Crisp formals?

[cjogo]

<p>Not that drastic Nadine :-) Just the fact that : many of us were able to get images focused , without the advanced technology > available today. I admit I do not fully understand all the techniques with auto focusing . With the Canon > I use the “back-button AF” on the rear of the body for focus....</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I doubt focusing is the issue. 17 mm f/9 has huge dof. You could get a half-length portrait with background at infinity all in focus. Your statement that "with 5-6 they seem to be better" confirms that. Smaller groups, closer focusing distance, less dof, more sensitivity to focus.</p>

<p>1/250 s is pretty fast, and I doubt you'd get many misses at 17 mm due to shake.</p>

<p>I have a T17-50 and optically the sweet spot of the lens is around f/4 to f/5.6 for the center, a stop higher for the borders. My lens is stupidly sharp at 17 mm f/5.6 unless you pixel-peep in the extreme corners. I'm usually skeptical of pointing the finger at "copy variation" but it may be worthwhile doing a bit of testing to make sure the optics and/or AF aren't faulty. Rare, but it does happen.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>17mm at F/9 sure does have an huge DoF for a Full Length Shot. . . but there are these three points to consider:<br>

> DoF is not Depth of Sharp Focus.<br>

> If a lens Front Focuses badly; if the camera's peripheral AF point was set to, or nabbed a focus point in front of the main subject, the DoF will be reduced.<br>

> we are looking at 100%<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Arie, I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with your point on the focus, it's off across the plane, not just OOF. The couple on the right is better in focus than the rest of the group, so is the girls face that's leaning foward, also study the grass carefully, the focus plane actually goes out of the frame on the center and left, this pretty much indicates the camera is at a slight back angle on the left side. Therefore we can more or less conclude that the plane of focus was foward of the subject on the left, then it converges(?) to the right. The group then goes back at a slight angle as you move left. This makes the left even more out of focus. Then consider William's point about the DOF being ahead of the main subject, which I also agree, and even more diminished, then it gets worse as you go left. So I guess if you think of this as shooting on a piece of graph paper the blocks on the left would be smaller than those on the right (I think, ha, ha). Focus on your freezer door and move the camera away from plane on the left only and you'll se what I'm getting at. OK, over and out.</p>

[fabiopazzini]

<blockquote>

<p >Bob Bernardo wrote:</p>

 

<p>"... You probably should avoid the sharpening software. The right camera setup should be very sharp."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Be careful when you say that, because digital cameras use a filter right in front of the sensor to "blur" the image a little bit, in order to avoid the Moire effect. So, this way, every digital picture must be "re-sharpened" back, as a way to achieve what should have been the "real" sharpness.</p>

<p>When you shoot JPG, this sharpening is done in camera.</p>

<p>When you shoot Raw, it should be done in post processing by software.</p>

<p>Now, answering Tina on this, Lightroom standard for Raw is set to sharpen by 25% (radius 1.0). This is their standard for the sake of bringing back sharpness taken away by anti-moire filter. Of course, it's also a matter of taste, as Nadine says she usually stays between 40-50%. I've been tinkering more with this lately, as I used to stay on the 25% before. Also, on every export option at LR (export itself, and 'print to file' on Print module, and Slideshow module), there is a second sharpening that may be done, somehow like an output sharpening. (this is since LR 2.3, I guess)</p>

<p>So, in other words, if you are using Lightroom, then post processing sharpness isn't probably missing. You may still go further on sharpening in LR, but your issue isn't there.</p>

<p>I also have been disappointed with sharpness on my wedding photos. So I'll try to take a look at all the other suggestions offered here.</p>

[tina___cliff_t]

<p>Ok, we've check over A LOT of photos, and also took some experimental photos. We still need to try some more of the solutions offered on here, but right now it really looks like distance from the subject makes a difference. If we are right in the persons face (5ft or less) they seem to be sharper, but if we are further away and using a wider angle its just all downhill from there. But even portraits taken from further away and zoomed in seem to be less crisp. :( Also low light, if the photo is properly exposed or on the verge of being overexposed they are sharper. Even if they are just a little under exposed the focus is off. *sigh* Its frustrating.</p>