100% crops

<p>Let me start by saying I am aware that post processing is required with my camera (sharpening etc.) <br>

My question is - Why are all of my photos blurry at 100%?<br>

When viewed at 25% they look ok- but examined at 100% they are blurry.<br>

It doesn't matter if I shoot at high shutter speed, it doesn't matter what the apeture is, it doesn't matter if it is on a tripod or not. It doesn't even matter if I use my D200 or my D300 body or change lenses.<br>

I see on threads on this sight (macro discussions, etc) people showing what they refer to as the "obligatory 100% crop" to demonstrate the quality. They look sharp to me. <br>

So what gives with my shots? No amount of post processing can change this- it is just flat out blurry. NEF or JPG--- same problem. I can print a reasonably nice looking 8x10 but I feel I will never get the absolute crystal clarity I desire (and see in other's photos) at any size until I figure this out.</p>

<p>Any ideas?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This could be dued to many reasons, my first ones are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Unperfect focus</li>

<li>Bad illumination</li>

<li>Motion blur</li>

<li>Camera shake</li>

<li>Non optimal or bad choice of the lens aperture</li>

</ol>

<p>Other reasons could be refered to the quality of the lens or post-processing.<br>

Could you post a sample?</p>

<p>1. Tried auto and manual<br>

2. full sun, shade, close up or general landscape<br>

3. still life using tripod-- same<br>

4. as #3<br>

5. test shots from wide open to smallest - same</p>

<p>I will try to post a sample</p><div></div>

<p>The usual culprits (some that you are confident to be controlling) are steadiness, optical quality, focusing accuracy, choice of shutter and aperture settings (for maximum circle of sharpness within the frame, but without diffraction effects from a too-small aperture setting, especially in smaller than full frame formats), lowest possible ISO setting, and method of sharpening in post processing. If you can check all of these off and still see less sharpness I don't know any other answers.</p>

<p>One thing I would like to mention (no hard facts, just my own personal observation) that high shutter speed can be a killer for sharpness, especially when used with VR.<br>

E.g. D200, 300/4 AF-S - occasionally the light is so good I can shoot in excess of 1/2000, these pictures sometimes come back soft for no reason. <br>

Did you turn off VR when using a tripod?<br>

Also, what ISO are you using? I noticed that my D300 feels slightly softer compared to my D200, not sure why. Maybe the higher mega pixels. But I've only got it for like two weeks so.... still adapting to the new raw files.<br>

Alvin</p>

<div></div>

<p>Depending on the ISO in use on the D300, high ISO noise reduction in camera can also lend to a bit of softens as it tries to tone down the amount of noise. That's why I have that setting at low because I find it softens things a bit too much for me. </p>

<p>and here is the full test shot<br>

tripod<br>

good light<br>

manual focus</p>

<div></div>

<p>R: is that <em>really</em> the full shot? Your D300 records images that are 4288 pixels wide, not the 1800 pixels you're showing here. So unless that's an 1800 pixel crop OUT of the original, then your original is being down-sampled somehow. That means something has to give, in terms of detail - and that requires special care in sharpening after the fact.</p>

<p>Assuming the variables mentioned above have been excluded...I think the 100% viewing is probably not being done at the proper viewing distance. Think about the full size of your test shot at the resolution you chose and what the picture dimensions are...then back off to properly view it. Similar things happen with film...an 8x10 may look great when viewed at 25 inches, but a poster sized print looks soft at the same viewing distance.</p>

<p>my suggestion: keep shooting and don't worry about it. unless you regularly display your work at 100 percent crop, i think you're taking an unproductive detour on the way to making better photos.</p>

<p>How about a different lens?</p>

<p>The 1196 x 1800 test shot does not look bad. Are you sure that the 100% crop is really 100% and not 200% or something like that?</p>

<p>I generally agree with William Pahnelas, but I often use 100% or more crops when shooting birds or wildlife. I understand the hollow feeling in your stomache when shots appear out-of-focus or lower quality than you would like. There are limitations on the resolving power of even the best lenses and cameras.</p>

<p>Your 100% sample certainly don`t look so good... I cannot extract the EXIF data. I don`t feel qualified to tell you exactly what happens with your pic, but here are some ideas:</p>

<ol>

<li>Has been shot with a macro lens? "Normal" lenses are not designed for brick wall shooting, specially at closer distances. Resolving capacity could be limited here.</li>

<li>Aperture? A non-optimal aperture could give this results, I think.</li>

<li>Sharpening? My camera is set at a low sharpness value, even my best shots look unsharp if unsharp masking is not applied in PP.</li>

</ol>

<p>I have been looking at your portfolio and your images looks OK. The one with the two kids looks fine... are you unsatisfied with this pic, too?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This could be due to many reasons, my first ones are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Unperfect focus</li>

<li>Bad illumination</li>

<li>Motion blur</li>

<li>Camera shake</li>

<li>Non optimal or bad choice of the lens aperture</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>Good list.<br /> <br /> I would also ad, amount of Noise Reduction (do you have this turned on in camera).<br /> ISO - Higher ISO, even w/o noise reduction will still have a loss in image quality and sharpness.<br /> Exposure, over or under exposure can also degrade image quality.<br /> Quality of light. Soft (diffused) light can also make an image "look" flat and less sharp. Light exposes, shadows define.</p>

<p>Based on your sample shot, I would have to ask these questions for your other photos:<br /> <br /> 1- Are your photos over-exposed? It looks like your sample shot is overexposed. Overexposing means less data which means less detail. (in all honesty that shot looks plenty sharp to me).<br /> 2- Do you have noise reduction turned on?<br /> 3- What aperture are you shooting at? It seems a lot of people shoot wide open, then look at photos at 100% and wonder why they aren't sharp.<br /> 4- What do you generally set your ISO at? On the D200 I notice that I lose quite a bit of detail (even w/ NR turned off) when shooting anything over 640 and generally try to keep it under 320 if I can.<br /> <br /> Here is a sample of a photo (shot in JPG even) that I think is pretty sharp at 100%. D200 and 180 f/2.8 on a monopod, aperture priority, stopped down to f/5.6 or 8, ISO was either 400 or 640 to get the shutter speed I needed; in camera NR is turned OFF and there is NO post done to this photo. It is as it was out of camera. I'll share exif later as I don't have access to the original at the moment.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you for all of the good replies.<br>

I did not post a full resolution pic as the Forum instruction page said not to (?)<br>

The camera is D300<br>

lens Nikon 17-55 (no VR on this lens)<br>

shot at 1/400<br>

ISO = 200<br>

f 8<br>

all defaults in the camera so no special sharpening or saturation there<br>

this is the jpeg version, but camera set to full res and no additional compression<br>

==========<br>

As you noted, I can get reasonable photos so why worry<br>

But I am not getting the clarity I expect (particularly macro), and I thought this might relate to that.<br>

And I see photos on here and elsewhere that were taken with my equipment exactly-- and they seem way better clarity.<br>

Are we agreed that I "should" in fact be seeing clear pictures at 100%?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did not post a full resolution pic as the Forum instruction page said not to (?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It just won't allow anything over 700 px wide to be displayed in the thread, if you post a full res it will show up as an attachment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>all defaults in the camera so no special sharpening or saturation there<br /> this is the jpeg version, but camera set to full res and no additional compression<br /> <br /> But I am not getting the clarity I expect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The default camera settings aren't neccessarily the best. Try turning noise reduction off. When I shoot JPEG I turn all my NR off and use Noise Ninja instead. Honestly, I think your brick shot looks very sharp with good detail, but realistically the 17-55 isn't made for flat close-up work. If that is something you are particularly interested in you might pick up a 60 Micro-Nikkor.<br /> <br /> If you want more control over sharpness and what not, shoot in raw. This will give you much more control over noise reduction, sharpening, and clarity. I'm not saying you can't great great images out of camera in JPG, but RAW definitely gives you more options down the road. My point being, if you are going to be super picky about how your photos look at 100% you really should be shooting in raw to get the maximum amount of information in each file.</p>

<p>With your lens and camera I took most of my sharpest pics... sometimes I thought even sharper than with my current D700 and 24-70. And as Keith says, in RAW. Notice that better results are achieved with your lens at f4-f5.6.</p>

<p>There are optimal working distances for lenses, closest (or infinity) are usually not the best in my experience. Think on the CRC system used for the wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>Also, don`t trust in AF in "extreme" situations... there could be focus errors. I`m experiencing this also with my current gear.</p>

<p>I agree, you should have sharper pics at 100%, but... horses for courses. Use macro lenses for maximum resolution at closer distances, normal range zooms for medium distances... and don`t use Nikkors at infinity! :P</p>

<p>I have a couple of suggestions:</p>

<ol>

<li>Unless you are using a macro lens, don't test your regular lenses in any macro situations. The 17-55 is an "event" lens (weddings, parties ...). It is optimized for subjects that are roughly 10 to 20 feet away. Similar to Bjorn Rorslett's comments, I find mine not that great at infinity either. Most non-macros won't do that well with a lot of those "newspaper" tests.</li>

<li>With the D300, try to use live view tripod mode to fine tune your manual focusing.</li>

</ol>

<p>Thanks-<br>

Good suggestions.<br>

The test photo is not a macro situation, it is just part of my concern.<br>

I use a Kiron 105 f/2.8 manual for macro (also one that online I see many sharp shots from - but for some reason I do not get them with this setup)<br>

I will try the live view<br>

I do miss the old split circle focusing they used to have on my film camera :-)</p>

<p>Jose,<br>

Thank you for your replies.<br>

Sorry I was out for a bit, and the thread grew.<br>

Regarding the photos in my portfolio<br>

Yes, those have the same issue-- all my photos have this issue.<br>

(Except I can take the same shot with my cheap Point and Shoot and blow to 100% and have it look quite good!)<br>

RE: the actuality of 100%<br>

If I view the photo in Photoshop it tells me what % I am viewing at<br>

If I zoom it in until the indicator says something near 100%-- that is what I am saying is blurry.</p>

<p>The exif of your image says that it's 105mm, so you obviously have not used the 17-55 here.<em> </em>I presume you have used the manual focus Kiron 105mm here.</p>

<p>Also the resolution doesn't match what would be expected of the D300's sensor. Why would you change that?</p>

<p>You are so right. My mistake.<br>

I am attaching another at full res untouched.<br>

I leave it to you to zoom it to 100% and examine.<br>

I reduced the previous because I thought the forum would not allow the full size photo.<br>

This picture looks pretty good. But enlarge to 100% and there is nothing in the photo that is in focus.<br>

Maybe this is normal behaviour-- but I just seem to be seeing examples from others that suggest it is not.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Your photo at 100% looks fine to me - the center blue window seems to be in focus while things farther away are not in focus due to the depth of field. This is typical of the D300 when viewed RAW with no sharpening at all - every DSLR needs at least a touch of sharpening. Don't really see anything wrong.</p>

<p>- John</p>

<p>Agree. I`d say this pic is really sharp.<br /> The subject looks to be slightly tilted and clearly swinged in relation to the sensor plane... lens focused at the closer area... this is normal. Think that each corner is placed at a different distance; you`re relying sharpness on the DoF, that is not deep enough.</p>

 

<p><img src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/ALLARD~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.jpg" alt="" /> just how much sharper do you expect this to be? I don't think it will get much better than this, unless you have more pixels</p><div></div>

<p>Don`t know if your pic has been shot in JPEG or RAW, I took it JPEG. Then I applied some unsharp masking to a focused area, and again, compress it in JPEG at a medium level. Check the difference below. Working on RAW the difference is even bigger. If you want more sharpness you need more pixels (MF system=$$$)</p><div></div>