getting rid of the soft results

Wookie

Wookie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
764
Name
Lawrence
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm impressed by the amount of knowledge held in this forum, but it takes a long time to read through it all! sorry if I'm asking anything that's already been discussed

I'm more snapper than photographer, but I like to try. Biggest problem currently is that I suffer from soft photos (on top of all the problems with inspiration, composition, timing, etc etc)

Now that I have gone digital I can analyse the photos in a lot more detail (scary) and also experiment. So that's what I've done lots of, experimenting and analysing the results, as well as hunting here in the forum and on the net for ideas and explanations.

I'd love to say the problem is in the lenses and getting permission from the boss for throwing a wedge load of cash at L series lens would solve all my problems. However I think that would just result in an empty bank account and still retain the fuzzy photos. My lenses are not perfect, but occasionally the results I get are fabulous, so I think the biggest variable must be the one standing behind the camera.

I am thinking that there is a combination of the following technique reasons for my soft focus problem:

1. bad focussing, simply I am allowing the sensor to look at the wrong spot and getting brilliant focus on the wrong bit of the world, combined with . . .

2. always having the aperture too open so shallow depth of field and most of what I want is left in the fuzzy zone, because . . .

3. I want to maximise the shutter speed because I can't hold the camera still and still always end up trying speeds too slow for the lens length


My idea is to practice on these solutions:

a) pointing at the right bit of the world :bonk:. hmmm, not as easy as it sounds, I always thought I was doing that but detailed study normally shows I've focussed on something just behind the subject (normally through someones elbow or between their legs, or the tree sticking out the top of their head :lol:), or just in front of, or the subject has moved. aaaarggghh bring back manual focus, all is forgiven . . but I was useless at that too :thinking: so, . . .

b) increase depth of field, use bigger apertures when the light allows by . . .

c) using higher ISO more often to get the speed up as well. I've started that but now getting purple noise blotches when the light is poor, sooo. . .

d) get a tripod for the longer shutter speeds and learn to relax (:beer:)


can anybody suggest any other reasons or solutions please?


for info I am using a canon 400d with 18-55 kit lens, 28-105 USM II 3.5-4.5, 70-300 4-5.6 II, stitz monopod


ta
Lawrence
 
Sounds to me like you have already worked out what your problems are and how to tackle them quite well, so your knowledge isn't lacking, maybe just the confidence in your knowledge. One of the hardest things I fouinf to remember at first [18mths ago, and now its second nature, so dont dispair] is remembering to move the focal point around in the view finder, and where necessary, using focus lock and reframing. At first, it always seems so much to remember but its all a case of building blocks, and you have a good foundation from what I can see in your own assessments of what you need to do. Main thing to remember, is that you probably wont master all your solutions at once, but as you pratice it wil get easier and more natural to take all those things into account at the same time. Even the best get it wrong sometimes by forgetting the bloody obvious, so don't worry, you are in good company ;)

Make sure you show us some results too :thumbs:
 
If your 400d can do it, change the focus point to centre only. I've always had problems with multiple focus points, the camera always seems to pick the wrong one.

The only other advice is to give the camera as much chance as posible to get the shot right, as you have suggested use a tripod when you can or make sure the shutter speed is fast enough if you're hand holding

don't photograph soft subjects :)
 
Wookie said:
My lenses are not perfect, but occasionally the results I get are fabulous, so I think the biggest variable must be the one standing behind the camera.
Click to expand...

So why not put that to the test, Lawrence? To either settle that doubt or to rule it out. Declare it moot.
I would grab my cam, go into the nearest well stocked photo store, make a couple quick pictures with my own lens, then make the same pictures with its L-cousin screwed onto my cam body. Go home and examine what you got on your card on a decent monitor.
That should settle that nagging doubt. And set you in the right direction.

Everything else you say makes sense though.
 
Remember that digital photos need sharpening to look thier best.
 
icecavern said:
Remember that digital photos need sharpening to look their best.
Click to expand...

In addition to all the other points made above which certainly need consideration, I'm sure this one single factor is responsible for the vast majority of soft images we see on the forum, and there are a lot!

You need to sharpen your images in processing regardless of whether you use L glass or a lesser optic.
 
W.Smith said:
So why not put that to the test, Lawrence? To either settle that doubt or to rule it out. Declare it moot.
I would grab my cam, go into the nearest well stocked photo store, make a couple quick pictures with my own lens, then make the same pictures with its L-cousin screwed onto my cam body. Go home and examine what you got on your card on a decent monitor.
That should settle that nagging doubt. And set you in the right direction.

Everything else you say makes sense though.
Click to expand...

good plan, but no well stocked photo shops in town (Loughborough).

I'm working on a different path of elimination, I know sometimes the results are very good, really crisp, so the lenses I have got must be able to produce the results, hence the problem must be me.

Sample of a good one, named by the wife as "the twig and giggleberry shot", however there are a dozen fuzzy versions, with a combination of wobble, too tight a depth of field & focussing past or in front of the intended focus point (right hand edge of berries).

IMG_0705a.jpg



Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/200
Av( Aperture Value ) 11.0
ISO Speed 800
Lens EF28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Focal Length 105.0 mm

hand held at about 70cm distance

No processing, just taken straight from the jpeg and resized


This is a 100% crop from the original jpeg:

IMG_0705s.jpg
 
CT said:
In addition to all the other points made above which certainly need consideration, I'm sure this one single factor is responsible for the vast majority of soft images we see on the forum, and there are a lot!

You need to sharpen your images in processing regardless of whether you use L glass or a lesser optic.
Click to expand...


yes! trying to get my head around the whole sharpening thing, I've been searching & reading a lot of threads on the subject and following up the associated links.

Currently the camera is dumping them out in "standard" format, which is sharpened 3 and no other adjustments.

I've tried twiddling the knobs & buttons on a number of photo packages that are cluttering the hard drive but I am rarely getting any satisfactory results, it appears to be a bit of a black art, or possibly needs some profound enlightenment.

Every time I do a sharpening attempt I come to the rapid conclusion that its only really going to work properly if I get the shot right in the first place. It'll help make the best of a bad shot, but it'll never cure it, not to my satisfaction.
 
I cant see a problem with that Lawrence...and I am looking on my crappy work monitor.

I would always go for the centre focus point only.. then YOU focus on what YOU want.

Try to use RAW and then you are in control over the sharpening afterwards... as the jpgs get sharpened in camera mostly.

Apart from that front holly leaf which is a bit out of focus and more likely to be a depth of field problem... they look fine to me.

Smaller aperture gives greater depth of field...ie you used F11..so maybe F16 mightve worked.

Also.... try to focus on something roughly 1/3 of the way into the picture to get the best benefit of depth of field. That will focus 1/3 back towards you and 2/3 forward away from you.............if you understand!! :)
 
hey, I posted the one that was GOOD !

There's lots more that are terrible and I've carefully studied them and the exif to work out what's going wrong

This on had got the DOF I wanted, everything, and most importantly the berries and area close to them are sharp, showing that the lens can do the job when the nut behind it presses the right buttons.

What surprised me during the sequence of shots was how small an aperture was needed (ie how big an f number) to get everything in and how tight the depth of field can be, at f/5.6 it was just +/- a few mm

I've been reading about the 1/3 - 2/3 thing, not sure from what I've seen that its appropriate for all distances.
I did try using an online DOF calculator to create a table of DOF values for typical lens lengths, but got bored of re-entering the parameters. At least it confirmed my twig & giggleberry findings on shallow DOF.
Is there an accurate spreadsheet for calculating DOF across a range of lengths, distances and apertures? I'd like to make up a series of cheat sheets so I can get my head around what DOF I'm actually getting. The DOF preview in the viewfinder is useless for the level of accuracy we're talking about.

first job with the camera when I got it was I switched the focus system to centre point only, I prefer to dictate what the camera is focussing on and frequently do the half press and shift routine
 
and I'm running RAW + large jpg at the moment while I work out what is happening, its just a pain to sort the RAW quickly to throw it on the internet.
 
Wookie said:
I've been reading about the 1/3 - 2/3 thing, not sure from what I've seen that its appropriate for all distances.

I did try using an online DOF calculator to create a table of DOF values for typical lens lengths, but got bored of re-entering the parameters. At least it confirmed my twig & giggleberry findings on shallow DOF.

Is there an accurate spreadsheet for calculating DOF across a range of lengths, distances and apertures? I'd like to make up a series of cheat sheets so I can get my head around what DOF I'm actually getting. The DOF preview in the viewfinder is useless for the level of accuracy we're talking about.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about the 1/3 - 2/3 thing. It only works in one very specific situation and is useless as a piece of general advice.

Did you want a DOF table like this one?
 
StewartR said:
Don't worry about the 1/3 - 2/3 thing. It only works in one very specific situation and is useless as a piece of general advice.
Click to expand...

Thank you Stewart............just trying to give Lawrence a few pointers... I didnt say it was a hard and fast rule.
 
Depth of field was certainly a major part of my problems. I took the 18-55 kit lens out late on saturday for the family trip to the fair. Wound the ISO up to 1600 and made sure that I avoided f/5.6 like the plague, tried to keep it at f/8 -f/11 & upwards for better depth of field and to optimise the lens sharpness. I couldn't use the monopod as it was too crowded and we had 3 kids in tow, so used handheld and prayer.

Considering the light conditions the improvement on sharpness was noticeable, . . . lots of new problems found though!

I was trying for lots of motion blur on the lights of the rides so often running longish shutter speeds 1/10 - 1/30 sec, and the stationary bits are surprisingly sharp, not perfect, but strangely good considering previous problems.

I also tried to use flash to freeze the subject and discovered that the flash duration appears shorter than the shutter, and fires at the start of shutter opening, so stuff gets detail then blur in the direction of motion, rather than the visually acceptable blur to a full sharp frozen end point. Guess thats the flash curtain synch setting . . . ?

With all the lights on the rides pulsing the light variations were throwing the auto metering all over the shop so I went totally manual a lot of the time (pretty novel for me). I'd swear you could stick the 400d in a box at the bottom of a coalmine and it could still get a picture, amazing ability to find light. Shame I had it on iso 1600 ALL the time as some shots are quite noisey and the 18-55 had limited reach so cropping down to get the detail exagerates the noise. ho hum

evidence will follow when I've sorted through them for the few good ones, almost filled a 4GB card (RAW +Large jpeg), but so few worked how I expected!
 
should have looked harder rather, I didn't avoid f/5.6 as much as I thought but the ones taken at 1/200 sec and f/5.6 are an improvement so looks like combinations: fast shutter with wide aperture, or slow shutter with smaller aperture, or maybe I'm going just going mad staring at the results while trying to see a pattern ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top