Crisp formals?

[laura2]

<p>I would get some remote slaves and place them around the subjects. I've had this problem and it's a lighting issue in my case. Maybe change how you're metering your shot? Your sky is kind of blown out.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>On the one you used auto-focus on, it is more definite that it is missed focus, because auto focus will usually guess wrong, as to what you want in focus. It can also use multiple focus points too. And, as I said, when it misfocuses, the Tamron goes way front focus. So it isn't totally the fault of the lens. Both the body and lens work together for focus.</p>

<p>I still think the second one is missed focus as well. Again, check the image closely (at 100 percent) to find out if there are any sharp parts. Look at the wall behind the girls. If that is in focus, it is due to the wonderful habit that autofocus systems have, of focusing on the contrastiest thing except the subject. Also, if you put the focus point on an edge, or the focus point is put on the face which is small in relation to the frame, thereby snagging an edge, the focus will go behind the subjects. In cropped sensor cameras, the viewfinder is smaller, and the actual focus points are larger than what is marked, which can also cause problems. Where did you put the focus point on the second image?</p>

<p>You should also be using One Shot focusing, not AI Focus or AI Servo. What mode are you using?</p>

<p>As for my comment re sharpening, if you are shooting RAW and converting to jpeg, one step usually taken is to sharpen. RAW files are inherently soft-ish. If you are not sharpening, this could be why, but if you are finding places of sharpness in the image, that isn't it.</p>

<p>If you are shooting JPEG, you normally set sharpness via Pictures Styles.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Also, in lighting like your first sample, it is better to use the focus assist on your flash than use auto focus. It is more accurate. The focus assist (which you don't get with AI Servo) can go out to about 30 feet.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>We shoot in Raw, but haven't been sharpening when converting to Jpeg. And we are using One Shot focusing. <br>

<br /> Ok, so if I'm understanding correctly, when the tameron doesn't focus correctly it wants to focus the very first part of the image (thus the grass being in focus)? So the best bet would to switch to manual?</p>

[savagesax]

I kind of have a problem with regards to shooting outside at ISO 800. I realize this isn't related to the question. ISO 100 will probably do the job a lot better with little or no pixelation for your outside photo shoots.

 

Now to address the question. The D40 cameras are pretty darn good and are the Tamron lenses.

 

Do you have any Canon lenses? If not, take your camera into a local camera store and take a few images. Then look at them at a 100 percent crop. If you still have issues most likely it's your camera, if not than you know it's the lens.

 

This image was taken 2 days ago with the 24-105 Canon L IS lens. I can't remember if I shot it at ISO 50 or 100, but you can surely see how sharp the lens. Hope this helps.<div></div>

[savagesax]

Cropped 100 percent<div></div>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Instead of pushing ISO and hoping the sensor can eek out as much detail as possible, one also needs to remember that AF accuracy is dependent on a well lit and contrasty subject. So use flash and one which can auto the amount of illumination.<br>

Next, if you are still wanting more, then you may need to spend some money on a fast prime to give AF all the help it can get. Consider manual focus overide too.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>If you haven't been sharpening in RAW conversion, or sharpening in PS after conversion, that is half the problem. But that probably isn't the whole problem. How have you been converting and what do you use?</p>

<p>Accurate autofocus comes from the lens and body working together. I'm saying when the autofocus has 'difficulty' the focus on the Tamron lens tends to come forward. It will find the contrastiest thing closer to you. With a Canon lens, it will tend to go backward to find the contrastiest thing in the background.</p>

<p>I'm not saying the best thing to do is to use manual focus, although you can do this too, if you have the time. I personally use focus/recompose most of the time, but with awareness as to the bad habits the autofocus system has, as described above. The center focus point is the most sensitive and in cases where parallax won't cause inaccurate focus, I use the center point and focus/recompose. Always One Shot, and try to give the focus point something contrasty and avoid placing it over edges of subjects. Sometimes with full length groups I focus at people's feet.</p>

<p>Did you analyze the second image for a sharp place?</p>

[savagesax]

Tina and Cliff, I use auto focus pretty much all of the time. I'm not convinced you need to go manual. Go to a park or something and test your system using a tripod to assure no movement. During your testing try different F-stops and distances. Hopefully you will isolate the exact problem. You probably should avoid the sharpening software. The right camera setup should be very sharp.

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>I use lightroom to convert to Jpeg. I did look at the 2nd image, and had Cliff look at it too. The closest I could find to something else that might be in focus more would be the flowers, but you really couldn't tell I might have just been searching to hard for something else to be in focus. The wall however is not as focused as the girls are. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>When in Lightroom play around with the sharpening control. Look at the image at 100 percent and slide the Amount control around to see the difference. I normally set the amount between 40-50. Read up on sharpening for the other controls.</p>

<p>So as far as you can tell, there isn't a sharp point in the second image? Is there something in the foreground that you can look at? I assume what we see above isn't the whole image.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Re the Second Image<strong ><em >: "The closest I could find to something else that might be in focus more would be the flowers, but you really couldn't tell I might have just been searching to hard for something else to be in focus."</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >Please: What were the Tech Specs of the second image?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Re the first image: <strong ><em >"And we do use a UV filter"</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I stand by my first analysis:</p>

<p > </p>

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

<p > </p>

<p >Then softness and OoF perception was exacerbated by: </p>

<p ><br />2. underexposed skin tones / pulled up in post production because not enough Flash Fill.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >3. Underexposed at ISO800 then pulled up in post - the noise went up.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >4. I add - possible Veiling Flare exacerbated by using the Filter. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The light on the Subjects is both soft and underexposed (as discussed previously). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >> There is a lot of sky </p>

<p >> The lens is a zoom </p>

<p >> It is at the wide </p>

<p >> there is a lot sky in shot</p>

<p >> a UV Filter isn’t going to help matters in conditions where Veiling Flare is already a potential problem. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Veiling Flare can present as "softness" and lack of contrast. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Again, I am not saying Veiling Flare is the cause, I am saying it is making the OoF appear worse.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>I'm sorry I don't have the info on the 2nd image. It's the final image that I took off my external harddrive to upload, it doesn't show me the info anymore. :/ </p>

<p>We will play with the focus options, since that seems to be the big issue, hopefully I'll have some better images to update with. And I'll read up on adjusting the sharpness.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone! :)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To improve sharpness, use a larger aperture (f/5.6), lower ISO, a larger format (i.e. 24x36 or medium format), flash, tripod, and live view focusing.</p>

[jay_a1]

<p>I believe you might have an issue with the lens. I recently purchased this lens and ran into the same problem. Try live view mode on your 40D. Use magnification of 10x to see what your results are in good light. If it is in good focus, I think you have some really good suggestions above. If it is not, switch to manual focus and see if you can make the image crisp. If so, you may just need to send this in for calibration. It takes about 3 weeks to get your lens back, but it is worth it. When you manual focus and it is still not crisp, then I think you might have received a bad copy of the lens. I shoot with an XSi and had this same issue and these are the steps I used. Once I received my lens back from Tamron USA, it works perfectly. Just my two cents.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>If you are getting sharp images on other subjects besides groups, calibration is probably not it. But I would test it anyway. When you are dealing with focus issues, you need to systematically eliminate possible issues to rule out. Could be calibration, could be your focus technique--the two likely causes. I doubt that it is the quality of the lens itself (other than calibration) or the camera itself, or ISO by itself, or filter by itself, or f stop by itself, or magnification by itself, or use of wide angle by itself. The Tamron 17-50 is pretty sharp, all the way to wide open. At f2.8 you may have an extremely slight bit of softness on the long end, but the difference is pretty small. And--sharpening your RAW file before conversion (or after if you prefer) is going to definitely help, but not if the subjects are OOF anyway.</p>

<p>Look up how to ruler test your lens for front and rear focus on this forum. I believe the article was written by Bob Atkins.</p>

[curtis_wallis]

<p>Looks like alot of basic things missed. Do some testing. Play with different lighting on location and see everything that affects it. Thats the great thing about digital TEST TEST TEST. It seems that alot of people forget how important exposure and lighting ratio are for an image. The digital age has hurt this a little. I still shoot digital just like a did chromes. The less I need to fix later the better the image looks.</p>

<p>Curtis Wallis<br>

[cjogo]

<p>Tripod -- under ISO 400 --<em> tripod</em> -- manual focus --<em>tripod</em> - cable release - <em>tripod</em> - & focus manually one more time ....</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>In the big photo, the couples on the extreme right are in focus more than those on the extreme left, so you can see the missed focus plane there. There is also fill flash ghosting, probably because of the high ISO, I would just shoot at 200 to give some balance to everything, the light looks dim so 100 might be pushing it, and of course, shoot all your big groups and formals with a well tested very sharp lens and a tripod, the tripod is essential to checking careful "manual" focus, why use auto focu for formals, and you should liminate half the problems. There are some very good suggestions on this thread, but this is th danger of easy ISO on the digital. I hate to always bring up old-school, but when we were limited to a Hasselblad on a tripod and ISO 160 film shot at 100, we wee much more careful and detailed about this stuff therefore way bettr results. So having just started using digital myself, I find myself shooting mostly at 200 with all the care I used before, but I do like the ISO 800 for indoor exsisting light, it's pretty nice. (Disclaimer, my lap top is messed up I spilled some coffee and some of my leters on't work, any suggestions welcome)</p>

[cjogo]

<p>I still make it a practice to shoot beyond 5.6 ~with a 2.8 zoom lens ...but manual focus and a tripod will help with the sharpness problems....proper exposure helps, too.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Buy an new laptop.<br>

Give up coffee.<br>

WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>(I was joking with the second suggestion)</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>OOF and camera shake.</p>

<p>Really, the Tamron I had worked wonderfully with the 30D but not the 40D or 20D ?? I also noted that at the wide end it almost always front focused, and it was exponetial to as you subject distance increased. This and the 5D/5d2's AF were ultimately the reasons I gave up on Canon.</p>

<p>I hear things are better with the 7D, though I have not tested this cam myself.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>How many of you remember :: only a manually focusing lens -- all fixed focal /zooms were only manual --- how did we ever get by ?? Really dark finders --- iso barely to 400 --- you had to zoom <em>and</em> focus simuli :: must be a <em>method </em> that can be applied here :-)</p>

[picturesque]

<p>C Jo--ummm...zone focus? That's how I worked with manual focus/dark viewfinder, in the dead of night. Unfortunately that meant a somewhat smaller aperture for margin of error, and with lower ISO films, more flash. I like it better now, but gotta master autofocusing technique as well as determine the gear is working as it should.</p>