images blur when enlarged

[jcuknz]

<p>Your shot just with sharpen more ...<br>

EDIT .. on second thought I probably should have applied a little bit of blurr to the sharp stonework as it is distractingly sharp next to the buy as I view it in the thread. I'm sure PS has a tool to do this selective treatmenmt like my editor.</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>PS ..I like your posing of your subjects, good work.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Tracy - I hate to tell you this, but there still is something slightly off with your focus. Look at the full resolution version of the image that you just posted, and compare the very reasonable degree of sharpness of the plants in the lower LH corner of the screen with the slight softness of boy's face (which is where the best focus should be). Without having a completely unedited copy of the original raw file (ie, before conversion to any other file format, conversion to any other size, before application of any "creative filters", etc), I can't eliminate some of the possibilities that may be causing this problem. If you either post or email me a copy of the RAW file for this image, I'll be happy to look at it.</p>

<p>Also, Tracy, I just noticed that you posted your last image in the Adobe RGB color space, not sRGB, the strongly preferred space for web posting. If everyone is using color managed software to view your photo, everyone will see the same thing, but if some people aren't using a color managed browser, they will see different tonalities and color saturation. There have been many previous threads on this topic on photo.net - just Google them, e.g., {"Adobe RGB" sRGB muted colors site:photo.net}.</p>

<p>JC - I understand what you are trying to show, but lets try to fix Tracy's main problem before we start introducing more advanced, optional things like creative sharpening, creative blurring (to simulate the DoF of a large aperture lens), etc. If you start with a crappy original (eg, the face is slightly OOF), IMHO, the best any other processing can do is try to either (a) fix the problem (never EVER works as well as getting it right in the 1st place), or (b) distract the viewer away from the problem with other effects (such as the DoF simulation).</p>

<p>In addition, while I understand that your simulation of DoF effects was only intended to be a quick and dirty way to convey the general concept, the masking / erasing was, I'm sorry, just terrible, and you used a Gaussian blur instead of a depth map in the lens blur filter. The Gaussian method is highly unrealistic because it simply modifies the proportion of the blurred image (ie, blurred with a constant radius) as you move away from the subject, whereas, the lens blur filter allows the blur radius go from zero near the subject to larger values as you move away from the subject. The second option allows this and gives a much more realistic approach (see attached).</p>

<p>Tom M</p><div></div>

[tkess12]

<p>I see what your saying. I am still shooting with the kit lense which I know isnt the highest quality portrait lense. That being said, what would the proper settings be while using that lense as far as aparture and ISO? Also, can anyone recommend a decent portrait lense that wont break my budget? Id like to stay around $500.00 or less if possible. I also did not use a tripod for this shot. Forgot to grab it but because it was only practice session, I know that camera shake plays a HUGE part in causing blur. I will upload the original RAW when I get home from work today, with NO editing. Maybe we can get a better feel for what is truely taking place.....Thanks</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Decent portrait lens? Get a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, which are affordable an quite below the 500 and light strong enough for many situations.</p>

[tkess12]

<p>original picture of my son straight out of the camera shot in RAW with no editing</p>

[tkess12]

<p>ok says file too big so here it is in jpeg</p><div></div>

[tkess12]

<p>just purchased the 50mm 1.4 ...hope I like it better than the kit lense. I also have an EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 lense. Not sure how that one works out for portraiture.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>HI Tracy - I'm sure you will like your new 50 mm lens, but, even having that lens in your bag, you still really need to get to the bottom of the focus problem. For example, if your camera is selecting the wrong focus point, or your camera body is slightly bent, you will still have exactly the same problem with any new lens that you get. </p>

<p>One thing that I'm certain of is that motion blur just isn't the major limiting factor w.r.t. sharpness in your "Playing in the Pond" image. It is can be seen (in relatively small amounts) in other images in your portfolio, but not in this one. Motion blur is hardly ever limited to one portion of the frame (such as you are encountering), and it just doesn't look the same as lens blur or a focusing error. To get motion blur to be limited to just one portion of the frame, you would have to be rotating the camera about an axis parallel to, but not coincident with the optical axis of the lens. That just doesn't happen with the usual random camera shake. Camera shake isn't the problem with this image. </p>

<p>With respect to the JPG that you just posted, am I correct to assume that the image you posted is the exact same JPG file that the camera produced, not a file put out by your software? Please let me know one way or the other. If my assumption is correct that it is an in-camera JPG, it does tell me two things: (a) you seriously over exposed the image (which won't help in other matters, but isn't a primary cause of softness), and (b) it does make it much easier to see the changes in the amount of blur as you move around the frame.</p>

<p>Right now, I'm leaning towards one of two explanations for your problem: (a) for some reason, your camera is using a focus point that is not in the center of the frame; or, (b) the lens or the body has a mechanical problem (usually because it has been hit) and either the lens mount is bent or some of the elements in the lens have moved slightly off-center. </p>

<p>Problem "a" (not using the center focus point / not placing it on the boy's face) is easy to check and to fix. It has already been suggested once before in this thread. Make sure you, not the camera, are in control of which focus point the camera is using, and then force it to use ONLY the central focus point. Let's resolve this possibility immediately, before we go on to look at the possibility of a mechanical flaw / damage. For the sake of argument, if you happen to have the camera currently configured to decide for itself which focus point to use, you will have exactly the same problem with your new 50 mm lens, so you really must resolve this possibility once and for all.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tkess12]

I will have to check on how to set my focal point on my t2i. I pray its not mechanical because the camera is only a month

old. I thought I had his eyes in the little red box when i pressed the shutter. I did notice though the the red box is always

in the middle even when I would prefer an off center shot, making my focal point unchangeable. I was kind of annoyed

at this. I dont sappose you know why this happens? Id like to take my camera to a professional in my area and maybe

they could take a look at my settings. Im so frustrated lol. I really appreciate your feedback and time. Your a huge help.

Thanks so much.

[phule]

<p>Your user manual describes how to change your focus point, but I would encourage you to leave it set to the center one for now. In the T2i it is the most sensitive and the most accurate point. If you want the focus to be on something else, the common technique is to use "focus-and-recompose." (This was mentioned previously in this thread.)</p>

<p>You first focus with your central point on the object/area you wish to be in focus. Then, without raising your finger off your shutter button, you re-adjust the framing. Once framed the way you want, you press the shutter button the rest of the way and take the photo.</p>

<p>Of course if you move around a lot in the "recompose" part, you're just going to have to re-focus. And if your subject moves around a lot, you'll have to re-focus too. And if your aperture is very large, such that depth of field is very shallow, the focus-recompose technique can actually cause your subject to become out of focus even if neither of you move, in certain situations.</p>

<p>That being said, the focus point square you see is not the actual size of the focus point on the AF sensor. That is actually larger than the red square and, in cases of very shallow depth of field, can seem to focus on one area but only upon closer inspection do you find it focused slightly forward or behind your "intended" point. (Which is why I am worried about your purchase of the 50mm f/1.4 unless you are controlling the aperture yourself.) </p>

<p>[[i thought I had his eyes in the little red box when i pressed the shutter]]</p>

<p>For the last shot you uploaded, the overexposed one, you did not. If you open your image in either Zoombrowser or Digital Photo Professional (both supplied with the camera) you can see where the focus point was by choosing the option in software to display it. In this case, the focus point was on the top of his head.</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Hi Rob - Thank you for joining the discussion and checking the image with Canon-specific software that shows the focus point. The only Canon I own is a little G12, and I never bothered to install either Zoombrowser or Digital Photo Professional for it, but prompted by your observation, I just installed those programs.</p>

<p>Since this is the first time that I've ever used either of those programs, I'm not sure if I am correctly interpreting the EXIF data that they display (see attached).</p>

<div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>My interpretation of this is that the OP was using manual focus, either eyeballing the focus through the viewfinder, or less likely, from the Live View display which was on, but probably not magnified. Is that how you read it, Rob? If so, that could explain the focus problem. </p>

<p>Tracy, exactly how were you focusing? Do you tend to use the same focusing technique on all your images?</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[phule]

<p>I only skimmed over the EXIF and completely missed that. Good catch. </p>

[tkess12]

<p>I use the LCD screen to view on my subject then focus in until it looks clear and then I take the picture. I have always used the LCD because it seems to be a more realistic view of how the final picture will turn out as far as how much backround etc will be in the picture. I just dont seem to quite get how my focus seems clear when I shoot, however like you have all seen the pictures are still fuzzy. Yes I agree some are camera shake for lack of using my tripod, but some shots dont seem to have camera shake.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Tracy, there's probably nothing wrong with your camera. Just stop using manual focus for these types of shots. For the last 10 or more years, manual focus is now being used almost exclusively as a specialist mode for tripod mounted still life, macro, lens testing, landscape, astro, and other fields of photography where neither the subject or camera are moving. </p>

<p>Even in these specialized areas of photography, if Manual Live View focusing is being used, the view is always electronically magnified by a very large factor to determine the point of best focus. However, it's almost impossible to use a sufficiently magnified live view if the camera is not on a tripod and/or there is subject motion. At magnifications sufficient to determine good focus, the image will be bouncing around and you'll never be able to tell when the region you want is actually in focus. I suspect that you were either using no magnification in live view (and couldn't tell perfect focus because the magnification was too low), or tried to magnify the live view image, but ran into the problem of camera movement (and again couldn't tell perfect focus).</p>

<p>For the type of pix you take, there is no way most people can compete with the speed and accuracy of your camera's auto-focus modes. Your t2i/550 is particularly well featured with multiple auto focus modes and options. </p>

<p>I'm a Nikon guy, and have no experience with your particular model, but I would suggest that to start, you configure your camera to use its automatic face detection mode with the focusing set to one of the continuous focus modes, and the drive mode also set to "continuous". Once your camera is set up this way, you should depress the shutter release half-way until the AF locks in on the face in the scene, then smoothly press the shutter release all the way and fire off a burst of 4 or 5 shots at one or two per second. If the camera finds the face, I can almost guarantee you that the faces in your photos will be in much better focus than you are achieving with manual focus. </p>

<p>BTW, Rob's comment about the central AF sensor being the best of the lot and using a focus-and-recompose method is right on the mark (especially in low light and/or with low contrast subjects), but, IMHO, the automated face-detect method that I suggested is more automated and requires less practice / experience to get your focus problem fixed ASAP. Do try other methods as you become more familiar with the camera. </p>

<p>Towards this end, you really need to become much more familiar with all the incredible features of your camera, not just the auto focus modes, and begin to use them. For example, with all the features it has pertaining to auto-exposure, there is absolutely no reason you should ever produce an image as overexposed as the last one you posted. </p>

<p>I did a quick Google search on {canon t2i "live view" magnify} and turned up a huge number of helpful articles, video tutorials, etc.. I thought this one ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T2I/T2ILIVEVIEW.HTM ) was particularly well written.</p>

<p>The best of luck, keep us informed, and don't hesitate to come back with more questions. </p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[tkess12]

<p>pic of sunflower with new lense and auto focus and camera set to auto</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Nice. There is one area on the flower that is absolutely pin sharp. It's a great improvement. </p>

<p>However, looking at the EXIF info and the position of the focus point (ie, way off center), I assume you intentionally used that focus point and then used Rob's "focus and recompose" method?</p>

<p>Tom </p>

[tkess12]

Yes i specifically changed the focal point to do an off center shot. Other than that nothing else was changed. Everything was

auto.

[tom_mann1]

<p>Good. That tells me that your new lens and the camera body itself are, as we suspected, probably working perfectly. Next, try exactly the same technique with your old lens. It should work just as well. If it doesn't, you'll know that something may be wrong with that lens (... I doubt it...), and should inspire you to investigate the issue more closely.</p>

<p>BTW, when you say you used "auto", my guess is that you mean that you turned the top dial to the little green square, aka, "Full Auto" mode. Realize that there literally are hundreds, if not thousands, of important and significantly different other ways to do fully automatic shots with your camera besides the "Full Auto" mode. Many of these (see my previous post for one example) will likely be better for the type of photography you have posted than their "Full Auto" mode. </p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - With all the options that your camera offers, one of the most things to learn is how to get rid of all changes you might have made and restore it to "factory defaults". It is shown in the "Setup Menu 3" section of http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T2I/T2IMENUS.HTM . There probably is also a multiple-button-press way to do the same thing, but I'm too lazy to look it up for a camera that I don't own. </p>

[tkess12]

<p>still practicing....hopefully this closer to the effect that I am looking for</p>

[tkess12]

<p>Try to upload again</p>

[tkess12]

<p>lovely little lady</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Looks great, Tracy. Keep up the good work & keep posting pix.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>