Why are my pictures not sharp? Part II

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>You indicate you use centre focus and 'wait for the beep' to shoot. That's not a method I'd recommend. What you are doing is waiting for the camera to tell you that it thinks it has focus. That does NOT mean what YOU want is in focus. Those focus areas are never perfectly aligned ( on any camera ). The time between hearing the beep and reacting is enough for two subjects to e.g. sway a little out of focus.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Also, and this is a problem on most cameras because the focus area is usually a little bigger than the focus point that lights up, although I do suspect that Canon and Nikons new 699 point focus systems do tighten up each point a bit. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd use a purely manual focus ( with a split focus screen if possible ) and rely on your eye-to-hand reaction. I'd also suggest shooting several shots - expect some out of focus and act accordingly.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of times I fire off 2-3 shots at a time, people say does your camera do that automatically, answer of course is no. But my idea is that usually one shot in a burst will be sharper, and this usually proves true when shooting at marginal shutter speeds, which I peg at within a few stops of 1/fl. Since it cost nothing to do this for important shots, it makes sense.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Stephan is right- <em>IF</em> lighting allows, shoot at under ISO 400, 100 or 200 ISO if possible, for absolute best quality. But not if this causes your shutter speed to drop too much. Too low shutter speed is a most common cause of unsharpness with live subjects. The more tele, and the more reduced DOF, the higher the shutter speed should be. Pentax DSLR designs of the past several years have been oustanding in preserving sharpness at higher ISO settings, by using less aggressive NR. I think you can shoot wide open with at least good results, using the quality equipment you have. But your DOF is reduced with the more tele the lens setting, and of course wide open is commonly not in the lens' very best performance range.</p>

<p>I still think simply shooting a bunch of JPEGs of different subjects in various lighting conditions, with your camera settings adjusted for the best sharpness and contrast, and getting the appropriate shutter speed, will offer a good clue as to how much of this problem resides in your RAW processing.</p>

<p>My K20D has never been tested using the methods available through these excellent links. I have been happy by and large with performance, but it makes me wonder if it could be better!! I have some old FA powerzoom lenses that have a decent reputation, and work ok with film, but produced some mediocre images using the K20D, so maybe this is a matter of adjustment! Something for me to look into. I appreciate these useful links!</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>BTW, that last shot of your little girl looks decently sharp. The very shallow DOF can easily be discerned by the quite out-of-focus ear rings compared to the face. Stopping down by 1 stop or even 1/2 stop would help to include her entire head in the field of sharpness, yet still blur background enough to have her stand out from it.</p>

<p>One last thing, I would not shoot too close with the DA* 50-135mm, as it has been rated not too great at close focus shooting. I believe photozone's tester remarked regarding this. Best to not get near its limit for close focus. It is otherwise a great lens, and this type of shortcoming is fairly common for this lens type.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Dan, what is a 2:1 crop?</p>

<p>I'm at work, so I can't take a look at your RAW file, but I'll try to get to it in the evening when I get home. That said, Mike E. wrote pretty much everything that needs to be said. As far as calibrating goes, download a focus chart from our friend Yvon Bourque:</p>

<p>http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html</p>

<p>Regarding focus & recompose, if you're shooting a full-length portrait, focus on the face with the center point, and then bring the camera down to take the photo, the plane of focus will be <em>behind</em> the face. If using this technique, I would shoot at smaller apertures to make sure the added DoF compensates for the incorrect placement of the plane of focus. What I would do is have my camera parallel to the models and use one of the AF points at the edge positioned over one of the models' face.</p>

<p>One final comment regarding who you take advice from or try to emulate. I am not a critical person by nature, but you've been working hard at your photography over many months and have always been open to our comments, so I think you should hear what I have to say. Or at least read it :-)</p>

<p>Your friend (<a href="http://untamedheartphotography.com/blog/">http://untamedheartphotography.com/blog/</a>) is not a good photographer. Looking at the photos on the blog I see just about all of them are incorrectly exposed, with substantial abuse of the <em>fill light</em> tool added in postprocessing. She doesn't know how to use flash or reflectors, which is almost mandatory when shooting outside, hence the <em>fill light</em>. What worries me is that sometimes the <em>fill light</em> is used on the background and sometimes on the subjects, a tell-tale sign that she doesn't know how to meter with her camera.</p>

<p>As for shooting wide open, there is an epidemic of wide-open shooting running though the mom/pop-with-a-cam wedding/portrait photo community these days; I see it everyblog I turn. These people don't know how to compose a shot in a 2D plane parallel to the camera, neither do they understand how to use aperture to obtain the correct DoF in the 3rd spatial dimension perpendicular to the camera, so they shoot wide open to mask their compositional shortcomings and call it <em>their style.</em> It's not a style, it's incompetence. Most of these people shoot a Canon 5D with the 50mm f/1.2 for minimum DoF.</p>

<p>There is one thing that your friend does have, and that's great people skills. I bet she's a fun, bubbly person, and if she's not, she knows how to turn the charm on for her photo sessions. You can tell from her photos that she's giving her clients a great time, and that's why her photos are bringing in clientèle. This type of photography is more than camera skills; in fact, great people skills will get you much further than great camera skills. You'll probably get better photos too (as far as subject matter is concerned, anyway).</p>

<p>Please understand that I'm not singling out your friend, just using her as representative of a larger (growing) group of amateur photographers charging money for their services, which are <em>technically</em> sub-par.</p>

<p>So Dan, if you want to take advice from your friend, ask her about dealing and interacting with people. As for camera techniques, please ask us :-)</p>

[laur1]

<p>The first images you posted lack detail most likely because they're out of focus.<br>

Sharpening is not an issue. You should be getting better results right out of the camera, without fiddling with sharpening settings. I never found RAW images to be lacking in detail when properly focused, and I like pixel-peeping.<br>

If you want to use AF with a high aperture, then *don't* focus and recompose using the center AF point - select an AF point that goes over one of the faces you want to focus on and avoid recomposing, because that will most likely cause you to loose focus.<br>

Of course, the lens might have an issue too, but you should try checking your technique before sending it in for calibration. Also consider manual focusing in some tests to avoid auto focusing issues - just to see whether the lens has an optical problem or it's the inaccuracy of the focusing system. Try LiveView focusing on a tripod as well.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>There is one thing that your friend does have, and that's great people skills. I bet she's a fun, bubbly person, and if she's not, she knows how to turn the charm on for her photo sessions. You can tell from her photos that she's giving her clients a great time, and that's why her photos are bringing in clientèle. This type of photography is more than camera skills; in fact, great people skills will get you much further than great camera skills. You'll probably get better photos too (as far as subject matter is concerned, anyway).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well said...</p>

[dan_tripp]

<blockquote>

<p>There is one thing that your friend does have, and that's great people skills. I bet she's a fun, bubbly person, and if she's not, she knows how to turn the charm on for her photo sessions. You can tell from her photos that she's giving her clients a great time, and that's why her photos are bringing in clientèle.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, do you know her? You are absolutely right, this is why I come here for advice and I always get great advice. Right now, I am one of those amateur photographers, but I come here because I always want to get better, and I don't want to be one of <em>them</em>. At first I always want to blame my equipment, but I am pleased with Pentax but do want to know I have quality equipment and quality prints for my clients and myself. Here is what I have learned:<br>

1. Don't use center focus then re-compose.<br>

2. Don't shoot wide open all the time.<br>

3. Don't shoot at high ISO (This can be a problem because most of my work is in the evenings. I'm also concerned in Pentax because I went to a <a href="http://www.ziser.com/zisersite/index.html">David Ziser </a>workshops and he said they usually don't shoot anything lower than ISO 800. I saw several of his posters and they were stunning.)<br>

4. Try to shoot in manual with multiple shots (this may be a problem also. I take photos of weddings and fast moving children, I know it can be done, because that is how it was always done, but this may take some time)<br>

5. Do a test for auto focus. (I did this last night and my focus was off. After I adjusted the setting to -1 and -2 the focus was dead on. I did buy my K-7 the week that it hit the stores so maybe I got a bad batch. My question is do I do this for the camera or the lens option under the settings?)</p>

<p>Again everyone, I can't thank you enough for your expertise.<br>

Dan</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Dan,<br>

I would not try to constrain my photographic practice with a lot of rigid do's and don'ts. There are preferences for sure, but a lot of your decision making will rely on artistic, technical, and experiential judgment.</p>

<p>I'd also caution you about accepting the advice given in workshops aimed at emerging wedding shooters. I question whether it is authoritative or even correct. One of my occasional shooting partners (who is truly gifted with lighting design) is trying to crack the portrait and wedding market. He's fairly new to photography, about 3-4 years, and has been "forcing" me to endure a DVD now and then from "expert" workshops he's hooked on.</p>

<p>After 20 minutes I often have to call it quits because the advice is so darned wrong. Well-intentioned indeed, but out-to-lunch! One of his gurus cannot distinguish between color spaces and monitor profiles. Another claims that there is zero value in shooting RAW.</p>

<p>Why I'm rambling is that the practice of someone who doesn't shoot below 800 ISO should not impact what you do. Photographers have been producing outstanding work with ISO (ASA) 25-bound materials for a long time. Don't let ISO be the blinders to your work, nor brand, or other people's practices.</p>

<p>I use center-focus all the time. But that's my practice that's taken decades to evolve.</p>

<p>And so on.</p>

<p>It's good to gather everyone's advice, but take control of the camera, read the light, and choose what works for you.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Coming into this late but I have some things to say others have not.</p>

<p>First, get your exposure right! Clearly those test cards are underexposed at least one stop. There are things to worry about besides sharpness. The shot of the two women is also under-exposed and could seriously do with fill flash to lift those face shadows. Me, I don't use flash, but then again I don't do weddings either. (Except my own - ha!)</p>

<p>Second, forget what a picture looks like at 100%. What does that first shot look like printed at 8x10? Maybe it is totally fine. Looks OK to me, but I can't tell from a low-resolution web version.</p>

<p>"1. Don't use center focus then re-compose."<br>

Sure you can, if you feel better doing it that way. I don't, instead I shift focus points when I need to. At very small DOF re-compose might be an issue. But then again...</p>

<p>"2. Don't shoot wide open all the time."<br>

True. You get worse lens performance and poor DOF. I see no reason to shoot faster than f/2.8.</p>

<p>"3. Don't shoot at high ISO"<br>

Use as high as you need. Up to 800 is no problem at all. For me 1100 is borderline and 1600 means black and white. But use what you need to get the shot! Correct exposure is a must at high ISO.<br>

<br />"4. Try to shoot in manual with multiple shots"</p>

<p>Yep. Manual focus is the way. You will get more keepers... at least I do. And yes it takes practice. But it is actually faster, since you don't have to wait for the camera to rack in and out. And it is quite easy to focus bracket.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

 

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't use center focus then re-compose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...when using large apertures that result in a thin DOF. (the technique can be very useful in lots of situations)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't shoot wide open all the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...if you cannot achieve focus precisely with a thin DOF. (there are lenses you can only use wide-open, so the advice makes no sense generically)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't shoot at high ISO</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...if you can avoid it. If you can't, that's life - better to have a photo in focus at ISO 1600 than a blurred shot at ISO 100. FWIW, a favorite portrait shot of mine was taken at 1600 and while the noise and loss of detail is visible when examining the image at 100%, none of that showed in an 8x12 inch print.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Try to shoot in manual with multiple shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can try this at least for testing, to determine what the problem is. Although, from the shot of the girl that you posted above, it looks like your equipment is fine.<br>

BTW, I posted this elsewhere today - it's a nice article from Zeiss, about <a href="http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/c6170ceb7ba94758c12575de0038f1e5">manual focusing on AF cameras</a>. You might find it interesting.</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>I use center-focus all the time. But that's my practice that's taken decades to evolve.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You know I typically shoot and recommend center point, but remember you also use the correct (or maybe more properly said, the optimal) DOF for your subject matter.</p>

<p>Dan is shooting wide open in situations where even people like Mis, who admitedly love wide open shooting with fast lenses, are saying it's not a good scene to shoot with.</p>

<p>If you are trying to shoot with a very narrow DOF, you do need to switch to the focus points (or really really really nail your center point technique and probably use touch up focus if the lens allows), and you need to be exacting in composition post focus. What I mean is you can't alter the camera position by much/</p>

<p>This is one of those situations where experience doesn't necessarily transfer directly to someone trying to work out some issues.</p>

<p>So at least for now, I'd use the K-x on center point only at about f/5.6 at it's widest. Use the K-7 and it's focus indicators at wider apertures with manual focus point selection.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm not saying don't use center point, as I noted, I prefer it. But I'm also not wondering why my photos are soft, and I (as does ME and others advocating it) know the limitations of this method under certain conditions.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>you do need to switch to the focus points (or really really really nail your center point technique and probably use touch up focus if the lens allows)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well Justin, I pretty much agree with the latter part in practice, but it is experience that brought me there. I use a Katz Eye Split Screen because it does allow me to "touch up" the center focus at thin DOF. If I never used film-based SLRs, I'd likely not know about alternatives. It's probably my age telling here, but a part of me still doesn't trust AF, especially in dimmer environments and when shooting faces (like the two lovely women in Dan's example). Some objects, OTOH, are more linear and they don't have feelings and AF's just fine.</p>

<p>My intention is to communicate to Dan to let his own style and shooting preferences evolve. But it really helps to learn how all the tools--camera, lens, software--work optimally to fulfil that vision.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Going by the close crop shot of the guy in front of the train I'ld say you definitely have a focus metering issue. Notice the top of the guy's ears are tack sharp which indicates the camera's focus metering over shot the intended focus plane target which I'm assuming were the eyes.</p>

<p>Was wondering if using defraction inducing wide open aperture and overcast lighting is tripping up the camera's ability to meter on the intended target. From my understanding of camera focus metering, it requires and looks for high contrast light and dark surfaces such as black type on a white business card to detect focus points. All your shots of people's faces look gray, flat and murky from the overcast flat looking lighitng with no high contrast surfaces to lock focus on.</p>

<p>I was shooting a wide angle shot, wide open of a darkened church the other day with only the candles near the alter and stained glass windows filtering the midday sun as the only light. With me sitting way in the back I set my camera's focus metering on SPOT with the "Focus using OK button" selected to prevent focus hunting using the shutter button and aimed and locked focus viewing through the center of the viewfinder focusing point on the starkly contrasted stained glass window edge. </p>

<p>The entire front alter of the church which was quite far away came out tack sharp because I used the window's high contrast edge to establish focus. See below the ACR 100% crop using Default sharpness settings.</p><div></div>