.

    Artificial intelligence is just that, artificial, it doesn’t really think, you have to think. The camera sensed a point was in focus, you finger was pressing the shutter release button & bang…..your image was recorded (and your camera was correct, it was in focus at that particular point). You let the camera decide focus point,so it was your choice to begin with along with shutter speed, ISO, aperture, color matrix, image size & format, AF or MF, Single, continuous LS or HS frames per second, One shot or AI….

    I think that if the camera auto focus jammed up and was searching for a focus point while the moment happened and you got off a late shot because it was “searching” ,you would have a legitimate beef with Canon AI. I have heard that the MIII does not do well in bright light and shooting into light especially with shiny objects creates problems for the MIII.

    Your sample of in focus, does not need a great deal of depth of field, it is kind of an apples and oranges argument. This is to say photo A needs a great deal of depth of field while photo B requires a 1/4 to 1/2 as much as photo A. They are not the same.

    (ISO, shutter speed, F stop & focal length is useful info).

    Nothing personal, just a critique you would get from class or an editor or in this instance a fellow photographer in a public forum. I get mad at myself when I screw up and try to think about what happened and why it went wrong. I have had shots where the surfer is not in sharp focus and a fellow photographer noted that my shutter speed was too low, and I was panning at 1/500ths….some guys really do rip.

    An aside: when Japanese Wedding industry moved more into digital, guys who used 1 series cameras bought 5Ds and had a lot of focus issues and they blamed the camera. Again it was not the camera it was the operator and they should have bought 1 series digital so they would get the same amount of AF points to work with.


  9. jammaquino:

    @Monkey, first off, did I at any point state that photography was easy? I don’t think this has anything to do with poor technique or lack there of. If you’ve read my posts before, you’re probably familiar with my technique. I know what I’m doing. I’m not sitting there on Aperture priority motoring away frames at everything that happens before me. Because I learned on film, I’m a very selective shooter. Philosophy being–the more you shoot, the more you have to edit on deadline. But you’re right, it is selective focus. Your assumptions, however, are wrong, sorry. I only use single AF points with no AF assist on the surrounding points. And NO my camera WASN’T correct because the focus point selected was the middle, where it’s SUPPOSED to be focused, but obviously not. It’d be fine if this happens once in a while, but it’s consistent, and the camera has come back time and again from CPS stating that it’s in top working order. The gear we are issued isn’t cheap, and when paying that much money for it, it had better work the way it should. And my comparison with the second photo wasn’t to show “in focus” and “out of focus” but merely to show that I came up with an image.

    And with that in mind, when shooting sports, I almost always shoot at 2.8 to isolate the said subject, in this case, the player who just won the game for them. This answers the question from “whome” and a good point. While isolation is key, in this case, it’s probably the bullet that shot me in the foot. In retrospect, the shot probably would’ve benefited from NOT being wide open, maybe even at f4.

    Great comments everyone, thanks for stopping by!


  10. kent:

    i like the first photo regardless of where your focus went. i think its still a story telling image. i havent seen them rush the field like that in awhile…

    still cool man. nice clean background. you go great work.


  11. Josh:

    I know people who are still using their Mark II and Mark IIn’s to shoot sports. I have met only one or two Mark III owners (out of dozens) who weren’t unhappy with the focusing accuracy on their camera. Now with the Mark IV being out, I can’t help but think it was really what the Mark III should have been.


Leave a Reply