Help... I couldn't get Crisp image for landscape with Nikon d5000 + 3 examples

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by forhood_lion, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. I see what you mean, but it's hard to say why they are like that without knowing what focus settings you used for them, and also shutter speed and aperture. They are also lacking in contrast, as if you took them with the stock Neutral picture control.
  2. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the last two. The first must have been the wrong focus point with widest aperture and slow shutter speed. Yes, we need to know all thee details!
  3. I struggle with hazy landscapes like this. It kills contrast. For the foreground, you need some sharpening (either in camera if you are shooting jpg or in post processing). I took one of them into PS and did both. I think it made a pretty significant but still subtle change. --Wade
  4. SCL


    After looking at your exif data, it appears that all 3 were shot at 1/60 sec...really low speed for handheld shots to be really crisp. You also had your aperture really closed down. Had you opened it by 2-3 stops you could have had everything in clear focus and not had any effects of camera shake. When you close down the aperture too far you also get diffraction showing up which makes your pictures less clear. Try to stay below f11 for best lens performance.
  5. The 3rd image looks fine to me... blurred just like digital is supposed to be. You are stripping off the exif/iptc info. Convert with viewNX2 and repost the images.
  6. In Cameraw i did :
    To MUCH Saturation >>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel it now
  7. Stephen Lewis : I used a tripod with a remote control >>> the question is :
    Is this the best result the d5000 can go in landscape
    (( Great Tip : aperture setting ))
    I have to tell you that my sensor got some dust
    thanks guys>> :
  8. Tripod and I see VR on in the exif.........that must be VR off.
    When using a tripod use Mirror lock-up(but I don't think that is vailable on your camera) so use the option 'exposure delay mode'(I hope that is available on the D5000). So the vibes of the mirror are damped away when you take your pic.
  9. I see you are shooting around f/25, no way you can get a sharp image at that f stop, try dropping it to around f/11 or f/8.
    At f/25 diffraction is a killer.
  10. Your first image simply looks like it isn't in focus. Seeing as your other two shots are in focus, I would say the first image is just user error. Other two shots look perfectly fine, not sure what the problem is with them other than diffraction. Sure they could use some post-processing to increase sharpness and contrast, but that is quite normal.
    If you want your shots to come out differently straight from the camera, play with the image style settings until you reach something you like; to me it seems like you would like your camera set to Vivid w/ +7 sharpness, +1 contrast, -1 saturation. I usually leave my camera in Standard w/ +5 sharpness, 0 contrast, -1 saturation
  11. Were you shooting raw? If not, anything you did in post was to an already-baked image.
  12. +1 Scott Wilson
    Keep your aperture at f/8 and f/11 no smaller. If you need smaller, use a faster shutter speed or an ND filter.
    Also, as has been mentioned, VR OFF when on a tripod. It can have a significant difference if the VR components are misaligned when the shutter goes off.
  13. The EXIF data for the first image show a focus distance of 0.28m - so no wonder here that nothing in the distance is in focus - even at f22.
    It's 3.35m for the second and third image (which don't look too bad to me) - and you used manual focus for all three. What exactly were you focusing on? Did you use Live View for focusing? The viewfinder of Nikon's consumer series cameras aren't very good for manual focusing.
    The 3.35m can be misleading though, many Nikkors no longer distinguish distances farther than a certain point, so 10ft, 30ft and 300ft could all be reported as the same. Since I don't have that particular lens, I can't check were that point is (the lack of a focus distance scale doesn't help here either).
  14. You can set your self timer for a two second delay. That will take care of the vibration on the tripod. You can use the excellent autofocus of the D5000 by selecting one of eleven autofocus points that is on your chosen point of focus. You can avoid all apertures beyond f/11. Probably f/8 is your sharpest. Also, the D5000 is known to be somewhat soft working out-of-camera. Images need some additional sharpening. BTW my new D5000 is arriving by Priority Mail today. I've studied many reviews. You have a great image making potential there, if used right.
  15. Howard Vrankin wrote: "You can set your self timer for a two second delay. That will take care of the vibration on the tripod. "
    That's not true with the selftimer the mirror goes up just before the exposure, so in what time is taken care of the vibrations? In the 'delayed exposure mode" the mirror goes up when you press and 2 seconds later the shutters does its work and in these 2 secs is taken care of the vibrations.
  16. I just ran a little impromptu test using a tripod a D300 and a Micro Nikkor 105 AF D. I shot it at f/32 f/25 f/11 f/56 on a static subject. F/32 is a little softer then the others but that could easily have been from camera movement. I did not use any shutter delay modes and the exposure was 30 seconds. The differences between f/25 f/11 and f/5.6 are so small as to be slight focus errors.
    So I really have a hard time believing that the softness of these images is caused by diffraction. To me they look more like camera movement and focusing errors. If any one would like to see the images to make your own judgments just say so and I will post them somewhere.
  17. From the exif the camera was set to manual focus. I think that explains everything...
  18. Forhood, one trick you can always try is taking a few shots in Auto Mode. If they seem alright check the settings and use them in Manual Mode. If you are looking for the sharpest possible image, without regard to anything else, you can find the "sweet spot" of your lens at sights like Since you're working manual mode you might want to find out about Depth of Field and other factors that can influence your work.
  19. I can easily see the effect of diffraction on a D700 (full-frame) at f/16 and smaller apertures, so I would expect a DX camera to show diffraction effects from f/11 onwards, and certainly very obviously by f/22. In any case most lenses give their optimum image quality at around f/5.6 to f/8, so those are the sort of apertures to aim for if depth-of-field isn't a priority - which it shouldn't be for shots like those posted.
    As others have said, there are a few issues going on here. All of them hindering you getting sharp looking shots. Low contrast is probably the major problem, due to misty conditions and dull frontal lighting. If you take the same shots when the sun is out, the air is clear and the light is coming more from the side, then you'll see the texture of the rocks picked out and the impression of sharpness greatly improved.
  20. RJ
    I can think of a couple of things that could have skewed the impromptu test I did. One of the being that I used a Micro Nikkor. A lens that was most likely designed with small apertures in mind. Second being that it is DX I am using the best part of the lens again minimizing issues.
    And then I also wonder about when I am shooting 4X5 and 8X10. I own lenses that wide open are at f/8 so that kind of kills the blanket statement that lenses are better at f/5.6 (not you but others)
    Not going to high jack this thread any farther.
  21. Hans - Thank you, I was incorrect. It would be better to just turn of the VR when working on a tripod. Thank you.
  22. Haze can be, to an extent, "micro" sharpened. I did not touch anything else but sharpening. This is a bit over the top since only the low resolution web grab was the subject. I added a capture sharpening generally, and then the Photokit Sharpener's haze brush was wiped over the hazy areas. (Pixelgenius' plug-in for PS.)
    Some of you may be using a decedent of Photokit sharpener's output sharpener since that is essentially what Adobe built into the latest version of Lightroom for output sharpening. There are other sharpening brushes that might used in the same vein.
  23. Fears of diffraction loss at small apertures are generally overblown. I've shot both landscapes and macro at f16 and above without issues. You do what you have to do to get the shot.<br><br>

    As far as the third image goes, I think I agree that there's enough detail there for a good print, and then some. Here's a link to a 100% crop:<br>
  24. Howard
    Be nice to be able to see your crop but I get a 404 error.
    This shot was done with a 55 f/1.2 on a D300 at f/16. It is still plenty sharp.
  25. This one is from the same set up at f/5.6 and it is still plenty sharp
  26. Be nice to be able to see your crop but I get a 404 error.

    Try this. Let me know if it's borked too, please.
  27. And this is the full shot at f/5.6
  28. Ok let me try this again...
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Michael Bradtke: To me, it is very clear that between your two samples, the one captured with "f5.6" is a lot sharper than the one with "f16." The bubbles in the glass are much worse when the aperture is very small.
    However, according to the respective EXIF data, the one captured at "f5.6" was actually captured at f8, and the "f16" one is actually f22. I wonder how this discrepancy occurs. But regardless, the one captured with a very small aperture is worse. Whether that is due to diffraction or perhaps other issues is not entirely clear.
    P.S. I don't think Nikon's 55mm/f1.2 AI-S closes down to f22, but there may be other versions of that lens.
  30. The f/5.6 shot of Michael's definitely looks sharper to me as well - I'm noticing particularly the bubbles halfway down the glass.
    I'll post an example of my own; done when I was running a test on a lens lately. It's a boring shot of a brick wall I'm afraid (Of course it is!).
    Anyway the setup was this: Camera was a D700, tripod mounted, and the lens was focused using magnified Liveview. The lefthand 100% crop was taken at f/5.6 and righthand at f/22. These are from the camera JPEGS. I suspect the RAW files would show a more marked difference after processing for optimum definition, but let's keep it simple. I can easily see the difference before posting off the image, so let's hope it survives a second JPEG mangling.
    BTW, theory says that the effect of diffraction at f/16 on DX should be comparable to what I'm getting at f/22, and since the OP was apparently shooting at f/25.....
  31. Shun
    The EXIF data is incorrect. Unfortunately the conversion of my 55 f/1.2 was a hack. Got to love ebay sellers. So when it says f/8 you subtract one full stop.
    Thing is I am not saying that diffraction does not happen what I am saying is that it is not as big of a problem as some people make out.
    Also remember that the 55 f/1.2 is not the most renowned of lenses. But I chose it because I know it has weaknesses and figured of any of my lenses it would show a larger amount of diffraction.
    I would think that if I had used my 60 Micro the difference would have been much less. Diffraction is very much lens specific
  32. I made a test applying what I aready have learned from your responses guys
    they are shots with many kinds of aperture
    New Settings : (( Landscape Sharp Images ))= My dream
    turn off vb
    aperture mode
    AF- area mode : 3D
    vivid Image : 9 sharpness + 1 saturation + 1 contrast
  33. The limit to sharpness from diffration does not depend on the lens. Of course a poor lens will show less problems with diffraction simply because it is not sharp to begin with.
    Put another way, not matter how good a lens is it can't get around diffection problems.
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Interesting that Michael Bradtke and I have totally different reaction to his sample images. He feels that even at f16, the diffraction is not that bad, while I think his examples and Rodeo Joe's examples demonstrate why those very small apertures are undesirable.
  35. [[Rodeo Joe's examples demonstrate why those very small apertures are undesirable.]]
    But only if your only criteria is 100% views. It seems to me that it is important not to lose sight of the relationship to intended output.
  36. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    But only if your only criteria is 100% views. It seems to me that it is important not to lose sight of the relationship to intended output.​
    Typically I make 8.5x11 prints. For that size prints, it will usually use most of the pixels from a 12MP DSLR such as a D3, D700, and D300, although since the original has a 2:3 aspect ratio, I need to crop on the long side to fit 8.5x11. In other words, my experience is that if you can see a difference at 100% crop, you will also see a difference in moderate sized, 8.5x11 prints.
    Recall that in this recent thread, Bjorn Rorslett suggests not to stop down a 600mm lens to f22 in order to compensate for manual focusing difficulties? Diffraction is definitely an issue:
    If you only make 4x6 or 5x7 prints, you can ignore a lot of concerns related to camera support, lens optical quality, diffraction, critical focusing ....
  37. A follow up to the diffraction issue: I was a bit shocked by the side-by-side comparison I posted earlier. I really wasn't expecting that degree of diffraction softening, so I redid the test using a different lens to verify the result. Yep, same degree of softness at f/22. The comparison was between f/22 and f/4 this time, and if anything there's an even more noticeable difference.
    Lens used was the oft maligned Ai-S 85mm f/2 Nikkor, which to me looks stunningly sharp at f/4, but obviously not-so-great at f/22. This time I used the RAW files and let Capture One apply its default sharpening to both crops. The interesting thing is that the already sharp f/4 image seemed to respond better to sharpening than the softer f/22 shot. Anyway, I'll shut up now and post the samples.
  38. Postscript. It appears that most of the sharpness lost to diffraction can be regained by using digital sharpening. The attached is the image above, but with the GIMP's sharpen filter applied to half of the f/22 crop. The filter setting was a bit aggressive at 45, which would usually result in distinct edge artefacts, but in this case seems to have reversed the effect of diffraction almost perfectly. YMMV.
  39. thanks Rodeo Joe for posting these diffraction tests...very interesting. I worry about diffraction on my D3x...the sharpening recovery is very interesting...
  40. Detail lost to diffraction cannot be recovered with sharpening.
    Just look at the difference between the bricks on the lower part of the frame.
    Sharpening does not reverse the effects of diffraction.

Share This Page