Image Quality - Looking for perfection...

Urban Grimshaw

Urban Grimshaw

Suspended / Banned
Messages
392
Edit My Images
Yes
Maybe not quite perfection, but for as longs as I remember, I have been looking at other peoples images and thinking, "wow, how do they do that?"

What I'm talking about is completely noise-free images, super smooth, yet super-duper, ultra sharp.

It's the kind of quality that sets apart a seasoned pro from your average amateur photographer.

Now, I've been doing this many years. It's mostly a secondary hobby for me, but I've been taking photographs for more than two decades, and I actively enjoy post-processing. I'll freely admit that I have gone too far with this in the past (as many of us have), over-sharpening, boosting clarity, structure, etc, trying to achieve that pro quality. Of course, what you end up with is super sharp, and super noisy.... My post processing is becoming more refined, and I understand there are many variables in image sharpness and quality. But that Wow! image? It completely alludes me.

The obvious thing would be kit. Expensive glass may be the answer? But it's also an expensive test in order to find out. I have mostly used prime lenses in the past (Canon Nifty Fifty f1.8 and 28mm f2.8) and whilst they're kinda sharp, that final image is still not happening. Any zooms I possess (Sigma 10-20mm and Canon 55-250mm STM) I'm never really happy with sharpness. I know these are not going to match thousands of pounds worth of pro kit, but the primes should be fairly decent, and the 55-250mm supposedly just as sharp as much more expensive glass according to reviews. So just how much money do you have to spend?? These are currently attached to a 7d Mk1 or 30d in my case.

I'm sure that is only part of it though. Post processing being another big part. As above, many people have a tendency to over-process and add a lot of noise, unnatural light, etc. It takes a more skilled and subtle approach to produce something really striking without completely ruining an image. Perhaps though, I need to spend more time understanding the sharpening and noise reduction processes. Currently using Nik Collection's Output Sharpener for sharpening, and Dfine for noise reduction, but not massively educated on these.

In relation to the above, the tendency to over-process is most likely a product of taking sub-standard images in the first place. So, is the final lacklustre result down to the initial photography? For example, applying grad filters PP. Is that a no-no if we're looking for top draw results? Should we still be using physical filters on the lens if we want to achieve perfection? I'll happily admit most of my images are snapped without a great deal of preparation.

Of course, all of the above are going to have an impact on the final image. And I guess it's that culmination of in-depth knowledge and equipment that makes that final Wow! factor. But I would love to know peoples own experiences on what has made the biggest impact. Especially from anyone who has been through this battle and achieved it. Is there a secret to this I don't know about? And has anyone got any valuable tips?

I always shoot RAW BTW.
 
Personally, I couldn't care less about sharp, whatever that actually is. I like my pictures to be in focus (in the main) but my main concern is that my pictures say what I am trying to communicate.
 
I'm no expert, but getting the right light albeit natural or artificial is key for quality photos with good detail. Camera stability is also very important as is accurate focus at the correct point. Choosing the right settings ties in with that, I aim to get double the shutter speed for focal length used i.e. 1/100th at 50mm

In my experience the 7d is a camera that needs exposure to be spot on if you want to avoid noise even at relatively low iso.

Should be fine though with the 30d and 50mm, yes post processing is important, but can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear
 
Last edited:
To be a bit more helpful - makes sure the front of the lens is clean, use a lens hood at all times (and if it is a petal hood, make sure it is orientated correctly), use a tripod, keep ISO down. Keep you max burst rate down to one frame every ten minutes - a good day out for me might involve 20 shots.
 
Good glass is always a good start (and shooting the image in focus!) The majority of my images are taken with the Canon 24-70 2.8 II which is a lovely lens. The lens setup on my 5DMK3 has also been microadjusted with FoCal too.

For me, I never add sharpening... until the very end of editing an image when its been resized to the desired size, so no sharpening is added to the Raw file. I use Smart sharpen on PS with the following settings. Use legacy and More Accurate boxes are checked. Radius is normally set to 0.5 pixels. The amount slider varies depending on the image size and the image itself.
I hardly ever add clarity to images, I think it can make an image go blotchy. Structure is used very sparingly, as it can also enhance grain. Indeed, I only use structure on landscapes. I never use it on my studio work.
 
Still going with light, for example flat grey days mean no contrast, no shadow and no detail, best lens in the world cannot change that.

Focussing properly using a suitable aperture setting is also very important, so many things combine to make that great photo.
 
Last edited:
The best images will be taken at the base ISO of your sensor, any increase however small will start to introduce noise. It may not be easily spotted but it will be there.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Still going with light, for example flat grey days mean no contrast, no shadow and no detail, best lens in the world cannot change that.
Click to expand...

These are the kinds of things I have learned over the years. However, over those years, I've taken what I would think to be some good and some bad images. Never ever have I achieved glassy smooth and super sharp. Agree with everything you say though.

john.margetts said:
Keep you max burst rate down to one frame every ten minutes - a good day out for me might involve 20 shots.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand this? Do you just mean spend some time thinking about the shot?

I did forget to mention in my original post that I always try to use the lowest ISO, and the vast majority of my images are taken between 100 and 200 ISO. Though I sometimes step this up on the 7d in bad light.

Tripod I am often guilty of not using, though many landscapes and stuff are on the 10-20mm which isn't so sensitive to movement. I do tend to follow the rule of keeping the shutter speed above the focal length, but perhaps I have to be stricter still for best results?
 
Last edited:
Just two more from me, make sure your own eyes and/or glasses are doing their job properly. Last one is your monitor screen up to the job and properly calibrated, so much to think about isn't there?
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
I'll happily admit most of my images are snapped without a great deal of preparation.
Click to expand...
There's your problem.

You can throw money at "better" gear, you can process your images into submission but putting your brain in gear and thinking about your photography will get the results quicker. Not just the shot, but seeing beyond just "sharpness" to understand what it is about the images and photographers you aspire to emulate. Sharpness and clarity will be a very small part of it - unless they're exceptionally boring images that inspire you.
 
This picture was taken on my 40D (as far as I remember) using the 70-300mm L lens and a 1.4 converter.

Was sharpened in PP and I think it is as sharp as I could get it without going OTT.



0124 by petersmart on Talk Photography
​
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
I did forget to mention in my original post that I always try to use the lowest ISO, and the vast majority of my images are taken between 100 and 200 ISO. Though I sometimes step this up on the 7d in bad light.
Click to expand...

I never bother too much about the ISO and will quite happily go to 3200 ISO then use Neat Image to get rid of the noise - all my pics are converted to TIFFs in DPP and then processed often on Easy HDR Pro3 before finishing in my normal editing program.

Finally I may use Easy Thumbnails to reduce the image size and the filesize to upload on here.
.
 
Alastair said:
There's your problem.

You can throw money at "better" gear, you can process your images into submission but putting your brain in gear and thinking about your photography will get the results quicker. Not just the shot, but seeing beyond just "sharpness" to understand what it is about the images and photographers you aspire to emulate. Sharpness and clarity will be a very small part of it - unless they're exceptionally boring images that inspire you.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I can think about a shot. And having learnt many things over the years, I'll scan the environment for the components I think I need to achieve the shot. Some of them are a matter of luck, and others more calculated, but over the years, out of the tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) photographs I have taken, I have never once achieved the level of quality I describe.

I have photos I am pleased with for various reasons. Some of them have been published, so they must have something going for them. But that optical perfection remains unobtainable despite my best efforts.

When I say lack of preparation, I mostly mean the camera rarely sits on a tripod. It rarely gets decorated with filters. Etc. Much of my photography is opportunistic. My camera is with me for when the moment arrives...I'm not often sat in a field waiting for it.

I guess, just in the past few weeks, I'm feeling a renewed interest in my photography, and I'm really looking for the areas I need to focus on most. Whether this is impossible without better kit, or whether it's possible on an iPhone with the right setup and thought... This question has puzzled me for years. Most things are easy to find the answer to, but this is not.
 
As a keen amateur I would like to think that if I bought a top of the range Canon DSLR and some of their best lenses, I could take great photos. I'm sure the quality in terms of sharpness, noise etc would improve but I am never going to have the artistic ability of a pro or have the time to chase the best light or to wait for that animal/bird to appear. I expect a step up in the quality of your camera and lenses would help but perhaps tuition would be beneficial.

If you already have all the necessary skills, apologies.
 
Last edited:
Urban Grimshaw said:
But that optical perfection remains unobtainable despite my best efforts.
Click to expand...
"Optical perfection" is that really what you aspire to?

Link to half-a-dozen images that inspire you, because I doubt that optical perfection will be the magic component in any of them.
 
For the OP - don't worry about it. An image with drama and emotion in the composition is far more effective than a bland image which is very sharp. My guidance would be to focus on composition first.

Oh, and don't shoot at f/22 or other very small apertures as you'll induce diffraction and end up with a fuzzy image. Wide angle should be fine at f/11.
 
viv1969 said:
I find it rather sad that you're looking for it.
Click to expand...

Why? This is a forum where the average user probably spends a lot of money on equipment in order to achieve better quality images. I myself, actually don't (relatively speaking). In all of my hobbies, I tend to spend the least amount of money possible and focus the main improvements on myself.

If you were to look at my images, they are not an exercise in optical perfection by any means. Many are very grimy, and I like them that way. But I'm not asking for advice on what kind of photographs to take. I'm merely asking advice on one component that I believe will strongly enhance some of my photographs, as it does in the photographs I am influenced by. Your comments are not really helpful.

Alastair said:
Link to half-a-dozen images that inspire you, because I doubt that optical perfection will be the magic component in any of them.
Click to expand...

Don't really have any examples to hand. I'm not necessarily saying that 'optical perfection' is the magic component. But this is my question.... what is it?? If I find any images, I will post them.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
But I would love to know peoples own experiences on what has made the biggest impact.
Click to expand...

This is nothing to do with sharp lenses or clever processing so you may want to skip it :D ...

Way back when I was 10 I got my first camera which was a Kodak Instamatic. I was happy enough shooting away and one day I took a picture of my sister stroking a horse and when the film came back my sister and the horse were in almost silhouette against the bright sky and I thought WoW and I realised that a camera doesn't have to accurately record a scene and can if you wish be used to do something else. I'd never looked at photographs as art before or thought about how they were taken, I might have thought about these things in time but that one shot was the key and changed how I look at cameras and photography.
 
In order to move this discussion in a profitable direction I think you should post an example of a photograph having this optical perfection, and then some shots of yours in which you tried in various unsuccessful ways to achieve this optical perfection.
 
Oh Mr Grimshaw! Compare and contrast. Illustrate with two images what you understand by 'perfection' and your own miserable efforts. (not your words, but your implication)

Now, sharpness is relative. For print or screen it can be different. Also perceived sharpness is very contrast dependant. High acuity in a print can make it appear to look very soft while still being perfectly sharp. And many super smooth sharp images on screen - when viewed as prints - sometimes don't cut the mustard. Can of worms.

Anyway, I presume we are talking of screen images. On-screen images today are often processed for very high impact (mostly to grab the minuscule attention span of the casual browser clicking through the flood of pictures available) But, basically, if your original image is poor - i.e isn't focused / image suffers from camera shake / the lens is crap etc etc / then processing (sharpening) isn't going to help one jot. Seriously, you can't polish a turd. But a raw diamond you can seriously shine.
 
1) you'll never get a noise free image out of a camera - Johnson and shot noise are present in the sensor. You may get it to be very low, but not zero.
2) the technically perfect images usually have a huge amount of work in the background - setting up lighting, choosing the equipment, understanding and operating the camera, understanding the required post processing, screens and viewing environment, deliverables .........
3) content is king

Ansel Adams 3 books are great, the medium has progressed, nut the theory is applicable.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
Why? This is a forum where the average user probably spends a lot of money on equipment in order to achieve better quality images.
Click to expand...
Because "optical perfection" is a very low bar to aim at. It's also an intellectually cheap target that too many people waste too much money chasing because it's less demanding than thinking about what makes a good photograph.

If you really want to throw cash at this just to get the sharpest result buy yourself Sigma DP2 Merrill. You should be able to pick one to for around £300 or so. That should free you of obsessive sharpness worries and leave you lots of time to think about taking interesting photos.
 
Alastair said:
Because "optical perfection" is a very low bar to aim at. It's also an intellectually cheap target that too many people waste too much money chasing because it's less demanding than thinking about what makes a good photograph.

If you really want to throw cash at this just to get the sharpest result buy yourself Sigma DP2 Merrill. You should be able to pick one to for around £300 or so. That should free you of obsessive sharpness worries and leave you lots of time to think about taking interesting photos.
Click to expand...
Exactly this^

Like any creative endeavour 'technical perfection' leads to boring soulless results. The vast majority of truly great photographs are nowhere near 'technically perfect', in fact they're generally the opposite.

A singer with great natural tone and the use of auto tune will never communicate like Billie Holliday or Elvis, all the bedroom guitar wanking in the world won't beat a Jimi Hendrix performance, a great cooker, German pans and Japanese knives don't make Michelin star quality meals etc. etc.
 
Just having re-read the opening question:

I've got some half decent lenses, but i try to keep the ISO down (sometimes at the expense of SS) never use a tripod and give no thought whatsoever to preparation of a shoot, why are my pictures lacking?

The answer is a complete lack of effort and care.

Great images are about, great concepts with appropriate lighting and decent gear with faultless technique, and a little polish in PP. If you're not going to show 'us' what images you admire, at the very least have a proper look at them yourself; Where are they? What time of day? What kind of light? What gear? How much time, effort and money went into that? Are you now prepared to have a go at recreating that?

You appear to be trying to make up for a lack of 'photography' by thinking it can be sorted in post (so long as the lens isn't crap). Of course that's ridiculous.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
Maybe not quite perfection, but for as longs as I remember, I have been looking at other peoples images and thinking, "wow, how do they do that?"

What I'm talking about is completely noise-free images, super smooth, yet super-duper, ultra sharp.

It's the kind of quality that sets apart a seasoned pro from your average amateur photographer.

Now, I've been doing this many years. It's mostly a secondary hobby for me, but I've been taking photographs for more than two decades, and I actively enjoy post-processing. I'll freely admit that I have gone too far with this in the past (as many of us have), over-sharpening, boosting clarity, structure, etc, trying to achieve that pro quality. Of course, what you end up with is super sharp, and super noisy.... My post processing is becoming more refined, and I understand there are many variables in image sharpness and quality. But that Wow! image? It completely alludes me.

The obvious thing would be kit. Expensive glass may be the answer? But it's also an expensive test in order to find out. I have mostly used prime lenses in the past (Canon Nifty Fifty f1.8 and 28mm f2.8) and whilst they're kinda sharp, that final image is still not happening. Any zooms I possess (Sigma 10-20mm and Canon 55-250mm STM) I'm never really happy with sharpness. I know these are not going to match thousands of pounds worth of pro kit, but the primes should be fairly decent, and the 55-250mm supposedly just as sharp as much more expensive glass according to reviews. So just how much money do you have to spend?? These are currently attached to a 7d Mk1 or 30d in my case.

I'm sure that is only part of it though. Post processing being another big part. As above, many people have a tendency to over-process and add a lot of noise, unnatural light, etc. It takes a more skilled and subtle approach to produce something really striking without completely ruining an image. Perhaps though, I need to spend more time understanding the sharpening and noise reduction processes. Currently using Nik Collection's Output Sharpener for sharpening, and Dfine for noise reduction, but not massively educated on these.

In relation to the above, the tendency to over-process is most likely a product of taking sub-standard images in the first place. So, is the final lacklustre result down to the initial photography? For example, applying grad filters PP. Is that a no-no if we're looking for top draw results? Should we still be using physical filters on the lens if we want to achieve perfection? I'll happily admit most of my images are snapped without a great deal of preparation.

Of course, all of the above are going to have an impact on the final image. And I guess it's that culmination of in-depth knowledge and equipment that makes that final Wow! factor. But I would love to know peoples own experiences on what has made the biggest impact. Especially from anyone who has been through this battle and achieved it. Is there a secret to this I don't know about? And has anyone got any valuable tips?

I always shoot RAW BTW.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm a bit obsessed but you've barely mentioned light or lighting. An awful lot of photographers seem to give it barely a second thought, yet it's a key ingredient in much of the eye-candy I expect you admire.

I've said this so often I'll be sounding like a stuck record: if you want to learn about light then I think the easiest way is to do so in a controlled environment, i.e. a studio setup. The skills are transferable to the outside world.

john.margetts said:
Keep you max burst rate down to one frame every ten minutes - a good day out for me might involve 20 shots.
Click to expand...

Weird advice.. it totally depends on the subject. Where people, gesture, expression and pose are involved take lots, especially if the lighting is particularly technical. A few mm change of position can make a huge difference, a minute change of expression can alter the whole mood of a shot.
 
Not so weird. The chap was wanting to improve the technical standard of his photographs, not his artistic flair. If you want to improve the technical parts, you need to spend more time on them. Ten minutes thinking about the light, about the exposure, about the optimum aperture, about the optimum shutter speed, looking again, thinking again works wonders.
 
Since having my studio lights I've truly realised the difference great, controlled lighting makes to images.

My advice?

Buy some Lencarta's and a background and learn what to do with them and how to control the light they produce.
This will help you in other areas of photography, and like me, you may be surprised at the quality of your results.

e.g I entered my first studio lit portrait of my dog in my camera club competition last week. (On my Flickr if you're interested).
20/20. And the judge is a working pro with some cracking stuff on her website.

I was rather chuffed.
 
john.margetts said:
Not so weird. The chap was wanting to improve the technical standard of his photographs, not his artistic flair. If you want to improve the technical parts, you need to spend more time on them. Ten minutes thinking about the light, about the exposure, about the optimum aperture, about the optimum shutter speed, looking again, thinking again works wonders.
Click to expand...
You're making assumptions on the subject. ten minutes thinking during portrait shoot and you've lost the connection.
 
Phil V said:
You're making assumptions on the subject. ten minutes thinking during portrait shoot and you've lost the connection.
Click to expand...
Again, I was addressing the issue of technical excellence only as that was what the OP was asking about. With a portrait shoot, maybe the photographer needs to spend significant time on lighting, positioning and all the other things i mentioned above before he points his camera at the subject.
 
On the subject of light, that is something I do think about, and it's one of those things where the camera will not come out of the bag if the light is bad. It's definitely something I can learn more about though. I started reading Strobist again though other day, so who knows, I might delve into that.

I honestly thought this was a question most people would relate to, and would have a wealth of advice on. Or at least I thought a small portion would have advice, as 95% of images I see are not what I would call professional quality.
 
I spend a bit of time looking through images on Flickr to see what other people are "taking". I'm always inspired by the images that are different in some way. The perfect ones, which I can admire, don't always do it for me. Bit tired of seeing jetties jutting out into a lake taken over a 10 second period. Enjoy what you do and chill.
 
john.margetts said:
Again, I was addressing the issue of technical excellence only as that was what the OP was asking about. With a portrait shoot, maybe the photographer needs to spend significant time on lighting, positioning and all the other things i mentioned above before he points his camera at the subject.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with planning time (it's absolutely crucial for improving results).

It was your reference to shooting ten shots a day as a measure of 'perfection' that we're disagreeing with. It's just nuts :) for many subjects, portraits being a strong example.

I also think (personally) that you're looking for things to agree with the OP about, he never mentioned all the 'creative' aspects of perfection (some of which you've alluded to), he seems to think it's all about lens sharpness and processing.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
I honestly thought this was a question most people would relate to, and would have a wealth of advice on. Or at least I thought a small portion would have advice, as 95% of images I see are not what I would call professional quality.
Click to expand...
You've failed to tell us what you mean by 'professional quality' and ignored requests to show us what you mean.

I'm really not sure how much help anyone can be, when you're not explaining your question well at all.

And light is like clothing, there's no such thing as 'bad' light, just inappropriate for your preconceived shot. It's not about 'good' light, it's about using what there is to communicate something.
 
Phil V said:
...he never mentioned all the 'creative' aspects of perfection (some of which you've alluded to), he seems to think it's all about lens sharpness and processing.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned the creative aspects because I don't want to know about them. I'm not asking how to take good photos, improve my creativity, or capture anyone's soul. I'm talking about image quality and nothing else.

Any examples, I've left out, partly because they're rare and I have none to hand, and partly because I didn't want the question too focused on individual images.

I genuinely thought it might inspire some deeply constructive debate. Clearly I was wrong.
 
Phil V said:
There's nothing wrong with planning time (it's absolutely crucial for improving results).

It was your reference to shooting ten shots a day as a measure of 'perfection' that we're disagreeing with. It's just nuts :) for many subjects, portraits being a strong example.

I also think (personally) that you're looking for things to agree with the OP about, he never mentioned all the 'creative' aspects of perfection (some of which you've alluded to), he seems to think it's all about lens sharpness and processing.
Click to expand...
I was not offering 10 shots a day at all. I suggested 1 every 10 minutes - roughly six an hour - and then not as 'a measure of perfection' as you put it but as a route to improving the technical aspects of his craft (which, at the risk of being repetitive, is what the OP was concerned about). My first post in this thread (post # 2) I was clear that sharpness is not a concern of mine and that I would rather concentrate on the artistic aspects.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
I'm talking about image quality and nothing else.

Any examples, I've left out, partly because they're rare and I have none to hand, and partly because I didn't want the question too focused on individual images.
Click to expand...

Once again it really does depend on what you mean by image quality.

You obviously want (I think) pin sharp photos with that elusive "creamy" smoothness with no sign of noise etc.

Well sharpness is achievable fairly easily with really good quality lenses and a high shutter speed, coupled with a low ISO.

But unfortunately noise is a factor of many things including ISO.

For example you can get extreme sharpness with the Canon 5DS R and an "L" glass lens but the noise even at 400 ISO is quite noticeable at 100% crop simply because of the limitations of the sensor.

On the other hand a camera like my 40D has far less noise but also far less possible resolution (10MP against the 50MP of the 5DS R) even with excellent quality lenses.

On the other hand it is possible in PP to virtually get rid of noise and use a blur brush after to really reduce the noise to almost zero and impart a smooth look to the background.

But unfortunately even that may not be enough to produce the look you are after because the photo as a whole has to be taken into account and a "fussy" background even with the other things exactly right can still make a picture look "not quite right!
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top