How do i get that sharper image?? Help please

M

mumof3

Suspended / Banned
Messages
93
Name
carrie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I done a Photo shoot with a family on saturday and the photo's are good but i just dont feel they are sharp enough and if i sharpen them in editing sites they end up with to much noise. Could it be my lens or camera shake? My camera is a canon 450d 12.2 mega pixels.Lens was a 18-55 mm.

Any advice appreciated :)
 
Nothing to do with Megapixels, so dont even think about that.
Probably down to shutter speed, or focusing error. Post up a few samples with the EXIF intact and we shall tell you exatcly what it is!
 
If you post up some examples it'll give us a better idea of what's what :)
 
If the shot is being blurred by too long a shutter speed try:

Set the camera to Shutter priority (Tv mode)
Assuming you're using your 18-55 lens, set a shutter speed of 1/125.

Give that a try - problem solved?
 
In my case it was down to shutter speed.

I now shoot at ISO 400 and very rarely go below 1/500 if I can help it....works for me.

D in W
 
The 18-55 kit lens could be the problem. When I bought my 300D, the kit lens was very good, but the one I bought with my 400D was dire - I quickly replaced it with a EF-S 17-85 IS.

You need to put the camera on a good steady tripod, use either a remote release or self timer, focus using live view on something with plenty of detail and take some images then look at them critically on your computer screen.

Are you shooting in RAW? - no point in buying an expensive SLR then using JPEG!
 
As a starting point I'd go for f/8, 1/125 second and whatever ISO (within reason) gets you there - if all is sharp when appropriate processing is applied then experiment from there to find the limits of your equipment and hand-holdability. Even if you can hand hold at low shutter speeds, keep them higher for people to stop subject movement.

Phil
 
Somelier said:
Are you shooting in RAW? - no point in buying an expensive SLR then using JPEG!
Click to expand...

Funniest thing I have read in ages haha biggest load of tosh ever.. so wrong its funny... thanks.. cheered me up :)
 
KIPAX said:
Funniest thing I have read in ages haha biggest load of tosh ever.. so wrong its funny... thanks.. cheered me up :)
Click to expand...


A bit harsh I think.

There's gotta be a grain of truth there although things aren't like they were a few years ago when some DSLR JPEG's looked flat and lifeless and didn't even look as good as those that came out of a compact. These days there'll be less in it but I'd still expect a RAW to look better than an out of camera JPEG, but you might have to look close... although one reason for shooting RAW is the (IMVHO) shockingly bad effort many DSLR's make at WB, that's a pain in JPEG but a doddle in RAW.
 
woof woof said:
A bit harsh I think.

There's gotta be a grain of truth there although things aren't like they were a few years ago when some DSLR JPEG's looked flat and lifeless and didn't even look as good as those that came out of a compact. These days there'll be less in it but I'd still expect a RAW to look better than an out of camera JPEG, but you might have to look close... although one reason for shooting RAW is the (IMVHO) shockingly bad effort many DSLR's make at WB, that's a pain in JPEG but a doddle in RAW.
Click to expand...

eh? the RAW and the JPG are the same picture.. The RAW has raw info you can use to post process and make better any mistakes you have made...

why would an expensive camera be a pre requisit to making mistakes?

I have two 4 thousand pound cameras here.. according to the chap that posted I am wasting them if I dont use RAW? I have nothing against raw and will use if required.. but to presume if you ahve an expensive camera then you should use raw seems incredible :)

I do agree wiht what your saying...but its a far cry from what was posted.

just my observation :)
 
woof woof said:
although one reason for shooting RAW is the (IMVHO) shockingly bad effort many DSLR's make at WB, that's a pain in JPEG but a doddle in RAW.
Click to expand...

Surely thats where the argument falls over.. an expensive camera allows you to manually set the white balance and do a good job in camera... surely an older not so expensive camera has less WB capabilities and thus RAW would help?
 
KIPAX said:
eh? the RAW and the JPG are the same picture.. The RAW has raw info you can use to post process and make better any mistakes you have made...

why would an expensive camera be a pre requisit to making mistakes?

I have two 4 thousand pound cameras here.. according to the chap that posted I am wasting them if I dont use RAW? I have nothing against raw and will use if required.. but to presume if you ahve an expensive camera then you should use raw seems incredible :)

I do agree wiht what your saying...but its a far cry from what was posted.

just my observation :)
Click to expand...

Yes but you know what you are doing, you know how to use a DSLR and know what settings to use to get correct exposure, and know how to use the camera to do what you want as you're shooting with manual control, where as a 'soccer mom' who goes to jessops and is talked into buying a 1000d- shoots it in auto but doesn't get the shots she wants, in iPhoto she corrects her images and her daughters hockey photos are saved
She only takes 100 shots a month, and has no deadlines to meet- she is in no danger of filling that 2tb hard drive the assistant from Comet assured her she would need

A working pro on the other hand takes 100 shots a day, and has to FTP them to his editor from his iphone in a field in Nottingham, and will likely delete/achive non personal/portfolio photos

Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot to get what they want
it's why I use it :lol:
(edit: this is a joke)
RAW is really for people who shoot what they wanted, then decided they wanted something different when they got home
(anotherjoke, sorry...)

I mostly shoot RAW because i'm still learning, and I look back on the personal images I took years ago as my own client and want to play with them some more, to experiment with new techniques I have picked up since then. The stuff I shot for an external client (unless it was portfolio standard) doesn't get the same treatment as there is no longer any requirement for the image to exist, and the image was either good enough at the time to be printed/uses or it was rejected
 
Last edited:
oh dear... I'll try and answer your points...

The RAW and the JPEG are the same picture? How do you make that out?

The RAW file should have had minimal image processing done on it and the JPEG has had all sorts of things done to it. Hasn't it? Plus it's in a format that can only degrade but if you have the RAW you have a friend for life.

I didn't mention cost so why bring that into it?

I assume that because you've spent more that £40 on a camera (you can get a perfectly good Samsung compact from ASDA...:)) you are interested in photography and I doubt that even you could deny that the very best result that you can get will be from a RAW that you process not from a straight out of the camera JPEG.

WB. An "expensive" (there you go again...) camera allows you to set a WB but the nature of light is that it changes. Are you going to do a custom WB before every single shot? I'm not :)

"WB capabilities and thus RAW would help?" Dunno what you mean here. My point was that when shooting RAW WB is easier to correct. Just my VHO :)

Yes, what I posted was a far cry... but I only posted because I found your post a bit too... much, as I said, a bit harsh IMVHO :)
 
mrjames said:
Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot to get what they want
it's why I use it :lol:
Click to expand...

I don't think so. The only time I'd shoot JPEG is when I don't care about the result and just want an image as fast as possibe. That's not photography though, not for me, it's just taking pictures.
 
mrjames said:
Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot to get what they want
.
Click to expand...

harsher than me :) i can agree with what your saying... But it still doesnt go with the reason I responded.. that if you ahve an expensive camera then you should shoot raw
 
woof woof said:
oh dear... I'll try and answer your points...
Click to expand...


you dont need to if its a pain,.,, should be oh dear.. you should be enjoying the debate :)

woof woof said:
The RAW and the JPEG are the same picture? How do you make that out?
Click to expand...


eeerm um eeeerm..


woof woof said:
The RAW file should have had minimal image processing done on it and the JPEG has had all sorts of things done to it. Hasn't it? Plus it's in a format that can only degrade but if you have the RAW you have a friend for life.
Click to expand...

what things has it had done to it? its exactly the same pic as raw but compressed and that depends on the compression you set... anything else thats done to it is only what you tell it in camera to do.. if you dont tell it to do anything then its same pic

woof woof said:
I didn't mention cost so why bring that into it?
Click to expand...

eeerm because thats what we are talking about... someone said if you ahve an expensive camera then you should shoot raw.... my posts are aimed at that statement nothing else.... are we on two ends of a stick? :)


woof woof said:
Yes, what I posted was a far cry... but I only posted because I found your post a bit too... much, as I said, a bit harsh IMVHO :)
Click to expand...

I can see whats gone wrong heere... you completely missed the point...

person one says.. no point having an expensive camera and shooting in JPEG .. I find that amusing and very wrong... hence my post... now unless your agreeing that an expensive camera means you should only shoot in raw then we are on two different waveleanghts...

again.. i ahve nothing against raw.. i will use raw when needs must... my issue is with the statement that if you ahve an expensive camera then you shouldnt shoot jpeg...nothing more.. nothing less:)
 
mrjames said:
Yes but you know what you are doing, you know how to use a DSLR and know what settings to use to get correct exposure, and know how to use the camera to do what you want as you're shooting with manual control, where as a 'soccer mom' who goes to jessops and is talked into buying a 1000d- shoots it in auto but doesn't get the shots she wants, in iPhoto she corrects her images and her daughters hockey photos are saved
She only takes 100 shots a month, and has no deadlines to meet- she is in no danger of filling that 2tb hard drive the assistant from Comet assured her she would need

A working pro on the other hand takes 100 shots a day, and has to FTP them to his editor from his iphone in a field in Nottingham, and will likely delete/achive non personal/portfolio photos

Raw is for people who don't know how to shoot to get what they want
it's why I use it :lol:
(edit: this is a joke)
RAW is really for people who shoot what they wanted, then decided they wanted something different when they got home
(anotherjoke, sorry...)

I mostly shoot RAW because i'm still learning, and I look back on the personal images I took years ago as my own client and want to play with them some more, to experiment with new techniques I have picked up since then. The stuff I shot for an external client (unless it was portfolio standard) doesn't get the same treatment as there is no longer any requirement for the image to exist, and the image was either good enough at the time to be printed/uses or it was rejected
Click to expand...


But the soccer mum is exactly the sort of person who is going to shot jpeg, they do not want to have to edit photos they want to "shoot and go" as they did with their compact camera's.

As for the talked into buying a dslr, I think this is wrong, I am sure there are the odd cases of it but in general the consumer believes that dslrs produce better images and its not the person behind the camera that matters. Dslrs are the new compacts.
 
Davec223 said:
[SNIP] As for the talked into buying a dslr, I think this is wrong, I am sure there are the odd cases of it but in general the consumer believes that dslrs produce better images and its not the person behind the camera that matters. Dslrs are the new compacts.
Click to expand...

A consumer will believe a DSLR produces better images than a compact BUT you only really get better shots when you take the camera out of auto mode take control of the settings yourself so yes, ultimately a DSLR will take better photos* but for someone who has no interest in photography, wont use anything but auto and wont do any PP, a compact or bridge camera is more appropriate for their needs.

IMO a good sales person will assess the needs of the customer and recommend a product that is most suited to them although there will be people who think they *need* a DSLR and insist on buying one.

*A camera is only as good as the person using it but I'm kinda skirting around that can of worms in this instance
 
Dave in Wales said:
In my case it was down to shutter speed.

I now shoot at ISO 400 and very rarely go below 1/500 if I can help it....works for me.

D in W
Click to expand...


Surely that's not a one setting fixes all? May as well build all DSLR's with ISO 400 and shutter speed 1/500 as fixed parameters!
 
Russ77 said:
A consumer will believe a DSLR produces better images than a compact BUT you only really get better shots when you take the camera out of auto mode take control of the settings yourself so yes, ultimately a DSLR will take better photos* but for someone who has no interest in photography, wont use anything but auto and wont do any PP, a compact or bridge camera is more appropriate for their needs.

IMO a good sales person will assess the needs of the customer and recommend a product that is most suited to them although there will be people who think they *need* a DSLR and insist on buying one.

*A camera is only as good as the person using it but I'm kinda skirting around that can of worms in this instance
Click to expand...

Wrong - A DSLR in auto mode with kit lens will easily get better results than a compact. It may not be so obvious outdoor in perfect light, but the vast majority of the time it will. My pics taken on auton on a D40 years ago beat what I can do on auto on my compact.

Anyway, back to the OP.

There are 3 easy things to improve IQ:

- Shutter speed. This should not be less than focal length (i.e. shoot at 100mm and you should shoot at least 1/100. I personally will never go below 1/60 due to subject movement, ideally I try to be 1/125 ish. Unless they are moving fast it shuold be fine.
- Aperture - Lenses are not as sharp wide open compared to say f8, so shoot at that if you can.
- Lens - This will make a difference. The kit lens is ok, but not great. You either need som faster better quality glass like a Tamron 2.8 or a Canon 2.8, or go for a prime. Primes are as sharp as you can get and even the cheap 50mm 1.8 are so much better.
 
cambsno said:
Wrong - A DSLR in auto mode with kit lens will easily get better results than a compact. It may not be so obvious outdoor in perfect light, but the vast majority of the time it will. My pics taken on auton on a D40 years ago beat what I can do on auto on my compact.
Click to expand...

Bit sweeping just to say "wrong".... surely it depends on the DSLR in question? A high end compact/budget DSLR for example....

But anyway, as you eluded this is off topic and I really CBA now :lol:
 
Dave in Wales said:
When I started photography ASA 400 as it was then, gave grain the size of golf balls.

So ISO 400 for me is a step into the unknown.:D

D in W
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should not have chose the shooting range at your local golf club as a subject?:)

I to remember ASA and having to push it when the light was dour.
 
Back to the OP, seeing the images and EXIF data will help a lot in determining the cause of the problem, but initially I'd take a punt at either incorrect focus (depending on the focussing mode used, perhaps something else in the scene "stole" the focus?) or alternatively, the shutter speed wasn't fast enough to eliminate camera shake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top