lack of sharpness... for lack of a better way of putting it.

<p>Did you do the other checking I suggested? Just from what is posted, I would say misfocus or shake--does not look like subject motion.</p>

<p>Get the trial version of Focus Magic and play with it. It might make the image good enough to print bigger. It will look a lot better printed than on screen (in the software), so print 100% crops as you go to check yourself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i believe they are just the "clear protective" sort.<br />is that an issue as well?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>YES! Especially on wide open glass. Take a look at this:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)</p>

<p>Now you don't have to understand all that. Lord knows I don't! But the point is that lenses are finely tuned, precision engineered optical devices that bend and focus light onto your sensor. <em>Anything </em> you put in front of that can have a profound effect on how that all works. I am not suggesting there isn't a time and place for various types of filters See Thom's excellent article: http://www.bythom.com/filters.htm). What I am saying is that any filter will degrade image quality. </p>

<p>Back to this image, I agree with Nadine that it will look better printed. I am not so sure I would call the shot a waste. It's an f/2.8 shot at quite some distance. If someone from the school actually called this shot a waste (also keeping in mind that these are the same people that apparently didn't want to pay for the shot), I would be a bit put off!</p>

<p>RT, Occasionally I will use a second off-camera flash on a stand or simply placed atop a nearby table or chair. However, a single omni is capable of throwing alot of light into the background (avoiding the dark cave look) when used properly, remember it must be angled at approximately 45 degrees....you'll completely lose this light spread if the flash head is pointed straight on at 90 degrees and if it's pointed straight up (similar to a light-sphere) you will lose alot of light/power. You also need some distance from your subjects to allow the light to open-up. Here's a shot of the dance floor from the same room with the high ceilings that I posted above, all the overhead lights were completely off and besides my flash there were only the wall sconces lighting the room. This was taken with an omnibounce 580EX (set +1/3rd) on a bracket, f/5.6, 1/60th, at 400 ISO. The little bit of blow-out on the guy's white shirt was due to my post-work, the bride's white dress and nearby white table (closer to the camera) has no loss of whites.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry for the slight digression, but I couldn't let the following statement pass without a strong rebuttal:</p>

<p>[John D]: <em>"...What I am saying is that any filter will degrade image quality...."</em></p>

<p>The question, of course, is how much any given filter will degrade IQ. </p>

<p>The obvious and only real answer to this question is NOT by vague reference to a general article about lenses, or by quoting an "expert". Rather, it is by performing a trivial, controlled experiment that will take you at most a minute or two. Put your camera on a tripod, set it to manual focus and manual exposure, and then take one shot of a typical subject: first with a filter, and then again, without the filter under study. Unless you intentionally have sun or other bright light shining directly on the front element of the lens, my guess is that with any reasonable quality filter and any lens from 20 to 100 mm FL, you will be hard pressed to see any difference between the two shots. If a difference occurs, it will likely be a slight reduction in contrast with the filter, not a loss of sharpness. I know this because I have done this test many times over decades of experience in optics and specifically, photography. Of course, if you are shooting directly into the sun with normal lenses, or are using an $8000 500mm/f4 VR, yes, filters can cause a loss of IQ, but for most people, most of the time, the negative effects of filters are vastly exaggerated. </p>

<p>If performing that simple experiment is too taxing, you might prefer reading about others who have performed closely-related, actual tests on lenses with severely damaged front elements:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html</p>

<p>This is the sort of damage to the front elements it took to begin to see a noticeable loss of contrast in normal shooting situations:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/rcicala/image/105268537.jpg and<br>

http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/April2009/fetbreak3.jpg</p>

<p>Do the filter on-off experiment for yourself, and I'll bet you will change your low opinion of (reasonable quality) filters in normal shooting situations. Unless you like spending money replacing lenses, the pragmatic approach is not an all-encompassing generalization such as you offered, but is to protect your lens most of the time, but remove the filter when you know (from tests or experience) that it is likely to cause problems. </p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

<p >Just commenting on the image presented, my thoughts are, that there are many issues which are compounding making the image look “unsharp” (not in any order of Priority or impact):</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Tech Specs: EOS30D + EF24/2.8</p>

<p >Shooting Specs: F/3.5 @ 1/45s @ ISO800, Available Light, Pattern, HH (Assumed).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. The lens: The EF24/2.8 isn’t the sharpest, you are pushing it at F/3.5. IMO, F/4 would be the absolute safe limit if one wanted an enlargement - F/8 would be best.</p>

<p >2. The Tv: 1/45s hand held (assumed) – not for an enlargement – at 1/45s you are <strong><em>beyond</em> <em>the safe limit of hand holding </em></strong>(Camera Shake), for an enlargement. I “think” you have a little camera movement.</p>

<p >3. The Tv: 1/45s is also <strong><em>just beyond the limit for adults sitting (at that distance)</em></strong> IMO (Subject Movement) – 1/60s is safe, IMO. I do NOT “think” you have Subject Movement</p>

<p >4. The Tv: At 1/45s you are into the faster Tv where <strong><em>mirror slap might impact on the shot </em></strong>– for this shot use a Tripod and Mirror Up and Remote Release.</p>

<p >5. Filter – no way – especially not for a wide angle lens, this quality WA lens and using it nearly wide open. A filter increases CA and losses sharpness, generally when the lens is wide open or near wide open.</p>

<p >6. Filter – no way – using the lens wide open increase susceptibility to <strong><em>Veiling Flare </em></strong>which presents as loss of mid-tone contrast and general dullness or a smoky appearance – which is often misinterpreted as “un-sharp”. I do not think the EF24/2.8 is a very well baffled lens</p>

<p >7. Focus – I am not convinced you nailed focus on the group I would like to see a 100% of: - the steps the six people in the front row centre and compare that to the 100% you have supplied.</p>

<p >8. Post Production I am not convinced that your<strong><em> sharpening procedure </em></strong>is the best it could be, but I am not expert in this area, however please see FYI, (as much as we can do with web images - but I think there is a significant impact?):</p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

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

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

<p > <strong ><em >“</em></strong><strong ><em >Do the filter on-off experiment for yourself, and I'll bet you will change your low opinion of (reasonable quality) filters in normal shooting situations.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree, I have so done. I am a manic at testing things and knowing all the limits. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I can make my 24L look atrocious using it with its $200 Slim line u-bute UV Pro filter on it . . . using it wide open or near to wide open in a lighting scenario with lots of multidirectional lights and or reflections.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am not taking a side with either you or John or making any reference to the article he linked to – I didn’t even open it up – I make reference to only your quote I have extracted above . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have no issue with any “reasonable quality filter” in “normal shooting conditions” . . . (and my addition) with “normal” lenses –</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >Wide angle lenses and (some) zoom lenses and Kit Zoom Lenses are “special” in this regard.</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >What I am stating is: </p>

<p >- this is not a “normal” lens,</p>

<p >- it is not a normal shooting conditions </p>

<p >- the lens is near wide open </p>

<p > </p>

<p >all far from “normal” </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Stick a $25 UV filter on that 24/2.8, set the lens at F/5.6 and shoot with Front Key & Front Fill Light in a Pro Studio all day and you will never know the filter was there . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>I think there are a few things going on with this shot. Shutter speed was too low, Lens was wide open, Focus may be off and lastly I feel that 8mp is just not enough resolution to get enough detail into a shot like this in the first place. As an 8x10 once it has been shaprened it may look OK but I doubt these is enough detail to pull off an 11x14 or a 12x16. Back in the film days this would be a good example of when to shoot 6x7 or 6x9 medium format.</p>

<p>I tried sharpening your crop and sharpended it looks a bit better.</p><div></div>

<p>this is a section of the stairs and the people in crowd at 100%. they are in better focus i think but still not quite perfect.<br>

i do agree that with a bit of sharpening the print may look quite a bit better. i hadn't applied any sharpnening becuase my printer has suggested not doing that till we get together to actually print it at a certain size and on a certain media. but i do agree that it looks better.<br>

1/45th hand held is pushing it i know... i was in an awkward situation, still am, my tripod and some of my lenses are still in the middle east! so that has been a disaster. i borrowed own from a friend but his was a bit of a pain to use and use quickly so it didn't get used at all. the school wanted the shots but they didn't seem to want the shots really set up and controlled by me, they just said i could go any where i wanted to get them and they would take care of the rest.<br>

the 24 2.8 isn't the best lens. it does have a b+w filter on it, both those things could cuase some issues as well, but i know i have been able to get some really sharp results from this lens with the filter on, i think even at larger apertures.<br>

thank you all again.<br>

so use a tripod and a smaller aperture for the shot next time? or get closer and use lights?</p><div></div>

<p>Most pros can handhold that lens at 1/45th but a tripod certainly wouldn't hurt. I still believe that by powering up the flash, even with this distance from the stage, that you can add alot more light and stop down to f/5.6. Looks to me that this shot was taken from a balcony area which should have given you enouh room to bounce the light from the ceiling and given you generous fill as I've tried to simulate in the before & after images below. Post-work with digital fill, sharpening and general tweaking can also improve this image.</p>

<p>BTW, people around the forum love talking about the specs on lenses and other tech data, I'm wondering if you took the time to clean the lens just before you started shooting the job......</p>

<p>One other suggestion. Look for a local pro studio or two that have covered some weddings at this location and see if you can identify or ask them about how they approached the same situation.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The question, of course, is how much any given filter will degrade IQ.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And whether any such degradation is relevant to the effect of the filter. IE, I use a GND often. I <em>know</em> it will degrade the image, but the effect of the filter has an overall positive effect.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The obvious and only real answer to this question is NOT by vague reference to a general article about lenses, or by quoting an "expert". Rather, it is by performing a trivial, controlled experiment that will take you at most a minute or two.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>We will just have to agree to disagree. I could care less how it performs in a well controlled situation. My link to the lens was merely to outline how very complex lenses are. That by putting more glass in front of a lens you will degrade IQ. A point you agree with BTW; you disagree with how much! And "how much" can't be quantified since every interaction with light will be different. Will it always be noticeable? No. True story: friend shoot AAA ball (usually from the 3rd base line, on the field), with a Nikon 70-200. Prints up to 8x10. Some prints are tack sharp, others are just a bit soft. There was no discernible pattern. Literally, one shot would be tack sharp, the other wouldn't, and the focus would change (he knows what he is doing). Sent the lens to Nikon twice. Came back both times with a clean bill of health. I asked if he was using a UV filter, he was. I told him to take it off for one game. He did and every image was tack sharp. You never know <em>how</em> the filter will adversely affect the image until after you take the image. And by then it might be too late. <br>

<br /></p>

<p><em>We will just have to agree to disagree. </em><br /> - Sounds like a plan. :-)</p>

<p><em>My link to the lens was merely to outline how very complex lenses are.</em><br /> - I think the difference in POV arises because I'm a physicist and have led multi-person PhD teams in optics for decades. I know how complex they are, but I live in a causal and very predictable world when it comes to light. If my boss or my funding agencies felt I couldn't predict when a given optical system would have problems, I would have been out on my ear a long, long time ago. ;-)</p>

<p><em> I could care less how it performs in a well controlled situation.</em><br /> - I misspoke when I said, "...take one shot of a typical subject: first with a filter, and then again, without the filter...". What I should have said was take enough on-off pairs of shots to satisfy yourself that you have amply covered your typical shooting situations, whether they be landscapes, studio portraits, various lighting situations, etc. You'll then get a very good idea when a particular combination of filter and lens tends to drop in IQ. I've found the results can be simply summarized for most normal lenses: Worry about loss of IQ when there is a strong light source either in the frame or outside the frame, but hitting the front element of the lens.</p>

<p><em>True story: friend shoot AAA ball ... I asked if he was using a UV filter, he was. I told him to take it off for one game. He did and every image was tack sharp... </em><br /> - Sorry, but that anecdote just doesn't convince me because a huge number of things could have changed between the two games. For example, all too frequently I'll shot for a minute or two before I notice that I've accidentally bumped the little manual / single-shot / continuous focus switch into the manual position.</p>

<p>It comes down each person doing their own cost-benefit analysis w.r.t. the use of protective filters. If I don't use one, the cost is the risk of permanent and cumulative damage to the lens (depending, of course on the hazard of the situation). If I do use a protective filter, the cost is possible loss of IQ, but since I know that the situations that provoke this are strong light sources hitting the front element of the lens, I can decide rationally to use it or not. With that in hand, I find blanket policies for their use or against their use to be ill-informed.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<p>PS - Thanks to William W for the adding "reasonable lenses" to the list of caveats. I agree.</p>

<p><em><strong>"so use a tripod and a smaller aperture for the shot next time? or get closer and use lights?"</strong></em><br>

<br>

I think you are barking up the wrong tree looking for a "this" or "that" answer.<br>

<br>

The whole thrust of my points contained above is that there are several technical issues which are COMPOUNDING to make the result not acceptable.<br>

<br>

As we are now aware that there is NO Post Production Sharpening, I think this is a major player - and as you have confirmed that the area of steps and six people in the front row are sharper than the body of the Stage Group, the for this file I think correct sharpening and <strong ><em >“Focus Magic”</em></strong> will enhance the image tenfold.<br>

<br>

As to what to do next time ? ? ? I reiterate - it is my opinion that it is NOT one single element you need to address ALL in the list mentioned.<br>

<br>

And there are now more things on that list. . . <br>

<br>

Considering that you have confirmed that the front area of the stage is sharper than the centre area and you also are of the opinion that you focussed on the main group:<br>

9. You should review your Focusing Technique.<br>

10. Test the Lens’s Focus <br>

Also check exactly what AF selections you were /are using . . . <br>

11. SPECIFICALLY were you using AI FOCUS?<br>

12. On WHAT exactly did you focus – Canon AF works on CONTRAST differences – so in this scenario the top of the line of wood and the piano would be a good contrast difference. <br>

13 Did you use Centre Point AF ONLY – it is the most sensitive.<br>

14 Is your Centre Point AF exactly inside the RED SQUARE on your 30D – on a 20D it is not – this is exacerbated when using a wide lens.<br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

Also not wanting to be greedy and have just “my list” I think the point about 8mp, made by Stuart Moxham is excellent and I am kicking myself that I did not include it in my original list . . . :)<br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

The point is (as I understand the question) you are disappointed in the quality of this image AS AN ENLARGEMENT - that is how I have approached the question. <br>

<br>

So the bottom line is every little element has a multiplicative effect . . . IF we are discussing the end result being an enlargement <br>

<br>

As another example . . . <br>

<br>

I agree that most Pros can HH @ 1/45s – if we want a completion I can get to 1/2s on a good day for a long shot at the Wide: <a href="../photo/9199072&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9199072&size=lg</a><br>

And I can get to 1/8s for a Tight Shot at the telephoto: <a href="../photo/10738709&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738709&size=lg</a><br>

Both these images are pretty fine at 5x4 prints held at 15 inches . . . but the point is if we WANT an ENLARGEMENT all those “Hand Holding limits” go out the window . . .<br>

<br>

Back to your image here . . . (assuming that is a 10ft Grand Piano) You were about 100ft from the stage and that stage is about 2/3 occupied with 30 people wide. <br>

<br>

If you enlarge that full frame crop to a 10 x 8 print you have about 6 inches of people across the 10inch print, each person (wide) occupying about ¼ inch . . . <br>

<br>

If my rough mental arithmetic is correct . . . <br>

<br>

<strong ><em >IF you had camera movement of only 0.2mm</em></strong> you will get a resultant blur of 1/16^th inch shown across the bodies of those 30 people shown in the print – <strong ><em >1/16^th inch is a perceivable blur on a 10x8 held arm’s length </em></strong>. . . <br>

<br>

<strong ><em >and 0.2mm camera movement is not very much at all.</em></strong><br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > <br>

PS: <strong><em>"but i know i have been able to get some really sharp results from this lens with the filter on, i think even at larger apertures."</em></strong><br>

Yes I am sure you have - I bet the lighting was different, or the subjects were closer or you were not enlarging as much and the Tv was faster . . . and etc - all accumulative - no one element works alone. <br>

</p>

<p > <br>

 

 

</p>

I'm seeing grain more that focusing problems. What was your ASA and your camera? If it's not your ASA setting my guess is the focus. I'm not seeing blurring from movement. I 'm thinking our camera focused on the wood in front of the people. Can you enlarge the wood for us to see?

 

Some camera lenses need to be adjusted ever few years or so.

<p>While I agree with the warnings about filters, glass sharpness, etc. I'm assuming that you want <strong>reasonable facial detail so that on a banner enlargement</strong> -which is what student shots usually want- viewers can look and view a banner print closely and clearly recognize their friends: <br /><br />Assuming your uncropped post is completely uncropped and a 5D RAW image has 2500 pixels horizontal, then about half of the horizontal area is unused to the left and right of the students. Therefore there is 1200 pixels horizontal left to be shared by all the students horizontally about 27 students horizontal (don't count the second row for this analysis) that leaves 44 horizontal pixels per student. In this even division of student heads it includes space (about 2/3 space) between each student leaving about 14 pixels horizontal per student face. The software smooths (blurs) this some in your cropped view so the pixels aren't seen. If you considered the vertical pixel count you would have a similar number. Faces are taller than wide - so approximately 14 X 20 pixels per face. JPEG looses more and it looks like you are close to the limit of what you can expect. For most of the students I don't see relative motion blur, so that's not your primary problem. Also wide angle lenses reduce camera motion blur as I'm sure your aware. <br />The lighting situation is very apparent although no where near as difficult as stage plays.. <br /><br />If it were me I would blow the dust off my LF camera and shoot this shot on 4x5 where there is sufficient effective resolution. Also the latitude / dynamic range of negative film is such that with good dodging/burning under an enlarger the lighting variances can be resolved. However I would NOT want to print more than a couple enlargements this way and I personally haven't ever made an exposure equalizing negative to sandwich in the enlarger to make a multitude of identical analog prints. (I've seen this done but it gives me a headache jut thinking about it.) A digital camera does make an effective preview device when mounted to a LF camera by the way.<br /><br /><strong>A better answer</strong> I suggest is to take the wide angle shot like you did as a reference. And then quickly shoot a <strong>multitude of telephoto pictures</strong> of the students from left to right. After the fact use Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, Gimp or whatever to reassemble the clear faces into the wide shot. Correcting for lighting and any blinking eyes/rolling eyes/unbecoming expressions at the same time. Result: about a 100MP image ready for printing.<br /><br />I know what you are thinking - this is going to take about 3 hours to edit. You are also thinking - I don't have to do this for my wedding shots. Intuitively a 17"x20" portrait enlargement with a couple of heads in a typical wall mounted enlargement is not going to have the viewer hovering over it looking for pimples etc at a 3" viewing distance. <br />This is different, the main subject is a bunch of small heads and you are in fact going to have the viewer looking ever closer at a 30" wide banner print.<br />You don't get something for nothing so if you want a masterpiece lots of extra effort is needed.<br /><br />If you have never done that sort of photo-editing before add about 8 to 10 hours of learning curve time. (But once you know how to do it -it becomes easy if not tedious), You are not done until the viewer does not know it was edited. Sorry to say you don't get something for nothing.</p>

<p>Terence - <br>

<br>

I have read your post twice. <br>

<br>

The first read I thought your idea was <strong ><em >shooting a panorama</em></strong> and then <strong ><em >stitching it</em></strong> – but it is not that - is it?<br>

<br>

So . . . when the faces are pasted back into the original wide shot - are you suggesting that there could be "blocks" of several faces pasted as one section - if the lighting was OK and the expressions OK?<br>

<br>

Would you suggest about a 100mm lens (on APS-C) ? ? ?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Shooting a panorama by stitching is not what I meant but the process is similar. Stitching can be as simple as finding a straight line where each pair of overlapping images merge and joining them there eliminating the overlaps. It could be a straight cut or a percentage blending between the images. The viewer will usually detect a straight cut but the blending method works best. In fact some of the intermediate point and shoot digital cameras have a panoramic algothrithm built in that locates overlap in sequential images automatically and blends them producing a large jpeg from a series of shots. No Photoshop involved. I recently saw the result from such a camera when I was in a Walmart and an amateur was picking up a panoramic print and proudly showed it to me. A little Jaw dropping considering I know how much work is involved with Photoshop. It was because the womens 10 year old daughter read the camera manual while on vacation and without prior photographic experience (the first day she ever took any kind of photo from what I was told) shot a series from a hotel balcony and the result never went thru a PC - straight from the flash card at the kiosk.... I couldn't detect any seam.<br>

BUT I DIGRRESS....<br>

A 100mm lens should get you the detail needed. Tripod mounted of course since now camera motion would become the limiting factor. I wasn't thinking about substituting more than one student at a time but actually that should be a time saver and quite doable. I think that where the blending occurs should be easy behind the second row of students but following contour lines on the robes fold, for example, on the first row would yield the best results. I believe you can get away with this in this kind of situation because the lighting does not change and the students don't move much between your shots. I wouldn't want to consider this method if those facts weren't true.<br>

I wish a simpler answer were available.<br>

Even if your camera had a 100MP sensor the other concerns expressed by the other posters would become a major problem with a single shot if everything else was the same. Subject motion, lens sharpness, filter degradation, etc. It is always what is the weakest link.</p>

<p>Jason -<br>

note that the portion of the photo that includes the stairs and the back of persons heads that you had a link to does not actually appear to be sharper - its just closer to the camera -so the features are all larger. Compare the head sizes to the students head sizes..</p>

<p>Terence,<br>

<br>

Thanks for coming back with the detail. You have confirmed the process I had in my head.<br>

<br>

Thanks for the tip - in the meantime I have been playing with my own testing of the technique - I used my 100/2.8 macro shooting an Orchestra on a Stage (before they began playing).<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>