Why are my pictures not sharp? Part III and Confession

[dan_tripp]

<p>First I have to make a confession. At one point today I almost made the switch to Nikon. http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WNmj <br>

I'm sorry. I said I believe in Pentax but my actions didn't show it. I was pleased to find the Nikon forum really supported Pentax and they encouraged me to stick with Pentax. I guess they even know the quality of Pentax. I was so bad I even went to the camera store, and they talked me out of buying a more expensive camera. I guess the Pentax gods are working for me today.</p>

<p>I took some of the topics from my last thread and applied them to a photo session I did the other day. I was pleased, but I'm always wanting to improve. Here is a few shots. I still need some help on how to make eyes pop more and I don't want to do this in Photoshop. Would a reflector help?</p>

<div></div>

[mcmanamey]

<p>fill flash &/or reflector</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>Note, I did not use center focus. :-)<br>

What meter option would you use in this situation?</p><div></div>

[dan_tripp]

<p>Maria,<br>

I don't like fill flash because it is sometimes impossible with active children. I know I can use my on camera flash but I don't like the direct light. I'm looking at a reflector, but need a very portable option. Has anyone used one of those one handed triangular reflectors? http://www.amazon.com/Lastolite-Collapsable-Triangular-Reflector-Diffuser/dp/B0006OMNXC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1272941357&sr=1-3</p>

<p>If so, white, silver, or gold?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Dan,<br>

No need to confess, camera brands are not religions. But to me most religions pretty much emphasis very similar values and ultimately it's incumbant upon the individual to engage. Same with cameras--they are all pretty much the same and it's the individual photographer's skill that matters in the end.</p>

<p>One question, and it's the same question that I've asked the prior two occasions: what degree of post-processing is reflected in these shots? Thanks.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[dan_tripp]

<p>Yet another, but with a little bit of contrast work on the background. I shot this one at f/2.8. Maybe I should have stuck with f/4 of f/5.6.</p><div></div>

[dan_tripp]

<p>ME, the first 2 have very little PP done to them.<br>

Picture 1 (boy) RAW file - In Lightroom - Auto White - Preset Portrait Sharpen<br>

Amount 35<br />Radius 1.2<br />Detail 20<br />Masking 70</p>

<p>Picture 2 (girl) RAW file in Lightroom - I used one of my presents that I do with most RAW files<br>

Brightness 50<br />Contrast 25<br />Clarity 25<br />Vibrance 25<br />Medium Contrast Curve<br />Noise Reduction 100<br />Sharpening<br />Amount 45<br /> Radius 1.5<br /> Detail 20<br /> Masking 70<br>

Picture 3 same as picture 2 but with contrast brush on the background and I raised the exposure to +.58</p>

<p>Do you have better suggestions?</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Dan, that's a TON of NR... I rarely go past 40 on the worst of shots. Some noise that I see on screen in LR2 isn't visible on a print. If you have a printer at home/office/friends house I would see if reducing the NR would increase the sharpness. Over-doing the NR would likely cause detail loss. :-) I use that Portrait-Sharpen Preset on a regular basis as well with Good results. I can fine tune each shot, but that preset gets it most of the way there.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Meter off the skin...spot meter!</p>

<p>The skin should be around mid tone on caucasions. As you figure things out you will be able to tell skin tonality as +/- the meter reading and adjust. Either get in close and meter the skin, or use a zoom to zoom in.</p>

<p>On your settings for the image processing the NR is high. I usually lower mine to about 5-15 tops depending on ISO. Under 400 is never breaks 10-15. I prefer to use Nik Define on 16 bit TIFFs in photoshop to pinpoint the NR to specific colors. Remember, NR obliterates detail. This could be a source of your lack of detail. Much better to take control of the NR on a case by case basis.</p>

<p>As far as sharpening, same thing. I actually turn it off in Lightroom and do all my sharpening in Photoshop using a combination of various methods depending on output size. Remember sharpening is specific to the output, you need to (ideally) sharpen for the given print or screen size, a batch all in one sharpening is probably fine for hundreds of images from an event, but if you are putting together a small high quality set of prints, definitely sharpen to the specific print size.</p>

<p>Usually when I export from lightroom, I immediately do a .3/280-320 sharpening using the USM. I adjust the threshold based on the level of noise but never above 6. Following that I do selective noise reduction on higher ISO images. However, 90% of the images I shoot have no NR done since I rarely shoot above 400-800 unless shooting sports. </p>

<p>Further sharpening involves various methods that are probably a thread of their own.</p>

<p>Noise you see at 100% pixel peeping isn't necessarily on the print (as Jeremy pointed out). It's really important to start printing your stuff and seeing where you are unhappy with it.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Dan,<br>

Lots of items to comment on here. I like using fill flash with kids. In daylight shooting, setting the flash to Auto works just as well as any manual or PTTL and is a lot faster. Re: reflectors and diffusers, I am a devout Joe Demb Big Flipit user. Very portable and light and cheaper and more flexible than the product you linked to. Joe's a working pro who you can communicate with email or by phone about the product. His bracket is also excellent and lightweight.</p>

<p>I like the second shot the best and the first one is pretty close.</p>

<p>I like the girl's expression in the third and the use of the red box, but there are larger issues that I'll address here. Do realize that without access to the straight RAW file, I can only comment reactively instead of saying what I'd do differently from the outset.<br>

-the lighting is very uneven overall and too contrasty; in particular it is mis-aimed and blows out parts of her dress. You can fix this by using the adjustment brush and selectively reduce brightness -30, lower the contrast, keep the clarity raised a bit and adjust exposure by tenths.<br>

-the red has too much vibrance juice (5-8 would do)--I forget if I've asked you if you have hardware-calibrated your monitor(s), but without doing so it is pretty tough for most mortals to determine accurate color.<br>

- the background is too unevenly lighted and busy.<br>

- I would never shoot at f2.8 outdoors like that @ 1/400 or ISO 200<br>

- NR @ 100 when using ISO 200 mushes the details. Combine this with a masking of 70, you are not getting much sharpness happening here.<br>

-clarity @ 25 is too high and contributes to the over contrasty look. I always shape the curve to my judgements. I would add more lightening but manage the dress and some skin glare.</p>

<p>No. 1 it is really a personal style issue. I probably would have used a bit of negative clarity and then upped the sharpening to 45; radius down to 1.0, detail up to 30, and a little masking. I also don't use the linear curve and prefer the medium contrast as a starting point. I'd up the highlights +10, lights +6, darks +8. The result is stronger definition of his bone structure, lips, and hair but softer skintones. Also overall image is brighter.</p>

<p>No. 2 I do like. It's still a little too flat for my tastes, but that's a subjective call. I would lower the highlights significantly (medium contrast curve) but raise the lights a bit. Use recovery to cool down the dress, and then use the adjustment brush to moderately desaturate and darken the green background so she pops out more in the foreground.</p>

<p>General advice:<br>

-build up your Lightroom preset library. I hardly ever use the ones that came with the software. There are hundreds of free ones out there. Experiment and then save your own. I have about 50 customized ones I regularly peruse, and then another 50 to trigger creative thinking about tougher problems.<br>

-same goes for the adjustment brush settings. I have created about 25 presets for specific needs like landscape lightening, skin retouching, eye fixins, and super sharpening.<br>

-this is a repeat, but purchase Real World Image Sharpening by the late Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. Seriously useful information that you can apply instantly. Also Martin Evening's Lightroom 2 book.<br>

-your money spent on a monitor calibration unit will provide better value to your photographic practice than a new camera or lens at this point.</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p>ME</p>

[sjgcit]

<p>I'm glad you have come to a decision ( and the right one I think ). This is a very positive thing for you to do. You got a good break at the camera shop.<br>

One thing I think you need to check straight away, before you try any more post processing, is monitor calibration.<br>

I see a definite and consistent cast in all your shots in this thread. One shot ( the girl sitting on the red box ) has blown areas on the dress. These things tell me you have a calibration issue.<br>

I would avoid adjusting contrast as a parameter. Adjusting contrast in this way is prone to blowing highlights - it's not very fine tuned. I'd suggest using the tone curve. This give better control and makes it easier to avoid blown areas.<br>

I sometimes sharpen using a sharpened layer and blending it with the unsharpened image using partial opacity and even different blend modes ( like darken only ). This gives more control of sharpening than simply applying usm directly.<br>

Good hunting.</p>

 

[mel_unruh]

<blockquote>

<p>I still need some help on how to make eyes pop more and I don't want to do this in Photoshop. Would a reflector help?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan,<br>

To get the eyes to "pop" you need a secondary light source to add some twinkle to the eyes. This can be a reflector or flash. A reflector works great if you have an assistant to hold it. The triangle reflectors work great with adults and if you are using a tripod. As you know, kids tend to be moving targets which makes using one difficult by yourself. I would suggest flash. However, it is important to note that flash does not have to flatten your lighting. Depending on your flash unit, you can either work in a manual mode in which case you meter for the daylight and just set the flash to its lowest setting. Or you can set your flash to under expose by a couple of stops so it won't over power the daylight. Use a diffuser on your flash such as a Gary Fong light sphere or an Omni bounce or you can point you flash straight up and affix a slightly bent 3x5 card to your flash with a rubber band which also softens the light.<br>

Hope this helps.<br>

Mel</p>

<p> </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Another way to get the depth to "pop" is to use color temperature. Old fashioned aerial perspective. These ideas have been around for a few hundred years. </p>

<p>By alternating warm and cool colors, you can create layers of different temperatures, and thus convey depth. One of the best examples I've found lately have been on TV shows featuring news casters. PBS News Hour has one of the most easily understandable sets in these terms. Large areas are made up of CTO and CTB.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>In the instance of the first photo, the light is not only high, but cold. Your topic has a warm skin tone. To turn the form, strike the topic with both warm and cold colors of light. </p>

<p>Photo below. Strong mixes of CTO on the left, CTB on the right, and white light from above. You will probably want a milder mix, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say turn the form with color temperature.</p><div></div>

[jpo3136b]

<p>One of the things I would encourage you to try is to take the pressure off of yourself some. Give yourself plenty of elbow room for errors. Proceed with confidence!</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I am about to get my first DSLR today and this almost makes me want to forget about doing it. I collect and use film cameras and I have used a digital camera, not an SLR, on and off for a few years. This past weekend I shot a 24 exp. roll of CVS 200 speed color print film at a botanical garden. The camera was a Canon F-1N with an AE finder and an AE screen. The lenses were a 50/2.8 Sigma macro, a 100/2.8 Vivitar Macro (22XXX...) and a 24/2.8 Canon FD SSC. I brought the film to my local camera store on Monday to get it processed. The film was developed, scanned and printed digitally on RA4 paper. One shot was slightly crooked and that was my fault. All 24 frames were properly exposed and printed. I didn't have to worry about any AF sensors becase the camera has no AF. There was no worry about "clipping highlights" because the Fuji-made film has plenty of lattitude. I was able to focus on any area of the focusing screen at any time. There is no question that the quality of film developing and printing has always been highly variable and still is. What I find is that for some purposes shooting film and then printing it digitally gives better control over contrast and color than printing the negatives optically or shooting digitally to begin with. The list of digital editing tools is endless. While this can be great for special effects and allows a lot of creativity, for straightforward photos or ordinary subjects it can sometimes be too much. </p>

[vrankin]

<p>Just a thought on focus. The eyes are the most important critical place to see it, in a portrait. If depth of field only allows for one, it should be the nearer eye. Dan, in your third example the shoes and the front edge of the red box seem sharper than the eyes. I'm guessing this was front focused. John, in your example the forearm of the subject is sharp but the eyes are less so. These issues aren't really about equipment, as much as about focus technique.</p>

[stephen_van_egmond1]

<p>Jeff-<br /> Don't think that you need to master all those tools to achieve the same level of success in digital photography. I personally use Aperture, and though it has all the fiddly noise reduction and colour twiddling settings anyone would want, I prefer to limit myself to what can be pulled off in a dark room: cropping, straightening, exposure tweaks, and converting colour to B+W.</p>

<p>Rather than master a piece of software I prefer to master the camera. I spend all day writing software for a living and photography is my reason to get outdoors. I prefer to do only the minimum necessary to my shots. I find I like the authenticity.</p>

<p>No disrespect to the lightroom masters, though. John, I would be very interested to see what your splendid portrait looked like when it came out of the camera.</p>

<p>To the original poster, you don't have to "believe" in any given system, just find the one that works for you. Understand that a bug in a particular equipment combination is not a systemic fault. To your particular problem, I can't shake the feeling that your setup is slightly front-focusing. Ever so slightly. This slight tendency is magnified by your habit of shooting at wide apertures with relatively long lenses, which produces very narrow focus planes. This is not a systemic fault, any other camera will produce the same result.</p>

<p>Play with the widget at the bottom of http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html . For instance, a subject 5 feet away at f/2.8 on a 105mm zoom has a 1 inch wide depth of field. 7 feet away? 3 inches. In such a situation, you must nail the focus, and hope that the composition still works with everything outside your DOF plane fuzzy.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Now I'll be able to try all of these settings myself. This morning I got a K-x, my first DSLR. I tried my 50/1.7 SMC Pentax-F on it and it seems to work properly. The focusing with this lens is a little noisier than with the 18-55 kit lens. </p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Dan, these are very good images. Far better than the first ones you posted. I agree, too much NR always compromises sharpness. But these do look very good- keepers for sure. I think you did a good job selecting good apertures for the focal length and the surroundings. Your subjects stand out nicely. Even the eyes look fine. These images capture a time in the lives of your children, and came out very well. In years to come, they will be looked upon fondly as delightful representations of their early childhood. </p>

<p>Don't be afraid to use some fill flash. You can regulate the output if needed, using flash exposure comp. Even the little built-in flash will often do a good job, and very handy for spontaneous casual shots, which are frequently the best ones. </p>

<p>Here's one where, unlike yours, my intentions were to include my subject as part of a scene, to commemorate an occasion. Just a simple JPEG shot in "P" mode, or "Av" mode, little or no post process, and the built-in flash of my K200D came in very handy for instant use. Without it, my subject's face would have been very dark due to the shadow cast by his hat. The camera did a good job of automatically balancing the flash with the exposure of the surrounding scene. Fill flash can be a very useful tool, even in bright daylight. </p><div></div>

[garydem]

<p>dan t- some thoughts.<br />-first it makes no difference what YOU like as technique in the taking of the pics. there is only the correct technique for the scene lighting situation and the photog's wants.<br />-second you cannot buy your way to better pics. by FAR the most important bit of gear is the user pushing the shutter button. any entry level dslr can take a geat image, if supplied with the correct instructions.<br />-3rd if you are shooting at f2.8 you end up with a very narrow dof. this great makes you error leeway much greater, and offers the shooter no room at all for a mistake in technique. try f4.0 or f5.6. if you have enough distance separation between the subject and the background, then that background will be out of focus anyway. but the higher fstop gives the user abtter chance to get the subject in focus.<br />-4th pick your focus point and focus lock to make sure you get and keep that point. the important item any obsever of a portrait looks at are the eyes. if the eyes are not pinpoints then the observer will mentally downgrade the whole image. those eyes have got to be sharp.<br />-5th all that off color background, be it light or dark, is going to cause the meter to have a fit. you must use spot metering on the person's skin. if you cannot save the setting, switch to manual and simply set those setting.<br />-6th note in simple terms it is very easy to overdo the pp. thinking more is better. you should pp just enough to accomplish what you want, AND NO MORE. do not be tempted to add just a little more pp of something, that path leads to overcooked images.</p>

[snik75]

<p>Dan - for simple fill flash on my kids, I use Tv mode with shutter speed at 180, and the use the on camera flash set to -1.5 compensation. Sometimes -1, if it looks like it is needed. This works quite well for me, although my standards are not high.</p>

<p>Jeff - congrats on your new DSLR! I will say, I had mainly used a k1000 and an MX when I switched to digital, so I was pretty put off at first by all the bells and whistles. With time and practice, it comes to you. Have fun!</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Dan, I think a number of your issues may be solved with good use of flash. I look back and many of my crisper-looking shots were shot with flash. Shots don't need to be 'flashy'--but even a little flash helps freeze most motion and eliminates most camera shake. In some cases it helps just to give you that extra stop of DoF, get your ISO down to 800, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Another cause for my getting soft off-focus shots such as yours using wide apertures with a somewhat long lens is due to the short DOF where with just one slight lean forward and backward of either the photographer or subject after nailing focus can shift off the original focus plane without seeing it in the viewfinder especially when shooting the subject at around ten feet away under overcast or low contrast lighting.</p>

[snik75]

<p>Dan - another thought:</p>

<p>You can get a little more pop in the eyes this way, by raising the Gamma and saturation, then lowering the overall brightness. While the dress bike and background suffer a bit, the face and eyes are a bit clearer. I like to use this for my family snapshots. I hope you don't mind me fiddling with your picture.</p><div></div>