Camera Shake or out-of-focus?

<p>I took pictures of a lovely young lady the other day and many of them, if not most, seem blurry. I've magnified them in the lcd and it seems some have camera shake (with SR on and handheld) or just OOF and I've back button focused on her eyes. I was using the Tamron 28-70 @2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 @2.8. Can anyone tell me what kind of blur I've got in these 2 100% crops?</p><div></div>

<p>Another shot</p><div></div>

If you had simply mis-focused, you would expect to see an area of sharpness somewhere. It looks like motion blur to me.

 

What was your shutter speed?

<p>1/50th sec w/ 70-200. I think my question for that shot is answered! Methinks I should be using my tripod. Couldn't use it in the other area we were shooting in. I'll need to go through them one by on in Lr to see what's what</p>

<p>Additionally, you were shooting wide open, the area of least sharpness. If it was me, I'd have closed down the diaphragm by 1 stop. Also, as you mentioned...tripod.</p>

<p>I suppose #1 is OOF, #2 could be camera shake. What shutterspeeds were you forcing upon the poor SR according your EXIF data?</p>

<p>-can be wb setting </p>

<blockquote>

<p>1/50th sec w/ 70-200. I think my question for that shot is answered! Methinks I should be using my tripod. Couldn't use it in the other area we were shooting in. I'll need to go through them one by on in Lr to see what's what</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The slow shutter speed combined with the possibility of the subject slightly moving could be the cause. Also if it was shot in low diffused light that might challenge the auto-focus metering.</p>

<p>1. Shoot Raw, up the ISO to allow an increase of shutter speed to about 1/125's or more.<br /> 2. Manually focus on eyelashes or eyebrows.<br /> 3. Anti-shake works the best shooting still objects. Even slightly moving subjects like people I would turn it off and hold the camera firmly against face with viewfinder locked on eye and softly, slowly press the shutter release.</p>

<p>Here's what ISO 1600 on a 2006 Pentax K100D allowed me to do on a test scene next to my editing workstation using the suggestions above. No tripod. Image Stabilization turned off.</p>

<p>The top image shows exactly how dark the scene was in my room lit only by two T8 daylight flotubes I was blocking and casting a shadow over the scene. The second is after post processing the Raw file in ACR 6.7. The third image is a 100% crop that had to be slightly downsized to fit. ACR noise reduction is applied. Came out better than I thought I'ld get with ISO 1600 which I never use. It still only got me 1/3's shutter speed.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Methinks I should be using my tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not think that will be the sole solution for this type of Available Light Portraiture.</p>

<p>Forensic analysis of the second image reveals the hot was pulled at 1/50s and there is evidence of trailing edge blur on the white writing at the chest area and also the face (most prominently evidenced at the lips). The Chest area displays a movement (on the image) upwards and slightly to camera right and the lip area displays blurs symptomatic of multiple movements. My best guess with only a low res image is that the camera was moving downwards and slightly to camera left and at the same time (based upon the fact that the face is generally not sharp – AND – the lips indicate movement in at least two directions) the head of the Subject was moving upwards: but on the other hand the blurs indicated on the Chest could be a result of the Subject breathing, in which case there might not be any appreciable Camera Movement - it is simply too difficult to resolve the low res to make a definite conclusion in this regard. But I can conclude definitively that there is Subject Movement Blur present.</p>

<p>A similar analysis of the first image (the eyes) reveals that shot was pulled at 1/160s. (i.e. the samples are two different images) This second sample is too small and too low res to accurately identify if there is any movement blur or not. That stated, prima facie, there appears to be none. If this image appears soft around the eye area, then my opinion is that more likely due to slight miss focus or the fact it is just slightly soft.</p>

<p>Do you mean you use the Tamron 28 to <em><strong>75</strong></em> F/2.8? And it seems to me that lens (28 to <em><strong>75</strong></em>/2.8) was used for BOTH the sample images that you posted?</p>

<p>I have some experience with the Tamron 28 to 75 and these lenses are quite sharp at the centre when used wide open; if the eyes were not in the centre of the frame, then it might be that your lens is a tad soft toward the edges rather than a slight mis-focus. It is always difficult to analyse a crop of a frame – an hi res full frame image is much easier.</p>

<p>My general conclusion is the shutter speed is too slow for these Portraits.</p>

<p>On another point, which goes to perhaps solving the issue, both sample were made in with the camera in Aperture Priority Mode – my experience is that when using this Mode, sometimes the Photographer is concentrating on compositing and direction and lighting and many other facets of the shot that they fail to notice the Shutter Speed dropping to dangerous speeds. One method of addressing this when making Portraits in Available Light is to meter the general area and then choose an ISO which will always render a “safe” Shutter Speed for the Aperture that is chosen.</p>

<p>Apropos Subject Movement Blur - 1/250s is reasonably “safe” for an Adult in good health who is standing – but obviously 1/320s and 1/400s is “safer”.</p>

<p>Apropos Camera Movement Blur - that often depends on technique, experience and also how much coffee has recently been consumed. Often mentioned is the “1/Focal Length Rule of Thumb for Hand Holding” – (BTW it seems that evolved around the time that 135 Format SLR Cameras surged to overtake the work for “candid portraiture” which previously TLR and other Medium format cameras covered.) So extrapolating for your K-5 (an APS-C Format), for those two sample images, (where the Focal Length was 75mm for both) then about 1/120s would be the slowest Shutter Speed the Rule of Thumb indicates.</p>

<p>But – as already mentioned - even if the Photographer has rock steady technique (<em><strong>or uses a tripod</strong></em>) and can pull shots hand held using a telephoto lens at shutter speeds as slow as 1/50s and have no appreciable camera shake blur – that technique and skill is of little use if the Subject of the Available Light Portrait <strong>is moving</strong> - and the bottom line is it is really difficult task for a trained model or actor to remain “still”.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>My thanks to all, especially William W, for his forensic and encyclopedic reply. This place is still the best.</p>

<p>For those shots, you should be shooting at f/8 and a shutter speed up around 1/200-sec. Raise the ISO to get there. Only use f/2.8 when you intentionally want OOF areas or background bokeh. Neither of these shots have that, so you'd go for large DOF. </p>

<p>Good ho!</p>

<p>I think, as general comment, it is widely underestimated what Shutter Speeds are actually “safe” for this type of Portrait Photography. Over several years - there were many times where my assistants/students helping & learning at Weddings and Social Functions got Subject Motion Blur in their shots because of too slow a Shutter Speed. I purposely articulated the analysis so you would have a better idea of what to look for - because you mentioned that you were going to sort through your images and have a closer look at them.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Portrait photographers don't use powerful studio lights without good reason. With available light it's often impossible to achieve critical sharpness, no matter how much you juggle the settings. Perhaps as cameras are introduced with excellent image quality at high ISO, lack of light will be less of a problem.</p>

<p>What puzzles me is after shooting over 300 sharp looking images posted in Howard's PN gallery, he still can't distinguish between a shot affected by out-of-focus vs camera shake. And didn't test first to narrow down the cause.</p>

<p>Clearly he's experienced enough to know his way around a camera.</p>

<p>Tim, in thinking about this before posting and coming up with WTF?? (sorry about the language) I posted my question. Thinking about it today, it could be lack of going out and shooting often, thus not looking at shutter speed although I do remember looking but I was shooting at too low shutter speeds. The 70-200 is still heavy in my hands and focusing with the shorter lens seems to give me a hard time. I also forgot to use my 50 1.4 which might have been very useful. Again, not enough shooting.<br>

"he still can't distinguish between a shot affected by out-of-focus vs camera shake" For me, it's not always that easy.</p>

<p>"And didn't test first to narrow down the cause." Not sure what you mean.</p>

<p>I can't seem to find the post that factored in the APS-C sensor in the reciprocal of the lens length speed rule. Using that would probably have saved a few shots.</p>

<p>Any other thoughts? Hopefully, if I shoot with her again, I'll be able to post a few on the POTW.</p>

<p>For lenses with Image Stabilization, the ole, "reciprocal of the lens focal length" rule is out the window. I've hand held my EF 500mm f/4L IS II at 1,000mm (with 2.0x TC, of course) at 1/40-sec. and gotten a sharp shot of the moon. The Series II 70-200mm can do equivalent miracles. That's one reason I prefer the 24-105mm over the excellent 24-70mm is that the IS allows me to hand hold many street, night shots that would require a tripod otherwise. </p>

<p>When I boarded the London Eye, they took my monopod, but I still got this shot at 1/3-sec., hand held:</p>

<p><a title="Romantic full moon as seen from London Eye" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3491/3884881520_8ac87e3663_z.jpg" alt="Romantic full moon as seen from London Eye" width="640" height="461" /></a></p>

<p>You have to be extremely careful shooting wide open, because of the narrow DOF. Even slight subject movement can ruin the picture if you are not using flash. I learned my lesson the hard way trying to shoot a wedding at f2.8 and most of the pictures came out blurry. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"he still can't distinguish between a shot affected by out-of-focus vs camera shake" For me, it's not always that easy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first take on your OP I thought you were trying to determine whether your K-1 and/or lens was defective, but upon reading further you didn't ask about this so I assumed you were a newbie and needed to have someone tell you by testing whether the camera/lens is defective.</p>

<p>But the thread went with exposure setting issues and possibly narrow DOF taxing the auto focus metering on a moving subject. I don't see the need to spend that much effort and time analyzing whether it's focusing or camera shake issues. That's necessary shooting film, but with digital all you have to do is keep shooting till you get it right while making adjustments and zooming in on the LCD preview.</p>

<p>Like Harry, I learned the hard way about narro DOF shooting macro of a Mustang grape vine leaf in my park with my 70-300mm Sigma during a windy day. I had to focus manually on fine detail but started noticing the image in the viewfinder gradually getting softer and softer that I thought the lens components had become loose and started drifting until I realized that combined with the narrow DOF the leaf I was trying to shoot was actually moving backwards ever so slightly from the wind which wasn't directly blowing on the leaf but farther up the vine. It took me almost ten tries to get sharp results. See below. (shot at 300mm (macro switch), 1/200's, f/8, ISO 800)</p><div></div>

<p>Tim - Since the blur seems to be motion blur, I need to stop down from 2.8 to at least 4.0 (Is there truth to the theory that APS-C sensors add 1.5 stops to the aperture?) and make sure my shutter speed is at least 1/125 for the shorter lens and 1/320 for the long lens. And I should brace myself as well or use a tripod. By the way my camera is a K-5. If you could arrange for me to have a K-1, I'd love it.<br>

Oh, the post I mentioned regarding shutte speed being the reciprocal of lens length x 1.5 came from another site.</p>

<p>Howard, you're all tangled up in your drawers. Motion blur calls for higher shutter speed, so stopping down to a smaller aperture takes you the opposite way. </p>

<p>I shoot with two bodies, going back and forth between them based on subject, a 7D MkII and a 5DsR, When I set one at ISO 800, f/8 and 1/800-sec. I set the other the same, and the resulting images have the same brightness. Hence, APS-C sensors DO NOT at 1.5-stops to the aperture.</p>

<p>Image Stabilization and/or a tripod will not stop motion by the subject.</p>

<p>BTW, does you lens have IS? If so, it can make a huge difference in the lowest shutter speed that you can hand hold at. The latest Series II Canon lenses give 4-stops of improvement, so I can hand hold my 1000mm rig at 1/250-sec. instead of 1/1000-sec.</p>

<p>Two<strong> causes</strong> of blur have been mentioned in this thread:<br /> 1) Subject Motion Blur<br /> 2) Camera Movement Blur</p>

<p><em>Subject Motion Blur</em> requires an adequately fast enough shutter speed to arrest the movement of THE SUBJECT. In the second image the SUBJECT is definitely moving. The Shutter Speed necessary to arrest Subject Motion Blur is NOT really dependent upon the Focal Length of the lens, (but is dependent upon then FRAMING and the ENLARGEMENT and the VIEWING DISTANCE of the Final Image - i.e.- in simple terms "how close the viewer is looking at the image"). For the type of shot you gave as a sample I recommended 1/250th second as a safe Shutter Speed to arrest Subject Motion. David recommended 1/200s. The point is it doesn't matter what lens that you use - you still will need around those shutter speeds, or faster, to arrest the Movement of the Subject. Image Stabilization doe NOT assist in arresting Subject Motion Blur, (technical caveat - except it might in a very special cases when panning).</p>

<p><em>Camera Movement Blur </em>is where the 1/Focal Length Rule comes into play. It is a Rule of Thumb - a suggestion or guide only, based upon 135 Format Cameras - so yes for APS-C cameras if you want to use this "rule" as a guide you will need to apply a factor of x1.5 or (x1.6) to the FL of the lens being used. Image Stabilization does arrest Camera Movement Blur - that's its main purpose.</p>

<p>The reference to APS-C Cameras <em>"adding 1.5 stops of aperture"</em> is to do with the Subject of: EQUIVALENCE in PHOTOGRAPHY. An easy way to explain the meaning of the particular reference of <em>"adding 1.5 stops"</em> is by a practical example - if you FRAME a Subject exactly the same way (i.e. "FRAMING" means the Subject occupies exactly the same amount of space in the image), using the same lens on a 135 Format ("Full Frame") and then do the same using an APS-C Format Camera - then you will need to STOP DOWN the lens 1.333 Stops when using the APS-C Camera <strong>to have the same Depth of Field</strong> in the image as what you'd have if you used the 135 Format Camera.</p>

<p>WW<br /> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>William said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Camera Movement Blur </em>is where the 1/Focal Length Rule comes into play. It is a Rule of Thumb - a suggestion or guide only, based upon 135 Format Cameras - so yes for APS-C cameras if you want to use this "rule" as a guide you will need to apply a factor of x1.5 or (x1.6) to the FL of the lens being used. Image Stabilization does arrest Camera Movement Blur - that's its main purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Using the same lens on an full-frame and an APS-C sensor (I do this all the time). The focal length is unchanged and the image circle is unchanged. The crop-sensor merely uses only a portion of of the image that the lens produces. Hence, the shutter speed requirement is unchanged. My crop-sensor and my full-frame sensor have the same pixel-density and I use the same lenses on both. No shutter speed adjustment is required when going from one to the other. OTOH, when I add a teleconverter to my lens, I need to raise the shutter speed due to the increased focal length, but I do it the same on both bodies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Using the same lens on an full-frame and an APS-C sensor (I do this all the time). The focal length is unchanged and the image circle is unchanged. The crop-sensor merely uses only a portion of of the image that the lens produces. <strong>Hence, the shutter speed requirement is unchanged.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I agree with the first two sentences. I disagree with the third sentence - it is <em>non sequitur</em>.</p>

<p>David, we may have to agree to disagree on this topic. That's OK by me. However as a further (and unless a direct question is asked of me, my final comment/explanation on this point), please have a look at it this way:</p>

<p>The blur from any camera movement is always <strong>more likely to be detected when we look at the image closely enough to notice that blur.</strong></p>

<p>Please hold onto that thought - when we actually notice the blur is when we look more closely at the image.</p>

<p>Now please just run with the numbers below as "general examples" and not numbers for any mathematical formulated or comparative proof:</p>

<p>Sometimes the camera will move (let's say the camera moves 0.5 mm vertically during 1/50s) but we don't notice any blur because, for example. we use a W/A lens (lets say 28mm lens) and the Subject is 5metres from the camera and the background is way in the distance. - so we might conclude that it is OK to use 1/30s to hand hold a 28mm lens.</p>

<p>Now let's say we ENLARGE that picture by cropping it to 1/8th the size. We could notice a slight blur due to the camera movement because, in simple terms, we are looking at the image more closely. </p>

<p>Now let's stay in the same place and use a 200mm lens and have the same subject at 5metres from the camera - the SAME 0.05mm motion of the camera will very likely result in a blur if we use 1/30s - so we conclude that 1/200s might be safe for a 200mm lens.</p>

<p>Now let's stay in the same position and use the200mm lens on an APS-C Camera with the same Subject at the same 5metres - that's just like cropping or enlarging the 200mm shot using a 'full frame camera' - i.e. we are simply looking at the subject more closely,</p>

<p>The first point is - each time we <em>"look at the Subject more closely"</em> - no matter what method we use to achieve that - either using a tele-converter, by cropping, by enlargement, by standing closer to the final image, or by using a smaller sensor camera, we are more likely to NOTICE the blur due to any same amount movement of the camera over any given Shutter Speed.</p>

<p>The second point is - 1/FL Rule is a guide only which (having researched the history of it) came about around 1930/40s) and was a rule for for Hand Holding 135 Format cameras for general Subjects at usual distances for average sized prints (probably no cropping to about 10 x 8 Print) which would be viewed at about arm's length.</p>

<p>So this "1/FL Rule" is a very general guide - and as it is a general guide if any of the factors change the rule should also change.</p>

<p>So as a final practical example - when I plonk a 200mm lens on an APS-C camera and you plonk a 200mm lens on a 135 Format camera and we each stand next to each other and we make a picture of the same Subject standing 5metres away from us and we use exactly the same shutter speed - and we both exhibit EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF "camera shake" and then we each print our images without cropping them and then we view those two images side by side - my "shake" will be distributed over a smaller area of the Subject (i.e. we will be "looking at my subject more closely") and in so doing it is MORE likely that there will be a perceptible blur in my image than in yours.</p>

<p>That's the rationale for what I was stating.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> <br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Look at it the way I actually compared my 7D MkII and my 5DSR. I put my super sharp EF 500mm f/4L IS II lens on the 7D2 and shoot, hand held, a dollar bill stuck to the wall, from 16-ft. or so. Using the same lens and the same settings, I shoot the same shot, from the same distance with the 5DSR. I then do a Raw conversion of each, using the same settings, except that I crop the full-frame image to the same number of pixels as the crop-sensor image. The two bodies have the same pixel density, so the resulting images are the same size. Next, I put them side by side and examine them at 200% and above. You can't tell one from the other.</p>

<p>I've actually done this. You DO NOT need to raise shutter speed when using the same lens on a crop-sensor that you use on a full-frame camera. Cropping, in post processing, a full-frame image down to the equivalent crop-sensor pixel count (assuming similar pixel-density) is exactly the same as using a crop-sensor that physically uses only part of the image circle that the lens produces. </p>

<p>Why don't I simply use my 500mm lens on my 5DsR, crop the focal-length limited images and sell the 7D2. It's about file management efficiency and the 7D2's ability to shoot 10-fps because it's not processing a part of the file that I'll throw away. </p>

<p>Here's something to think about, I can use the 5DsR in crop-mode, which simply does an in-camera crop of the image. Instead of physically throwing away part of my 500mm's image circle, it's thrown away digitally. Would I change my shutter speed because the camera's going to throw away part of the file? Of course not. All a crop-sensor is doing when a full-frame lens is used on it is ignoring part of the image circle. Focal length has not changed. You can make up all kinds of scenarios, but an image taken with a 500mm lens (forgetting about IS for the moment) will require the same shutter speed for a sharp image, no matter the sensor size. </p>

<p>David - What I should have added was "and raise the ISO to allow a faster shutter speed". On Pentax cameras, stabilization comes from the camera, not the lenses. Stabilization usually takes care of a few stops.<br /> I tried on-camera, diffused flash (9"x6" diffuser) but it was too harsh. It did crisp up the picture. Unfortunately, I had no neutral light wall to bounce from.<br /> <br />My basic problem was inadequate light. Here she is in adequate light and a breeze. I can't access the EXIF info at the moment to tell you all the info, but clearly that's sharper. I'm assuming my shutter speed was up there, probably 1/250+</p><div></div>