Too RAW or too usless??

dangerous bryan

dangerous bryan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
108
Name
Bryan
Edit My Images
No
I've been trying to take pictures of my Son and his friends recently and nearly every shot is out of focus....is it user error or down to the settings? Here's some questions:

- RAW: I changed to this in the hope of getting better clarity. are RAW files too raw, literally not giving any help and showing the bad to be very bad and requiring lots and lots of post processing?
- AI FOCUS; I read that for children this was a good setting......doesn't appear to be!
- P mode; for ease and in the hope of not getting bad shots I used P rather than AV.
- Focus points: I had this set on the single point in the centre, and focused that on faces.

This was all on a Canon 350D with the standard 18-55mm Lens.

Any help would be welcome! Any good books I should read!?

From disappointed of wiltshire
 
Some examples would help us diagnose the problem :)

And I think you've misunderstood what a RAW file actually is, the RAW file doesnt make a bad image, its the photographer I am afraid ;) It basically gives you more control over things like exposure when you do come to process it.
 
posting a few of the pictures in question might help you get a few more answers from expert/experienced members mate.

Rob

EDIT: Betty, you type faster than me clearly!
 
I've deleted most as they are appalling, even potrait shots I took yesterday.
What can be told from an example?
Would I need to post CR2 or JPEG?

"all the tools, no talent" is a phrase that springs to mind

Dee - well you have answered one of the questions (perhaps all). I wasn't really sure what RAW did/didn't do for you!
 
umami1 said:
Not being smart but was it on af or mf on the lens? Raw should not effect to focus from my experience. Was the lens clean?
Click to expand...

Simple enough question, and its not being smart ;) Ive wondered why some of my pics were OOF before, because it was MF :bonk:
 
Were the shots indoors or outdoors, and what sort of shutter speed did the camera select ?
 
like betty says, posting makes helping easier. If we could get a look at one woth the exif data intact that would help us see the settings you used and we could take it from there perhaps....
 
dangerous bryan said:
I've deleted most as they are appalling, even potrait shots I took yesterday.
Click to expand...

My advice? Start with something static - a tree, a car, a coke can. Take some shots and then analyse them on your PC/MAC... If you're not happy with them - do it again, but try to think about what might have caused the problem, so if it's a focus issue (which it may not be - read on) then this will be blatently obvious. At that point, try manual focus, selecting another auto focus point etc.

Once you've got this to a point where you are happy, move on to moving subjects, which are a little more involved, as they are moving. (duh!) this means you will need to ensure that you are using a faster shutter speed to capture the action, and freeze any movement. If you are having troubles at this point, then there is a good chance that it's not actually a focus issue but more of a movement/slow shutter speed issue.

Or, it could just be camera shake, if you have access to one try using a tripod or other support.

As per all the other posts though, get some images up, as this will help diagnose what the issue is. No one is going to laugh or say how bad they are, as you are not asking for critisism on the shot but advice on a particular issue with it....

Good luck
 
Yep. RAW has nothing done at all in camera.... A jpg will get sharpened and possily colour intensified etc. If you shoot RAW you will have to adjust sharpening too.
 
Wow, what a response. Thanks.

The shots are indoors.
I did check the AF/MF and it was on AF.
This isn't a PP sharpening issue though...no PP could sort it out.
RAW & JPEG - good idea

Shots I have taken outdoors a few weeks ago are great and I am pleased with them:
The GOOD ones.....

img_9438.jpg

and
img_9330.jpg
 
umami1 said:
Does Raw not take a better quality pic that you can edit easier and change most settings used even the WB?
Click to expand...

Shooting RAW doesnt make it better quality, like I said before, it just gives you more control over exposure, and the WB :)
 
Nice kiddy shots

#1 appears to be in focus and sharp enough

#2 is not - looking at your exif I'd say camera shake and subject movement (however minor) on both is the problem, there

Watch your shutter speeds as your camera is unlikely to not focus correctly if it has time and the focus points are on the subject properly

DD
 
Thanks for answering the RAW and sharpening Q. I Shoot RAW but don't always sharpen per-say but do tweak bits here and there I guess.
 
Betty said:
Shooting RAW doesnt make it better quality, like I said before, it just gives you more control over exposure, and the WB :)
Click to expand...

Nit-picking Betty I know, but raw is better quality than a jpeg when enlarged a lot

That said, the highest quality jpeg your camera has will only look slightly less quality if printed bigger than A3 or even A2 if it was well exposed to begin with

But in general no, raw is about extending the camera's range for exposure & WB (as Betty says) and it has nothing to do with an out of focus (OoF) image

DD
 
daftbugga said:
now i'm totally useless at editing but from what i know of it

&£%* all .:D
all raws need sharpening ,have you tried shooting in raw& jpeg ?

confused of nottingham
Click to expand...

why waste card space, all raw files contain an embedded jpg anyway

edit: sorry, let me rephrase, I know all nikon raw file...blah blah, I pressume canon and others are the same.
 
DiddyDave said:
Nit-picking Betty I know, but raw is better quality than a jpeg when enlarged a lot
Click to expand...

Fair enough DD, yes I knew that, but I think we are talking about polishing turds here :D If it is a bad image to being with, a RAW file wont make it a good image.

Am I talking crap again? :p
 
Betty said:
Fair enough DD, yes I knew that, but I think we are talking about polishing turds here :D If it is a bad image to being with, a RAW file wont make it a good image.

Am I talking crap again? :p
Click to expand...

Turds??? Then Yes you're talking crap :lol:

Otherwise, spot on babe

:thumbs:

DD
 
Yv said:
why waste card space, all raw files contain an embedded jpg anyway

edit: sorry, let me rephrase, I know all nikon raw file...blah blah, I pressume canon and others are the same.
Click to expand...

I did always wonder why there is such a mode as raw+ but put my wonderings down to me not understanding something fully.....

I assumed for quick cataloging when on a PC that can't show raw thumbs.
 
Yv said:
why waste card space, all raw files contain an embedded jpg anyway

edit: sorry, let me rephrase, I know all nikon raw file...blah blah, I pressume canon and others are the same.
Click to expand...

well i never knew that ,thank you yv & yes i'm a darksider
 
daftbugga said:
well i never knew that ,thank you yv & yes i'm a darksider
Click to expand...

For quick previewing, download a free prog called preview extractor - it extracts jpgs from raw, leaving the raw intact, and puts the jpgs in another folder of your choice and is superquick at the job too! If you just want to have a quick shufty through your days images without the hassle of bridge, lightroom, whatever, its works a treat.
 
...And to bring this back on topic, :)

DiddyDave said:
Nice kiddy shots

#1 appears to be in focus and sharp enough

#2 is not - looking at your exif I'd say camera shake and subject movement (however minor) on both is the problem, there

Watch your shutter speeds as your camera is unlikely to not focus correctly if it has time and the focus points are on the subject properly

DD
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
So back to the original question regarding the focussing, we've established that the outdoor shots were fine (except for where the focal length and shutter speed were the same - Shakey hands potentially playing a part in the slight but not terrible blurring).

Were the "terrible" indoor shots taken using flash or just ambient light? - For the kit lens, any shutter speed below 1/100 is likely to cause you problems @ 55mm indoors with no flash and no tripod (and kids)
 
Right here are a couple.....

#1 - taken in a village hall, no flash, AF, P mode, Single spot focus
IMG_9644.jpg

IMG_9644-EXIF.jpg


#2 taken in front room, light from window, AF, P mode......
IMG_9641.jpg

IMG_9641-EXIF.jpg


What do you think?

Tonight I took some more, this time with AF, P Mode, Multi Spot focus points, ONE SHOT focus mode, Flash......MUCH better shots. Also took RAW+JPG, that really shows the differences. RAW is much paler and less sharp.....can see the need for PP. (I think I'll leave RAW until I master the actual taking of the shots first!)
 
The simple answer is that the shutter speed is too slow to use without a flash, particularly for something which is likely to move like a child. It needs to be min 1/60.

You either need more ISO and sacrifice overall picture quality i.e. noise to increase the available shutter speed, or use a good flash.
 
Defiance said:
The simple answer is that the shutter speed is too slow to use without a flash, particularly for something which is likely to move like a child. It needs to be min 1/60.

You either need more ISO and sacrifice overall picture quality i.e. noise to increase the available shutter speed, or use a good flash.
Click to expand...


u beet me to it m8
 
Slow shutter speed along with a shallow depth of field looks like it may be the problem - children do tend to move around.

The background cloth in the 2nd one looks more in focus, or maybe it just wasn't moving :thinking:
 
Boy it looks like everyone was poised to post on this one :wave:
 
Camera shake is your problem at such low shutter speeds

Added to which your subject is also moving giving you subject blur

I am a very steady chap and can manage some surprisingly low shutter speeds, but I'd never try to shoot a kid handheld at 1/15th sec

You'd need to be steady and shoot at at least 1/100th, which means increasing your ISO to about 1,600 to get that

Ideally, you need a faster lens and high ISO for what you're trying to do - or learn to use flash

That data suggests there's nothing wrong with the camera, just your use of it

HTH?

DD
 
Were these handheld?

I am not sure I am hugely qualified to comment too much but with a quick look at the shutter speeds, I think perhaps the issue is camera shake as your shutter speeds are quite "slow". Maybe you should try a tripod and/or a flash and higher shutter speed.

Others may have a better idea/ can explain better but this is what I have found since starting out.

Rob

EDIT: spot the muppet who didn't see the second page of comments!! Sorry!!!!!
 
CT said:
AI Focus is pants - don't use it!
Click to expand...


I didn't know that Canon had a 'pants focussing feature'

Just another tick for the 'Canon are crap' brigade then

Good job I'm not one of them then as I'd have to refer to Canon being crap as they supply cameras aimed at the amateur market that can't focus properly

I'm not going to mention that Nikon doesn't have a 'pants' feature to my knowledge - and that Nikon cameras tend to just 'work'

I'll not make a meal of it then

:D

DD
 
Shutter speeds of 1/15th and 1/20th of a second would be the reason for the blur here. You need a faster shutter speed. Apologies if this has been said before I've been skim reading.

EDIT - beaten to it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top