How sharp should I expect photos to be?

[timothy_mccormick]

<p>Hi everyone! Thanks so much for your help.</p>

<p>I'm using a Canon EOS 50D with the kit 28 - 135mm, f/3.5 at 28mm.<br>

I am a little disenchanted with what I perceive to be a lack of sharpness to my images. As an example tonight, I took a few shots. These are on a tripod using a remote at ISO100 in raw format of a piece of paper. <br>

I am posting a few crops at maximum zoom. In these I would expect the edge of the paper to be nearly flawless due to the tripod + remote. Yet, it seems like there is some aberration or haze along the edge of the lines.<br>

In more real-world situations, I am finding it very frustrating because lights seem to have a slight haze around them, and even in slightly dim settings (e.g. indoor wedding), my photos just go to garbage.<br>

Examples attached.<br>

Thank you again!</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16570121-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1009" height="745" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16570120-lg.jpg" alt="" width="835" height="597" /><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16570119-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="1185" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16570118-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1189" height="1500" /></p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>What distance and shutter speed? How rigid is your tripod, there is $20 rigid and $2,800 rigid.</p>

<p>Are you shooting with the lens wide open? Not actually a good idea for crisp, sharp images, esp when combined with a low shutter speed and a $20 rigid tripod. </p>

 

[timothy_mccormick]

<p>Hi Bob,</p>

<p>I appreciate the response - thanks very much.</p>

<p>The tripod is about $150 (<a href="http://www.promaster.com/products.asp?product=2177">http://www.promaster.com/products.asp?product=2177</a>). Indoor, no home movement or anything like that. I've got the legs extended, but not the "neck" (if that's the correct term?). I tightened everything before the photos.</p>

<p>Shutter speed was relatively slow (indoor, iso100). 0.5 to 0.8 second. I am shooting with the aperture pretty open, yes. It may not be at its widest setting, but very close to it.<br /> Maybe I'm drastically underestimating the amount of light it should take for a good shot? My wife and I were up in the Canadian rockies this past weekend and had an awesome opportunity to photograph some elk. Time was 6:00pm, sunset was at about 6:30pm, almost totally clear skies. I had to shoot at ISO1600.</p>

[SCL]

<p>If you're shooting wide open, I wouldn't expect razor sharpness...usually lenses are at their best stopped down about 2 notches. The focus looks a little off in the 1st 3 shots, but the trash in the 4th shot looks spot on. Were you manually focusing or using AF? The "haze" around the light is primarily due to dispersion of light in the lens, called flare, typically in many cases of light internal haze on the internal lens elements or insufficient internal baffling, and is especially noticeable in wide open shots. As you stop down, quite often, the "haze" diminishes....but shooting directly into a light almost guarantees some flare unless you have a highly corrected lens.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[shutter speed was relatively slow (indoor, iso100). 0.5 to 0.8 second. I am shooting with the aperture pretty open, yes. It may not be at its widest setting, but very close to it.]]</p>

<p>I hope you've turned on Mirror lockup and used a 2 second count-down timer as well, because otherwise you're moving the camera and it's moving even more with mirror slap.</p>

<p>[[Maybe I'm drastically underestimating the amount of light it should take for a good shot?]]</p>

<p>That is extremely likely. The camera does not work like the human eye.</p>

<p> </p>

[timothy_mccormick]

<p>Hi Stephen,</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts. I usually use AF. If I need to I'll focus on the point I want and then move the camera to select the scene I want. However, in the cases above, I did not do that.</p>

<p>Because I am trying to solve this (my wife and I are taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Italy this coming weekend), i wanted to be very systematic. I set my camera to only use the center focal point, mounted it on a tripod, set the central focal point to the intersection of the piece of paper & the edge of my desk, and used a remote control to activate the shutter. I have no idea how I could make it be any more in focus than that. :-)</p>

<p>Somewhat tangential question... does the smaller aperature I'm forced to use when zooming in count as stopping down?</p>

[timothy_mccormick]

<p>so here's a couple more I just took using the advice i've received so far (a couple stops smaller aperture and mirror lock-up)<br>

They might seem slightly better... it's hard for me to tell.</p><div></div>

[johnw63]

<p>All the shutter speeds are pretty slow. Top shot 0.800 sec at ISO 100 and f5.6 . Middle one- 1/3 of a sec, ISO 100, f 3.5m and the bottom one - 1/40th of a sec, f 6.3 and ISO 1600.<br>

<br />The very last one shows 0.600 of a sec, ISO 100, f4.5<br>

<br />What is " Maximuum zoom" on the crops mean ? 100% ? </p>

<p>Also, most DSLRs really need a bit of sharpening , not matter how careful you are. Have you done that ? </p>

<p> </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>For tripod exposures, lock the mirror up if you can, it will cause visible softness due camera movement at slow shutter speeds. If you can brace the camera against or on a stone column in a building or church, it's way more solid than a normal extended tripod at slow shutter speeds.</p>

<p>1.5 - 2 stops down from wide open is a better aperture, and if your max is f4.5 at the long end, you want something around f8.</p>

<p>Maybe invest in a small tripod like the one below, made by Leica, top of the line and worth every dollar. This one kept a Nikon F and that baby Linhof very happy 40 years ago travelling around europe.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Turn off IS on the lens when the camera is on a tripod.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>With that lens I would close down the aperture to around f8 or f11.</p>

[railphotog]

<p>As has been mentioned, did you do any sharpening to your images? I always use the Unsharp Mask tool in my Paint Shop Pro XI program, and it really improves the sharpness of all images.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The technical tips are all spot on, but one thing you raised is a very good point too:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I'm drastically underestimating the amount of light it should take for a good shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only the amount, but also the kind of light. If it's diffuse low light, you often end up with little contrast; it will make everything look less sharp and more murky, grey, washed out. Frequently, people seem to think that new DSLRs with good ISO6400 quality should take good photos in any kind of low light - but it's simply not how it works. Light needs to be of a good quality too.<br>

So, indoors, I'd use either a bit of flash to judge how sharp things could be, or go outdoors during daytime. I know it's not a good rule, but it usually works for me: good light throws good shadows.</p>

[timothy_mccormick]

<p>wow - thank you all for the responses overnight. was excited to check in before I head to work this morning, but I won't be able to try any of the tips until I get back home.<br>

To answer the post-processing question - I typically do PP in Photoshop, but for these photos specifically I did not. My camera (Canon EOS 50D) does have a built-in sharpening feature - should I be enabling or disabling those?</p>

<p>For the small tripod suggestion - if i were out taking photos would I just "push" that against something solid and then take the photo - or would I have to try to find something approximately the correct height vertically?</p>

<p>Will try some smaller aperture shots tonight. Thanks again for all the thoughts & help.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p><em>Turn off IS on the lens when the camera is on a tripod.</em><br>

This is a must -- did you do this?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<blockquote>

<p>For the small tripod suggestion - if i were out taking photos would I just "push" that against something solid and then take the photo - or would I have to try to find something approximately the correct height vertically?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You preferably push the base of the camera against something, that's where a small tripod comes in handy, you can push it sideways against a pillar/column/building and have the camera in normal landscape position for framing.</p>

[nathansanborn]

Also... Stop pixel peeping.

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>my wife and I are taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Italy this coming weekend</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Congratulations! That is great news. The not so great news is that you have less than one-week to <em>learn</em> photography! All the of the advice given has been great... but I am not sure any of it <em>matters. </em>I mean I know it matters, but how are you going to use it to improve your photography while in Italy? First, no one is going to care if your image is a bit soft. You are trying to solve an issue that isn't an issue (like voter fraud!). 2nd, as mentioned, a LOT has to do with your quality of light. While roaming around Italy, I doubt you have much control over the quality of light of any image you might want to take a picture of at the moment you want to take a picture of it. Sure, you lens will be better at f/8... if you can <em>use</em> f/8 (unlikely indoors without flash). Personally, with a few days left, I would pick up a 50mm lens: any flavor (f/1.8, f/2.5 if you want macro, or f/1.4). It's a small light lens so it will travel well and it will give you some low light options if nothing else. And, I would pick up the book "The Photographer's Eye" by Michael Freeman and read it on the plane. Those two decisions (lens/book) will have more of an impact on your photography than nailing down shooting @ f/8 in dim lighting for a "sharp" shot as a way to improve all of your photography!</p>

[starshooter]

<p>I see no reason to pussyfoot around, if you really want to learn something. There's a saying that I have been hearing for 70 years -- "a poor workman blames his tools."</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Even with a tripod, I think it's tricky to judge much considering the long exposure times on these shots, the poor light and the wide apertures. I think you could tell more form a real-life test -- show us some shots in daylight where you're shooting more like f/8 or f/11 with shutter speeds like 1/125 or 1/250. Also indoor where office lighting would be maybe f/4 and 1/30 or 1/60 (assuming around ISO 400). Some shots with flash and maybe f/8 and 1/60. <br />Shooting wide open with slow shutter speeds in poor indoor light is making the lens look its worst. That can be a good way to put a lens through its paces -- if it looks good under those conditions it will look good under any conditions. But it may be giving you more cause for worry than you deserve. A kit lens probably isn't going to look tack sharp under those conditions, but may still look just fine for real-life shooting and typical vacation pictures.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I don't know if it makes a difference but I hold the mini-tripod against the wall [support] firmly and use 10 second release with the camera untouched ... same as I normally do with my bigger tripods ...no mirror lock with my cameras so I don't do that.<br>

I recently bought a $120 tripod with ballhead for my son by a reputable maker and was not impressed by it, in fact slightly disgusted. So I doubt if the extra $30 would make much difference, and I understand now people talking about several hundred as a minimum at today's prices.</p>

[timothy_mccormick]

<blockquote>

<p><em>What is " Maximuum zoom" on the crops mean ? 100% ?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, for the shots that I am posting in this thread so far, I am taking them in raw, opening them in Photoshop, zooming to 100%, and then cropping around the focal area before posting them in this thread. I'm not applying any sort of mask, contrast curve, adjustment, etc. My thought process is that the better my source photo, the better my final result. (garbage in, garbage out is what we say in my field)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <em>Turn off IS on the lens when the camera is on a tripod.</em><br />This is a must -- did you do this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was turning it on and off. I'd heard that it really only helps if you're in a "shaky" environment (e.g. car on the road, boat on water), and doesn't do anything for even the "slow wavering" when holding by hand.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also... Stop pixel peeping.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is sort of the heart of my question. I see some photos that just "pop" because they're so clear & in focus. I think the term is "tack sharp"? So I'm asking, is it a reasonable expectation to see that sort of sharpness at 100% zoom? If so, how close to ideal conditions (lighting, aperture, steadiness, etc) should a person be? There's just something about those beautiful photos - they are irresistible for me.</p>

<p>This thread is sort of 50% expectations management and 50% learning. I think conversation & interaction (like you are all kindly taking the time to do with me) is a fantastic incubator for deep understanding. For example, I knew about diffraction causing issues while using very small apertures. I didn't know very large apertures could also cause issues (still not clear on the technical reasons for this, either).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...how are you going to use it to improve your photography while in Italy?...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, thanks very much for the well-wishes! We are very much looking forward to it. I've been self-teaching for a couple of years, and this past Christmas (11 months ago), got Scott Kelby's primer set (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-Digital-Photography-Boxed/dp/0321839951/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352239067&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+kelby+photography+book+set">http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-Digital-Photography-Boxed/dp/0321839951/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352239067&sr=1-1&keywords=scott+kelby+photography+book+set</a>). So I've read through that over this year and learned a lot as well. I will talk to my better half about a new lens for the trip. I understand the drive for the larger aperture, but what makes you recommend 50mm instead of something more landscape-y (18mm?) or portrait-y?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see no reason to pussyfoot around, if you really want to learn something. There's a saying that I have been hearing for 70 years -- "a poor workman blames his tools."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand how this is productive, constructive, or helpful in any way, really. Is it your intent to turn people off to the pursuit of knowledge and learning? Have I been anything other than appreciative, humble, and thankful?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...show us some shots in daylight where you're shooting more like...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Craig! Thanks so much for your suggestions. I am going to link some of my photos in my google albums, and I certainly appreciate your feedback. One reason I haven't done so until now is that I'm worried I've done some damage somehow. (for example, I took some pictures in a factory setting where there is a lot of metal dust & fiber in the air. I used a valved blower and then a microfiber cloth to clean the lens afterward, but I'm worried I scuffed it or something).</p>

<p>Anyway, links!<br /> This is my bucket of favorites from over the years: <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5281307043201048545">https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5281307043201048545</a><br /> Shots for a friend's wedding a few weeks ago (using an on-camera flash I rented): <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5800629936818172001?authkey=CI2w-5Gn_7-x_AE">https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5800629936818172001?authkey=CI2w-5Gn_7-x_AE</a><br /> Last, the trip that frustrated me enough to register and make this thread... a few shots from a recent trip to the Canadian Rockies. I felt like I couldn't get anything to work. It was super frustrating: <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5806354633042959649?authkey=CJKqrevp06DArAE">https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/115612222347742528152/albums/5806354633042959649?authkey=CJKqrevp06DArAE</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>...I hold the mini-tripod against the wall [support] firmly and use 10 second release with the camera untouched ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on the suggestions I'm hearing I may put a mini tripod on my christmas list this year... For what it's worth, to my (novice) eyes, my tripod is relatively solid. No ball joint on it, and it doesn't really have any noticeable wiggle or shake to it - especially with the neck retracted so the camera is basically sitting at the top of the legs.</p>

<p>I did have one unanswered question - I have sharpening options in my camera settings... anyone have advice on turning those on or off?<br>

<br /> Anyway, again - thank you all for the input, help, etc. I very much appreciate everyone's thoughts, ideas, time, input, etc. I feel like I am learning a ton!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I am taking them in raw...I have sharpening options in my camera settings</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

As is regularly pointed out in these forums, in-camera sharpening does not affect raw images.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>One way to test your tripod is gently tap the tripod, lens or body when looking thru the camera. How much does the image move with each tap? Having the lens at max tele will show the movement more. Depending on the tripod design, it will likely be better if you don't fully extend the legs. Try doing this with different setups, column up and down to see the differences.</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[nathansanborn]

I guess I can elaborate on "stop pixel peeping", and maybe get deeper into the heart of the question. The problem with

pixel peeping, is when looking at something at 100% (assuming you crop a 700 pixel image out of it) you are looking at

something that should be about 2 1/3 inches printed, on something as big as your computer monitor. And you can zoom

in from there even!

 

When you have good light, are you pleased with the pictures? Take your best shot and print it big, how does it look?

These things are far more important than how a 100% crop looks on a monitor.