Jump to content

Crisp formals?


tina___cliff_t

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Here is another example. Same lens, I don't have the exact info. I can tell you it was not as dark, so lower ISO etc. Its still not super crisp, but better than above. We try to shoot all our group shots at at least f8 or higher, but they always seem to be a little fuzzy. </p>

<p> </p><div>00UsNI-184917584.jpg.3ffa7990a8ba759deb2f73266aff6bc1.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The reason we started using f8+ is because when we first started out, anything lower would leave some people in the group out of focus and others were in focus. I'm telling you, group shots seem to be our problem area. <br>

I've seen the bridesmaids one above printed at an 8x10, and it looks clear on paper. Which is why I worried i was looking to closely at the pictures. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I second Jon C's question: What camera are you using? I doubt it's the camera, but I'm curious.</p>

<p>It could be the lens alone, but I doubt it. There seems to be more than one Tamron 17-50, but at least one of the models seems to have good reviews, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx">like here</a>. Should be good enough to do a better job. Of course, some lenses just aren't very good, and sometimes a lens is well reviewed, but the copy of the lens you buy is defective (back focuses or whatever).</p>

<p>As Jon C suggested, ISO 800 is a bit much for some cameras. I don't usually shoot above ISO 400 when I'm using flash - it should not be necessary. But I'm not sure the problem can be explained with a high ISO, either. Here's a link to some group shots I took not too long ago of <a href="http://william-porter.smugmug.com/School/20090914-SBCCS-8th-Grade/9644230_KXSnh#650540102_jRCci">a school volleyball team</a>. Gym was badly lit. Used 2 flash units, radio triggers, bounced off wall behind camera (if I recall correctly). Not master work, but satisfactory: I've sold prints and coach and parents were happy. First shots were taken at ISO 200. The later few shots in the gallery were - due to a totally dumb mistake on my part - taken at ISO 1100. (I switched to ISO to shoot the baby without flash, and forgot to put it back.) Anyway, I mention it because the ISO 1100 shots are pretty sharp, too - actually very sharp when printed. Good light and proper exposure matter.</p>

<p>Your example #2 doesn't look too bad to me. Don't get hung up too much on how things look at 100%. The big question is, do the shots look good when printed? You should also be able to get the image to look good on your computer screen at normal resolution but printing is the acid test.</p>

<p>As for the first shot, which I do think has clear technical weaknesses, my inclination is to think that there's just not enough light - and you're too far away from the subjects. Would like to know more about the flash setup you used here. But if you were standing 30ft or more away from a wide line of people, as you appear to have been, well, it would take some thinking to make that work, especially with the backlighting provided by the sky and with your camera stopped down so dramatically. I agree with others who've said that f/9 seems a bit extreme. Remember that when you're using flash, the aperture controls how effective the flash is. I try to stay at f/5.6 or thereabouts when shooting flash, if I can.</p>

<p>I wonder what the first shot looked like BEFORE post processing. I'd bet a nickel it was underexposed to start with and you pulled the exposure up on the computer.</p>

<p>First thing I'd do is work on flash technique, make sure you're getting enough good light on the subjects. Use off-camera flash if you can, and multiple flash units if possible, especially for larger groups. It's all about light!</p>

<p>Were you using a tripod for these shots?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I always shoot mine at F8 to F11 too but I think this was a issue with the high ISO and the fact that your not in the "Sweet spot" of the lens. When you shoot 4 to 5 people, you zoom into the sweet spot. I bet the same shot with ISO 200 on a tripod would have gotten you a little better result. I too don't use any 3rd party lens. v/r Buffdr</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I believe you have missed focus. Here is an image I shot with my 20D and Tamron 17-50mm, full image and 100 percent view. The Tamron, when it misses focus, will tend to front focus--way front. So I'd check for very near objects that are in focus. In the top image, check the grass toward the lower edge.</p>

<p>Anyway, when you evaluate an image for blurriness, you first look to see if anything is in sharp focus. That will rule out motion blur, in most cases. Do that and let us know.</p>

<p>What focusing mode are you using? And are you sharpening when converting to RAW? If not, what sharpness setting are you using?</p><div>00UsQV-184953784.jpg.39b639e31c95ae4063ba4b7df17f8b6c.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Unless your lens/camera are out of calibration, it probably isn't the lens ... at f/5.6 or 8, most lenses start getting pretty equal in performance. Stopping down to 11 or beyond can begin introducing defraction ... so, f/16 isn't the best choice unless you really need it for DOF.</p>

<p>The appearance of "sharpness" has a great deal to do with contrast and quality of light. Your first image is pretty flat lighting exaggerated by subject underexposure at ISO 800. That is pretty tough lighting conditions with a group that large unless you have some mighty powerful strobes to work with. Your second example is shot in brighter, cleaner light and looks to be a done at a lower ISO.</p>

<p>While Nadine's image is also ISO 800, it looks to be lit camera right by off-camera strobes, which is a more specular light quality as well as being directional. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the top image I think there are three elements. The second two exacerbate the first primary issue:</p>

<p>1. You missed focus</p>

<p>Then:<br>

2. The image is underexposed on the skin tone and those were pulled up in post production (not enough Flash Fill.</p>

<p>3. Because ISO was 800 the resultant noise (when the skin tones were brought up) is far worse than it should be.</p>

<p>Elements #2 and #3 are not the cause, but just exacerbate the effect of the already OoF faces.</p>

<p>Also, did you have a filter on?</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>"Does anyone else have examples of how crisp a group photo should look at 100%?"</em></strong></p>

<p>I searched for one of my images that used Flash and was taken at High ISO – I don’t have many - and that point of using an high ISO (and not nailing the exposure) has already been mentioned. Especially important in regards to this mater of ISO. : <em>what is your camera?</em></p>

<p>My shot was taken at ISO1250 (because it was just at the time I was moving from working Sans Flash to using a Bounce-Card Bracket & Release Flash as the Key Light - the sun had already set, but I was still at an high ISO from shooting Available Light. Tech Specs: 5D + 24L: F/4 @ 1/60s @ ISO1250.</p>

<p>Yes, there is residual noise, and there is a little CA (typical of this lens in certain conditions) - but the centre youth is in acceptable sharp focus as is youth at the edge.</p>

<p>This image was Focused and Recomposed because I know I have about 5ft DoF for a Full Shot Landscape, on a 5D @ F/4 – and for this shot I was at at my safety limit . . .</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p><div>00UsUF-184989584.jpg.27a36faed507c189fae0ae0da03958c5.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I say that it is 100% the camera. Look at it this way. If you shoot a picture of one person there are going to be more pixels in the image making up their face, in contrast, if you shoot a group of say 10 people there will be less pixels making up each person. The result of the group shot is going to be a slightly more pixelated/grainy look when you zoom in to 100% crop.<br>

A solution to this problem would be to upgrade cameras one with more megapixels, or shoot 2 1/4" film, it can definately handle the people! Or I think the key is to keep your ISO down as low as possible for large groups.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't think so, Josh. This is why I chose my first example. The height of the people in it in relation to the height of the frame is about the same as Tina's Sample 2, actually slightly less. In comparison, Tina's sample looks out of focus to me. If it were purely magnification, her sample should look sharper.</p>

<p>My last sample shows even less body height in relation to frame height, than Tina's Sample 1, yet is sharper.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Complex analysis, but my guess is ISO followed by distance from the subject. To me none of the images look sharp to me and Tina's images look like ISO noise. If I wanted to know for sure, I would something constant to access focus, put the camera on a tripod and shoot at different Apertures and ISO to see what happens. It could also be you are underexposing even at the higher ISO thus worsening the noise artefact. I find much better IQ by going to a higher ISO, but a bit over exposed then a lower ISO but under exposed. Also depends on the camera performance. ISO 800 on a D3 or D700 is fine, particularly if one pushes the exposure up a bit. Even 1600 is ok, but I know that the images will progressively get softer the higher the ISO. <br>

So my guess is ISO and sensor performance. You could rent a high end pro prime lens and see if that makes things substantially better, which would address the lens issue.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses. Sorry I hadn't checked back to answer your questions. We're both using Canon 40D's for the camera. I looked closer at the first image, and then at some more images from the wedding. And when further away from everything the focus did look like it was on the ground (the grass in the first image). Is there a way to prevent this? I'll admit when I'm trying to fit so many people into the shot I've switched to auto focus because I can't tell manually if I'm focused on the people. So the 1st one is probably a miss focus on us. We did have to up the fill in post, which didn't help with the high iso. And we do use a UV filter. :P Sorry trying to answer all the questions.</p>

<p>On the 2nd on though the girls were definitely the focus. Nadine could I have you elaborate on this?<br>

"And are you sharpening when converting to RAW? If not, what sharpness setting are you using?"<br>

<br /> I don't believe I'm doing any sharpening? 8-O So I'd like to hear more about this. </p>

<p>Thank everyone for all the answers and examples.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree, it almost has to be missed focus. If you used auto-focus, is it possible that an auto-focus sensor toward the bottom of the frame focused on the ground in front of the subjects? Did you notice which sensor lit up and confirmed focus (which I think at least most cameras do)?</p>

<p>Also, have you tested the camera-and-lens combination to see whether it front-focuses or back-focuses, and under what conditions (focal length, camera-to-subject distance, focus point, etc.)?</p>

<p>As to why the extreme wide angle of the lens, well, assuming the fill was a shoe-mount flash, using f/8 and ISO 800, this was probably near the limit of the flash range. If you move the camera back and change the lens from 17mm to 28mm, you'd need about three times as much light. My guess is there wasn't enough flash power to do it here.</p>

<p>There are indeed two versions of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, the original and the new optical image stabilization one for Nikon and Canon. But the original (which is what I assume this is) has gotten very good reviews.</p>

<p>Last but not least, I agree, this problem has nothing to do with having too few pixels. One point of a 100% crop is that you are looking at <em>per-pixel</em> sharpness, not sharpness normalized for a given print or display size/resolution.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...