More blur shots than sharp

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>I have a D300 and use a 50mm, f/1.4 lens but can't get clear, sharp images (SOOC) consistently when I take full length shots or objects focused more than 5 feet away. I get maybe 2 out of 10 clicks that are tack sharp. When I photograph close up/ portraits, my images are sharp 70% of the time. What could be wrong? Holding technique? Focus area? Please advise.<br>

I have similar problems with my 24mm, F/2.8 lens.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>You need to post some examples. That said, the first two things I would look at would be the shutter speed and the focus point.</p>

[beac]

<p>I've found the DOF on my 50mm f/1.4 to be so extremely shallow on close-ups that it leaves zero room for focus error. Just last night I took a snapshot of my daughter sitting next to me at a b-ball game. I was about 2 feet away and the AF grabbed her nose (poor technique on my part). At f/1.4 her close eye was out of focus, as was her far eye. Her nose, however was exceedingly sharp!</p>

[jmt]

<p>Based on what you tell, I would also blame the shallow dept of field.<br /> Try closing the aperture down to f5.6 or f8 to see if you get the results you want!</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Chris, take a look at this DOF calculator which may help...<br>

<a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a><br>

For your 50 mm, f1.4 lens at 5 feet the DOF is very narrow(0.17 feet). So, if you are doing a portrait and have the camera set on anything other than single point focus, it could be focusing on the tip of the nose, and the eyes will not be sharp. Post some examples with your EXIF data and it will really help everyone to help you.<br>

Dick</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i'm guessing DOF. that's why the cheaper plastic f/1.8 is sometimes better. maybe 4 to 5.6 will help. on your 24mm, f/4 for sure. a sample will generate more inputs from the experts around here.</p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Here are 2 examples.</p><div></div>

[chris cornwell blog]

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

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Near</p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Far:<br>

Manual, 50mm, f/1.8, 1/400s, center-weighted, adjusted exposure slightly in LR<br>

Near:<br>

Manual, 50mm, f/1.8, 1/160s, center-weighted, adjusted exposure slightly in LR,<br>

* No sharpening in PS<br>

* Shot raw</p>

<p> </p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Far:<br>

Manual, 50mm, f/1.8, 1/400s, center-weighted, adjusted exposure slightly in LR<br>

Near:<br>

Manual, 50mm, f/1.8, 1/160s, center-weighted, adjusted exposure slightly in LR,<br>

* No sharpening in PS<br>

* Shot raw</p>

<p> </p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Chris, what AF setting was the camera on?</p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Dynamic 9 points</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In the "near" example, the point of sharpest focus appears to be on her leading shoulder, rather than on the eyes. It's just mis-focused. For portraits try a single AF point and be sure to focus on the eyes.</p>

<p>Your data shows you're shooting nearly wide open. While a good lens can be moderately sharp wide open, you'll get better results stopped down. If you prefer to shoot wide open it's essential to focus accurately. DOF will be very shallow and there's no room for error.</p>

<p>Even with accurate focusing and a sharp lens, you may see some inconsistencies when doing casual portraits. Any motion, even at a reasonably fast shutter speed, will produce blur. If both the camera and subject move even slightly the combined motion blur will impair sharpness. Your technique must be perfect when doing handheld portraiture of unposed subjects.</p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Near:<br>

I was focusing on one of her eyes. I will try using the single AF point next time for close ups. What about subjects more than 5 feet away?<br>

How can I improve my picture taking technique to obtain focused/sharp images- most of the time? Besides practising a lot.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Chris, Lex is very correct, as you would expect:-) Using the DOF calculator your DOF at 5 feet at f1.8 is 0.21 feet or about 2.4 inches. If you are shooting this wide open, with 9 AF points, handheld, you are stacking the deck against yourself. Try single point AF, focus on the eyes, stop down a bit and consider a tripod. You will have fun and be pleased with what you get. Good luck and enjoy it!<br>

Dick</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>And, practice really helps. What could be better than taking A LOT of shots with your D300?</p>

[chris cornwell blog]

<p>Thanks everyone for your answers. I'll be working on those suggestions.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d also check focus accuracy first of all. Take a RAW pic of a measuring tape and see what happens at different apertures. Check how different the performance could be at different apertures and distances.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>in both far and near, the focus shifted to the contrast of the edge of the leading shoulder and the background. single AF will do the trick.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I have the same trouble with my D80/50 mm 1.8 when trying to take snaps of my 18 month old son. Since he wont stay still, by the time I press the trigger he would have moved a fraction of an inch, so I usually get 1 good sharp pic out of every 20 ones I take. I work around this by snapping lots and lots of pics :-) Just last evening I took 80 snaps in about an hour and got 4-5 decent shots. Hopefully once he gets older he'll learn to pose for my camera.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>f/1.8 will still generate a very shallow DOF at close to medium distance. You can see some of your subject is not in focus, even with your near shot. Your far shot focus is on the shoulder. You could shoot f//2.8-4 at that range and FL, and unless the background is very close behind the subject, still get good out-of-focus results there to make your subject stand out. The far shot background is not a good choice for a number of reasons, like the distracting horizontal lines, for one. Use the center-only AF sensor, aim the AF on the nearest eye, hold, recompose, and shoot.</p>

[jcoffin]

<p>Based on the original statement, DoF doesn't sound to me like most of the problem.<br>

<br /> In particular, as you get closer, the DoF decreases. At least as I read the original description, he's getting a reasonable percentage of sharp pictures from close-up. The real problem arises (only getting 2 out of 10 sharp) at greater distances.<br>

<br /> There are a number of possibilities, and without some testing it's hard to say which applies. One possibility is that your camera has some degree of back-focus or front-focus with that lens. This can vary with distance, so it's minimal when close up and much greater when farther away (or vice versa, of course). From the detail on her shirt, it looks to me like you've focused a bit closer than you probably should have -- at least to me, the sharpest part looks like about her right should running down to her right hip, with her eyes a bit farther away. In the second picture, you've got pretty much the same: her near shoulder is sharp, but the far shoulder is completely blurred. Granted, with the way her head is turned, her eyes are closer to the near shoulder, but even so it looks like you've probably focused a little closer than ideal. This may also be from the angle, looking down at her a bit, though. It's a bit tough to say, however, whether this is really back/front focus, or just poor markings -- in a lot of cases, the focus sensor is larger than the marking in the viewfinder. Especially when you're working at a greater distance, this makes it easy for it focus on something outside the area you thought the sensor was pointed at.</p>

<p>Another possibility is that it's all really an optical illusion -- when the subject is at a distance, the background isn't very blurred. When the subject is really close, the background is a lot more blurred, which can make the subject look sharper even if it's really about the same as it was before.</p>

<p>I'd also note that in the pictures you posted, the light is <strong>quite </strong> flat. That tends to produce nice looking portraits, but won't produce a really snappy, sharp looking picture even when the resolution is great (the reverse can also be true -- enough contrast can produce a picture that looks sharper than it really is).</p>

<p>As an aside, however, it's pretty tough to tell much from the pictures you posted. For things like this, a <strong>little </strong> bit of pixel-peeping can be helpful. When the pictures are resized to fit on a web page, it's hard to say much about how sharp either one really is. It wouldn't necessarily have to be at 100%, but a crop from the first picture showing roughly her face and shoulders might do a lot to show more about what was or wasn't focused.</p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>Ya just gotta practice! I have the Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, and Nikon 85mm f1.4 and shoot wide open every chance I can. Yes, it can be challenging but the results are worth it. I shoot in clubs and wide open is the norm.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>My 16yo daughter is taking photography at school now. She is taught to do everything manually, even focus. Try manual focus to test the lens. I've found that autofocus sometimes misses, plus your DOF is sliver thin. </p>

<p>My knee jerk reaction would be to say that f/1.8 would of course be soft, but the little girl's front shoulder looks pretty sharp to me. </p>