images blur when enlarged

<p>Hello, I am a fairly new photographer, Can someone PLEASE tell me why my photos are crystal clear on my DSLR screen, clear when I download them, and even clear on proof paper or size 4x6. However, anything over that when I get my pictures back from the lab they are blurry. I cant sell a blurry 8X10 to my clients. HELP! I havent got a clue what to do.</p>

<p>Thanks a million<br>

Tracy Kessinger</p>

 

<p>Can you upload an original file? Without it, it will be very difficult to help you.</p>

<p>yes I will upload something for you</p><div></div>

<p>This is a bit soft, even at the small size you posted. Is this the size image you are getting out of your camera? If so, you need to set your camera to output the largest size possible. In any event, I fixed the underexposure on your file and sharpened it as best I could. A small crop is posted to show you what I did.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Tracy: </strong>Addendum. I looked at your images here at PN; every one was soft. Some were due to camera movement, but others had appropriate shutter speeds and were still soft. What sharpening software are you using?</p>

<p>Thank you. I have a canon rebel T2i and im not sure how to adjust the size but I can read the owners manual. I also realized that I am shooting in JPG instead of RAW which I was told was a no no. ? I photoshop a lot of my portraits before submiting them to print, Is there a way to increase the size that way or is it better to do it within my camera?</p>

<p>You have to output the largest file possible. Yes, RAW is better than JPEG, because you have much more information to work with in Photoshop. According to the review of your camera, the largest size (JPEG or RAW) is 5184 x 3456 pixels. <br>

<br>

Please don't take this wrong--you seem to have an eye, but you need more basic knowledge before you shoot for clients. You need to try to get the best possible image out of camera before you process it. This will give you much better final results.</p>

<p>Using RAW will not make your photos sharper.</p>

I use photoshop cs6 for editing. Never used it gor sharpening.

Will photoshop work for sharpening?

<p>Photoshop is fine for sharpening and your camera is capable of producing very large prints.<br>

There's a very good chance there's something happening in your post-production workflow. Can you describe how you're processing your photos? How are you saving them? Are you changing the image sizes? What is the image size the camera is set to? </p>

<p>Yes CS6 will work for sharpening. My general workflow is to start with a RAW image, adjust for sizing if desired, curves, white balance, brightness & contrast as needed, then as a last step a commonly used technique is to set sharpening intensity to about 15, radius to about 15 and threshold to around 2. You can then come back later and smart sharpen if needed, Save as (don't mess with changing the original), and then print. Others will have sort of similar workflows. Patrick Lavoie has done a series of tutorials which I found very helpful...check the learning tabs, or do a search here on PN.</p>

<p>Les's comments that most of your other images posted at photo.net are also a bit soft was right on the mark. In addition to camera movement, a very quick scan of your portfolio turned up many images where you inadvertently focused somewhere other than the eyes. In addition to those problems, in this image, subject motion was a problem - note the double image of the shirt above the shoulder. </p>

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

<p>Moving on to post processing, it looks like you don't use the three stage sharpening procedure of Bruce Frasier that has become the de facto standard for pros.</p>

<p>Either purchase Bruce's book on Sharpening, or Google {three step sharpening site:photo.net} to find nice tutorials such as: http://www.photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/advanced-photoshop-tutorials/sharpening/ . In particular, pay attention to output stage sharpening. You must do this step for every different size and type of output that you produce, ie, for large canvas prints, for large metalic prints, for small glossy prints, for posting on photo.net within the 700 pixel limit, etc.</p>

<p>Of course, you absolutely MUST fix the problems outlined in my previous post before you even think about trying to rescue an inherently blurry image with an after-the-fact effort using software. With more work than most pros want to expend on an individual image, you can usually improve the sharpness a bit in software, but the result always takes on a harshness such as can be seen in my attempt at sharpening attached below.</p>

<p>BTW, I have absolutely no idea if the underexposure, muted colors, etc of the version you posted were intentional, so I gave your image a more conventional "look".</p><div></div>

<p>And finally, for convenience / reference, here is the OP's image, the only change being that I down-rez'ed it so it could be displayed in-line in this forum.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

<p>Tom, are you sure this is subject motion? I think this rather is a shadow from the bar above the shoulder. Nevertheless, it looks awkward and is something I'd try to correct in PS.</p>

<p>Try printing your own 8X10(if possible) if it's sharp then it's the Lab, if it's blurry, its your technique. </p>

<p>Thanks to all of you for your ideas and critisism. Everything is helpful. First I wasnt shooting in raw...which has nothing to do with the blur, however is easier to edit. Second my shutter speed was set very low which I changed to 1/60 and lastly I never considered using a tripod which I will definately use now. My normaal workflow was to open the file in CS6, adjust hue and saturation levels, white balance, and croping. I have also played with the blur gallery. I have never resized the image for an enlarged print, nor have I ever tweaked the sharpness. I simply shot in JPG at the portrait setting on my camera, uploaded the memory card into my picture library, and then open in cs6 and play. I then save as JPEG and upload to my lab. Sounds like a hot mess huh?! I bet you are thinking the same thing.</p>

<p>I see what you mean, Monika. I think you may be right. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for pointing it out.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Tracy, try for a monopod instead of a tripod - it might give you more flexibility when moving around, but is stable enough to support longer aperture times like the 1/60.</p>

<p>And, to practice: set your camera to both raw and jpeg (you can leave jpeg in a really small format when you do this), which will show you an ideal version of how the picture may turn out. This may help you enormously when 'playing' in PS.</p>

<p>You got here a ton of good advise and I would like to pitch in resuming and maybe ordering and offering something new.<br>

1). Best advise is "master the basics before trying to sell your work" - most new information speaks about megapixels, photoshop, raw vs jpeg etc. I am an old timer and believe in learning to crawl before you run. In short, find some good books magazines or websites on the basics, hone your craft. Once you have done so you'll find very easy to solve the problems you find along the way.<br>

2). Yes, in this case the larger, the better - why have an excellent camera with plenty of resolution and use it to obtain very small files. You MUST shoot ONLY raw images especialy if you are post processing your photos in Photoshop and make large prints.<br>

3). I do not use a Canon DSLR but it is not rocket science to set any camera to shoot in RAW. (Raw always uses the full resolution) jus go thoug the manual. If you need firther help you may send me a private email and i'll try to help via chat or phone.<br>

4) There are many other problems with your images, you need to understand light, lens aperture, shutter speed, depth of field etc. in order to obtain good basic images to work them in PS and obtain the final images you are looking for. Keep in mind that you are by far smarter than your camera and should not use it in automatic mode until you master the use of it in manual mode.</p>

<p>I would also venture to add that you should also be mindful of which focus point your camera is using. I suspect you have it set on the default, multiple-focus points.</p>

<p>I always set my camera to use the centre-most focus point and use focus-recompose. Read your manual for details of how to do this. Then read about the focus-recompose technique I have mentioned. It doesn't work for all shots, but certainly helps in determining what you want in focus.</p>

<p>Working this close I would suggest that one should choose a focus point in the upper area of the screen which corresponds to where the eyes are in the composition you want. Using centre point and re-framing I think is a suspect technique this close to the subject?<br>

It doesn't say much for photoshop if you HAVE to shoot raw to use the programme ... LOL I don't use either but then I'm not a professional....MLOL</p>

<p>New image shot in RAW and enlarged, sharpened, and played with the hue saturation to make it look a little vintage. Please let me know if its closer to being printable material....</p><div></div>

<p>It looked great at 100% but I did 'Sharpen More' and then did more to how I think such a shot should be presentied. duplicate image, apply Gausian Blurr to top copy, erase area where bioy is from top copy along with stomework which one would expect to be sharp. One could organise more than one copy and increase blurr for more distance parts of the shot but this is a quick treatment to give you ideas. <br />I will probably be rubbished for saying this but before you bother unduely about raw you should concentrate on the visual presentation as suggested by me here.</p><div></div>