Welcome Bob Haskell

[Basil]

Was this auto focus? It's a little soft on her.

Well, it’s called cheating. Lol. Reduced sharpening just a tad in LR

 

[GregW]

Maybe do it selectively? Keep the eyes, hair and jewelry sharp.

 

[mezy]

Shot my wife with a 350 magnum, Didn't look anywhere near as good as that

 

[Celtic 77]

That's where I was going with the "old glass" comments. Some (maybe not all) of the older ones are still viable alternatives to spending some long dollars for the "luxury" of AF & VR (IS). Particularly where fast primes are concerned. I'll admit to getting a 50mm ∱1.4 AF ED and a couple others, but won't give up the old AiS 50 ∱1.4 I've had for decades. The new ones don't have manual aperture control, needed with a slide copier and some other uses.

And "pixel peeping" on even your size-reduced image of the grandkid is case in point.

This image shows great depth of field. Something this old FILM shooter always strived for. Like most all here, it takes a little knowledge and patience to get the desired result. Unlike most shooter growing up on digital where they shoot thousands of shots hoping for a good shot. Now it's kick the camera out the door and see what one gets. I still refuse to hold the shutter button down. Make every shot count.

 

[DrEntropy]

I've approached digital imaging with a film guy's eyes as well. The camera is usually set on either "M" or a user defined set of parameters, akin to a set ISO and ∱-stop with shutter speed known to produce the desired result. But now instead of a click over-exposing to get detail in shadows, it's under-expose for details in the highlights. Contra-intuitive to my nature, but i'm learning. That and the software to replace a darkroom for the "dodge and burn" effects. A brand new world in my paradigm.

 

[Celtic 77]

I've approached digital imaging with a film guy's eyes as well. The camera is usually set on either "M" or a user defined set of parameters, akin to a set ISO and ∱-stop with shutter speed known to produce the desired result. But now instead of a click over-exposing to get detail in shadows, it's under-expose for details in the highlights. Contra-intuitive to my nature, but i'm learning. That and the software to replace a darkroom for the "dodge and burn" effects. A brand new world in my paradigm.

Shoot like you have a 10 shot magazine...make everyone count and carry it over to the WWOD...Wonderul World Of Digital!

 

[Basil]

But now instead of a click over-exposing to get detail in shadows, it's under-expose for details in the highlights. Contra-intuitive to my nature, but i'm learning.

Yes! That's what I do too, especially in high contrast shots. If the highlights are over exposed, the detail is lost forever, whereas in slightly underexposed shadows the details can usually be recovered in post. If the scene in not super high contrast, I'll just shoot for "correct exposure," but make sure there is nothing smashed up against the wall on the "bright" end of the histogram (the histogram is your friend in digital photography).