Strange softness to images

J

jallday

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks
I take quite a few pictures of my sons playing cricket. From time to time, the images appear 'soft'. When I view them in zoom, there appears to be a 'bleed' from the edges or a kind of double imaging. Its hard to explain hence the images below where it can be viewed. See the edge of the bat and top glove...
On the same day, in brighter light, the results were pin sharp.
These images were taken with a Canon 600D at ISO 800 lens was a Canon 70-300mm at 300mm with image stabilisation switched on, exposure 1/1000s @ f5.6

Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 21.49.07 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2015-07-25 at 21.49.20 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what might be happening here? Trying to eliminate equipment issues. The image was shot in RAW and then processed with Capture One.

Many thanks

Jonathan
 
Subject / camera movement, I'd bet the shutter speed on the sharper ones is higher.
 
Actually, no they were about 1/400s at f7.1
However, if you think it is movement then perhaps it was the autofocus mode, which was set to single shot...most of the movement would be vertical as the bat went through so that would explain it. I was thinking that 1/1000s would be enough to freeze things...
 
1/1000 or higher :) & no stabilisation. not needed at the speed
 
Last edited:
Fingerprint on the lens? Worth checking the rear element too.

How tightly cropped is this?
If it is close to being viewed at 100% then the lack of sharpness is likely to be the high ISO; but the bleeding edges still need looking at.
 
You need BBF and AF on C to capture fast movement, the whole image is slightly out of focus in no 1
 
In the comparison shop the batsman was probably moving a lot slower so you can't really compare them.
 
70-300 IS is not the sharpest lens at 300mm, then if you have a filter on there, and then crop as well, this could be what you end up with.

There could be some movement blur and minor focus issues as well, but I don't think they're the major problem.

Edit: or a finger print on the glass, that would do it, especially if there's no lens hood used.
 
Last edited:
Ok everyone thanks for all the suggestions.
I will check the lens for fingerprints. It is cropped, but only down to about 2/3 of the image in all directions.
The lens does have a UV filter on it.
I use BBF but it was not set to AF-C. I take it I hold the button down while taking the photo to account for movement. Sometimes when I use the autofocus it looks slightly out of focus through the viewfinder, I've tended to think that is my eyesight! I only use the centre spot and have wondered if sometimes there is not enough contrast in the centre of the image.
Thanks for taking the time to help someone with not that much experience!
Jonathan
 
Horrible smear round the edge of the filer - feel like an idiot!
Right so first thing is to clean the filter and try again tomorrow at the next game.
Also try AF-C with the BBF, shutter speed 1/1000s minimum (might go for auto ISO for that...).

Should I extend the range of focus points that I am using?

J
 
At that shutter speed, camera/subject motion can be ruled out as the entire frame exhibits the problem. Perhaps some element is slightly out and at 300mm the effect is most obvious - is it only noticeable at 300mm? I used to get a similar issue with my 85mm 1.4 though not to the same degree, certain shots seemed to show the outlining leaving nothing in the frame perfectly sharp. Not sure a filter smear would produce this.
 
Please can you also try test shots with and without the filter.
I've read long lenses don't always take filters well and this could easily be a contributory factor in producing artefacts.
For photographing cricket a lens hood should be more than adequate for protecting the lens.
 
I'm going to suggest it's some kind of chromatic aberration caused by the filter and that you just remove it. I don't think it's a smear/print as the effect is very unilateral. And I don't think it is subject movement as it's on the wrong side and it seems to affect most horizontal edges lit from above.
 
This is from part of an image in the same sequence. It is viewed at 67% hardly cropped vertically.
I'm interested in the fact that only the edges towards the top seem to be affected:
Screen Shot 2015-07-27 at 20.53.41 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

I will try without the filter as well.

this one was a few months ago, taken on a tripod 1/640s @ f5.6 300mm again. Combination of 300mm and wide aperture???

IMG_5907 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

The other common denominator seems to be the cloudy conditions...
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Please can you also try test shots with and without the filter.
I've read long lenses don't always take filters well and this could easily be a contributory factor in producing artefacts.
For photographing cricket a lens hood should be more than adequate for protecting the lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, test with and without the filter at 70mm and it'll probably look fine. Do the same test at 300mm and there's a very good chance that it won't be. Longer focal lengths magnify impurities in the filter, and even the best filters can degrade image quality.

Don't use a protection filter unless you actually need it (ie sea spray etc) and always use a lens hood - the one designed for that lens. It'll actually improve image quality in some situations like shooting into the light, and it'll keep your sticky fingers off the glass ;)
 
Always do use a hood! But the filter will go. Going to be busy tomorrow, must remember to actually watch the game :)
 
jallday said:
This is from part of an image in the same sequence. It is viewed at 67% hardly cropped vertically.
I'm interested in the fact that only the edges towards the top seem to be affected..
<snip>
Click to expand...

It's flaring most visibly along light/dark transitions, ie top edges catching the light, as you'd expect.
 
Last edited:
Is it worth taking the lens to a Canon repair centre to get them to check it out alignment wise?
 
jallday said:
this one was a few months ago, taken on a tripod 1/640s @ f5.6 300mm again. Combination of 300mm and wide aperture???
Click to expand...
Definitely has some bad LoCA along the rt side of his jacket. CA is typically worse at wider apertures, as it most everything else. But that lens is not known for bad CA wide open (and actually gets slightly worse stopped down). The conditions aren't even very bad to be causing CA... Another point in favor of it being a cheap UV filter causing it.
 
Last edited:
Will update after tomorrow. Thanks again everyone - blown over by the support and help.
 
Last edited:
jallday said:
Is it worth taking the lens to a Canon repair centre to get them to check it out alignment wise?
Click to expand...
Why? We've already established there was a dirty filter in front of it. :)
 
Ok folks updates from today. Weather not great again, so had to push the ISO to 1600...

couple of test images:
Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 18.17.00 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr
above 1/640s 300mm f5.6 ISO 800

Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 18.17.27 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr
above 1/500s 300mm f7.1 ISO 800

and finally:
Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 18.18.53 by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr
1/1000s f7.1 210mm ISO 1600
taken with AF-C and auto selection of focus points (rather than the ones yesterday which were all centre point only)

all of the above without the filter.

So, conclusions?
Perhaps a combination of softness in the lens at 300mm, movement blur/soft focus due to the wrong autofocus mode, with filter perhaps not helping...

quite pleased with the last image, which is very cropped to the centre of the image and at a high ISO.

Thoughts?

Jonathan
 
I can't help wondering if there are two issues here - one of general blurring related to focus or IS - and one relating to the green fringes ...
 
Assuming those shots are fairly tight crops, it could be mirror slap.
The non-L 70-300 isn't the most solidly constucted lens in the world.
Would be worth doing a test on a tripod, mirror lock up, IS off and self-timer shutter release to rule it out.
I've had problems with mirror slap on my 24-105 on the 5DII; only shows when zooming right in on the image.
 
Hi Duncan, I'll give what you suggest a try tomorrow. I'm going back to the same ground so I can use the sign again.
 
Other pics on your Flickr using the same lens don't seem too bad, although maybe not at full zoom.
Get rid of the filter, don't use the full zoom if poss? (200-250mm) & turn VR off at higher s/speeds.
 
I've seen IS/VR do similar at higher SS's or with the wrong setting active... but it's not really consistent.

The image of the signs is really bad TBH... definitely worse than one should expect even at 300mm wide open. I can't really discern anything in sharp focus, but it *might* be back focusing some. I've heard of some lenses being "near sighted" where IQ dropped off notably at longer distances (but it always does).
IMO, you need to do some stringent/controlled tripod test shots...
 
jallday said:
Is it worth taking the lens to a Canon repair centre to get them to check it out alignment wise?
Click to expand...

It might be. Do some more checks first, but if those latest pictures are the best you can get, having removed the dirty filter, then something's not right. Canon 70-300 IS isn't the greatest lens at 300mm but that flarey soft-focus glow looks like something more than just below-par sharpness.
 
So this mornings entertainment while the teams are warming up...
Brought out my old 350D to try, in case it was the autofocus on the 600D. All these images taken at 300mm

First couple are with the 350D hand held:
f5.6 hand held 350d by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

f7.1 hand held 350d by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

Now I switched to the tripod with mirror lockup and self timer - with the 350D
f5.6 tripod 350d by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

f9 tripod 350d by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

now to the 600D on tripod with mirror lockup and self timer

f5.6 600d tripod by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

f71. 600d tripod by Jonathan Allday, on Flickr

I'm getting confused now, I have to confess, but I think:
its nothing to do with the camera or autofocus
the lens needs to be stopped down to f9 or smaller.

As always, comments welcome guys!

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert in cricket photography, but do you really need afc when photographing a relatively stationary batsman from the edge of the pitch?
 
You haven't said if IS is active... But the fact that the first tripod image is worse than the comparable handheld image indicates that maybe it is. It is supposed to be "tripod sensing," so that *shouldn't* be a problem, but something is definitely not right.

From what I have seen, that lens is best at ~ f/8... but it is WAY better at f/5.6 than the results you are getting. I can't say that something else isn't going on... it looks like the tree trunk behind the sign has a little better focus, but it's still looks pretty bad back there.

Early models of that lens had an issue where the IS elements wouldn't center correctly in portrait orientation... I'm wondering if you are not having some kind of similar issue.

First thing I would do is try the tripod setup using live-view AF (CDAF) and with manual focus (with IS turned off). If either produces significantly better results the issue is the PDAF and AFMA might help. Otherwise, it needs to go see the doctor...
 
It is easy to test the lens

it is easy to test if you can hold the camera/lens still enough to get a sharpe shot

just go logically through the obvious in a controlled situation and record your procedures and findings

then you will know whether it is you or your equipment
 
Last edited:
I would plump for the VR, try it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top