Wow...!!! I've learn a lot just by reading this... Thanks zaren... And thanks alancwr for bringing up this topic...
Sharpness in pictures
- Thread starter alancwr
- Start date
A very detailed article. Everything I can think of for blur photos (unintentional) , and more, seems to have been mentioned. Good share.
Wonderful Photos: Tips for Creating Sharp Photos
Mod Zaren did displayed the author's "© Ariel Bravy"
Can post picture with EXIF intact, maybe there are still some unresolved issues.
That's a good list, but also misleading because there's no sense of the relative importance. In general, the main things are 1) get things in focus 2) don't move the camera while the shutter is open 3) keep the subject from moving and 4) camera processing (maybe, if in-camera). Looking at TS's shots and EXIF, I think 1, 2, and 4 are problems. I doubt lens softness is the main concern here: characteristics for this lens at 2.8 @ 50mm aren't that bad in the center (a little soft in the corners -- check the blurness graph on slrgear for your lens) -- that's the sort of problem to worry about later.
Focus is a big problem with these pictures. You can see that the autofocus missed -- by maybe a foot in the pictures of the shoe shiner on the bench (look at the crack along the wall). Depth of field has been mentioned exhaustively -- the subjects are basically well out of the dof (a few centimeters).
Canon default sharpening for in-camera jpg is usually considered low. EXIF Settings on Flickr said the pics were at sharpness 3 and medium quality (!?). I guess the default is 3, so you might take that up a bit (how much?). TS can also try shooting RAW, or at least highest quality jpg.
Though I don't know the 1000D, yes, it's probably worth sacrificing some grain to bump up the ISO for aperture first, maybe followed by shutter (1/50 second cuts it close with a zoom on a crop body, I think, especially if you want pixel peeping sharp). ISO up to 400 is probably fine for this sort of picture. You can experiment with higher.
Psychologically, the flat lighting and low contrast (use the lens hood?) may also be impacting the apparent sharpness, though I think focus is still the main factor.
A few tabletop studio shots would be a valuable exercise. Focus manually, calculate depth of field (with an agressive CoC), tripod, mirror lock-up, timer/remote trigger, etc., and get it right. I did this with my 50mm prime once and it blew me away (1 pixel wide dust!). Lighting to get good contrast also helps see how sharp things can get. After this exercise, I could get a feel for the lens softness wide open. It was really small compared to effect of mis-focusing.
Also, it became clear that the autofocus system can be hit or miss (more like M-I-S-S), even under ideal conditions. Hey, it was a cheap lens!
Tips not on the list:
1) For subjects not at macro distance, autofocus with the center point and recompose. For most consumer cameras, the center autofocus point is more accurate than the peripheral ones (center will be a "cross type" point). Just note that the autofocus "point" is not exactly where the marks are, and are of course not perfect. For closer subjects you can easily change the focus plane appreciably while recomposing, but otherwise the idea is sound.
2) If you have a parfocal lens (Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-vc apparently is), then zoom in, focus, then zoom out/recompose. This was basic technique before autofocus. Should in principle work with autofocus, too (comments, anyone?). If it's varifocal (focus changes with zoom), I could still see a use if the change is very, very slight, since you can be really far off when focusing at 17mm. Something to experiment with.
Anyway, I mostly wrote about focusing issues, but don't underestimate camera shake and subject movement. Camera movement makes the entire image softer, which it looks like you have, even for the relatively in-focus areas. Lens softness is more pronounced in the corners almost always. Of course, those areas are also simultaneously out-of-focus most of the time, so while it can be difficult to tell what's causing edge softness in those shots, then it hardly matters.
Focus is a big problem with these pictures. You can see that the autofocus missed -- by maybe a foot in the pictures of the shoe shiner on the bench (look at the crack along the wall). Depth of field has been mentioned exhaustively -- the subjects are basically well out of the dof (a few centimeters).
Canon default sharpening for in-camera jpg is usually considered low. EXIF Settings on Flickr said the pics were at sharpness 3 and medium quality (!?). I guess the default is 3, so you might take that up a bit (how much?). TS can also try shooting RAW, or at least highest quality jpg.
Though I don't know the 1000D, yes, it's probably worth sacrificing some grain to bump up the ISO for aperture first, maybe followed by shutter (1/50 second cuts it close with a zoom on a crop body, I think, especially if you want pixel peeping sharp). ISO up to 400 is probably fine for this sort of picture. You can experiment with higher.
Psychologically, the flat lighting and low contrast (use the lens hood?) may also be impacting the apparent sharpness, though I think focus is still the main factor.
A few tabletop studio shots would be a valuable exercise. Focus manually, calculate depth of field (with an agressive CoC), tripod, mirror lock-up, timer/remote trigger, etc., and get it right. I did this with my 50mm prime once and it blew me away (1 pixel wide dust!). Lighting to get good contrast also helps see how sharp things can get. After this exercise, I could get a feel for the lens softness wide open. It was really small compared to effect of mis-focusing.
Also, it became clear that the autofocus system can be hit or miss (more like M-I-S-S), even under ideal conditions. Hey, it was a cheap lens!
Tips not on the list:
1) For subjects not at macro distance, autofocus with the center point and recompose. For most consumer cameras, the center autofocus point is more accurate than the peripheral ones (center will be a "cross type" point). Just note that the autofocus "point" is not exactly where the marks are, and are of course not perfect. For closer subjects you can easily change the focus plane appreciably while recomposing, but otherwise the idea is sound.
2) If you have a parfocal lens (Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-vc apparently is), then zoom in, focus, then zoom out/recompose. This was basic technique before autofocus. Should in principle work with autofocus, too (comments, anyone?). If it's varifocal (focus changes with zoom), I could still see a use if the change is very, very slight, since you can be really far off when focusing at 17mm. Something to experiment with.
Anyway, I mostly wrote about focusing issues, but don't underestimate camera shake and subject movement. Camera movement makes the entire image softer, which it looks like you have, even for the relatively in-focus areas. Lens softness is more pronounced in the corners almost always. Of course, those areas are also simultaneously out-of-focus most of the time, so while it can be difficult to tell what's causing edge softness in those shots, then it hardly matters.
Last edited:
Similar threads
