Analyze Blur-not shutter or depth of field..then what?

[dennis osipiak]

Once in a while an image blur (as shown on the attached photo..I posted at 900x1200 to see better but I can

upload a larger version if needed) has me puzzled. Looking closely you'll see nothing

is in focus from front to back.Unless the auto focus was in error focusing very close to the camera out of view in

the photo, I don't believe its a focus issue. ( also the image has ghosting implying shutter speed issues .)

Photo was with flash (short duration of course) so neither photographer movement nor image movement (motionless

petals are blurry front to back) should be an issue. If it is photographer movement as I step backwards shouldn't

the short flash duration negate my motion as it does for example when a couple is dancing? While 99+ % of images

are fine all the way around I'd like

to know what might be going on to avoid any future problems if a shot was one of a kind in nature.. Camera is a

2008 Canon 40D, Canon 24-105 'L' lens. Photo was f4..1/60th<div></div>

[yann1]

If your lens was set to 105mm, 1/60 could be a little too slow, your hand was probably not that sturdy during the shot. i usually think like this: 50mm shot = speed superior or equal to 1/50 mm. For 105 mm , your speed should be at least 1/100, and of course, always with a sturdy hand. My 2 cents.

[dennis osipiak]

Lens length was set at 50mm...and the lens is Image Stabilization lens (24-105 "L".)

[Matt Laur]

That's camera movement. At 1/60th, you're getting enough ambient light in during the entire exposure to create your ghosts, while the harder-edged portions are what the flash is illuminating.

[bob_sunley]

Looks like you moved the camera sideways accord to the blur in the photo. Your flash did "stop the motion", but the available light was more than bright enough to generate blur at the same time. Now if you had the shutter at 1/250, the foreground would have been much sharper, but the trees would be almost black.

[michaelging]

I agree with Bob, sideways movement and the ambient light was enought to overtake the flash. You might have bumped the shutter speed up a little , or held the camera more steady.

[picturesque]

I also agree with the guys above--too much ambient light for the flash to freeze subject motion. In fact, it looks like ambient and flash are competing--one is not subservient to the other. And 1/60th is slow enough that you will see the ghosted flash image and the ambient-created image. With ambient only, to stop the motion of people walking SLOWLY toward you, the minimum is 1/125th. Walking faster, the shutter should be faster. Possibly at 1/250th, you would have gotten a non-ghosted image, even with flash and ambient competing, but you still might have gotten some blur on the limbs, such as hands and arms swinging.

[William Michael]

Ditto, it is sideways camera movement. You have two exposures, one ambient one flash.

 

 

> I'd like to know what might be going on to avoid any future problems if a shot was one of a kind in nature. <

 

1a. You can use HSS for flash fill in bright environs and choose a suitable Shutter Speed to (both) freeze the subject

movement, and negate camera movement.

 

1b. But for this shot it most likely would have been better to take 1/125s and F5.6 and work the flash harder, thus the

ambient exposure would have bled less. (-2 stops)

 

2. You can employ better shutter execution such that you are not moving when the shutter is fired.

 

3. You could use a pre focus point for point 2, above.

 

To illustrate what Matt initially wrote and with which I (and others) agree, see insert:

 

WW<div></div>

[conraderb]

looks to me that the image is in focus, and just has a bit of camera shake.

[think27]

MODERATOR NOTE: Dennis - Please make sure when you upload a photo to make sure it is 700 pixels or less in width. We don't want images as links in the Wedding Forum. It is much easier to analyze/critique if it is right there in the forum and not opened in a separate window.