Why aren't my photos crisp and sharp?

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Whenever I'm in post (LR + PS) I have noticed many of my images aren't crisp and sharp when I zoom in. Why is this? I'm shooting in Large RAW with a Canon 6D (I have 2 6D bodies and they both do this. I've also experienced this shooting with an old Rebel in Large RAW.) I've added the SOOC image and far away, everything appears fine. In this particular example I'm shooting with a 50mm f/1.4 prime and using a low ISO (to reduce noise), and I've put my focus point on this woman in front's eyes. I've added a screenshot of the zoomed in view to show what I'm referring to. Although I'm shooting at f/1.6, I can understand if the people behind her are a little fuzzy because of the narrow plane of focus, that's not so much my issue, although I am shooting from probably 15 feet away so that plane of focus should increase to about 3 feet wide, right? Either way, my main issue is that my focal point isn't sharp when zoomed in and shooting L RAW it should be, right? Also, whenever I try to use the sharpening tools in post they still don't ever quite get that sharp-as-in-person look like I've seen in other people's photos and often leave an oil painting look with too much masking and luminance. So what am I doing wrong? <br>

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s11/v28/p1752135707-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s11/v28/p1747347999-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://www.karenmorelandphotography.com/img/s7/v154/p1799668953-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Looks as simple as being out of focus, and it probably is because you're using such wide aperture. Only a sliver of the scene will be in focus.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Your camera has excellent high ISO performance, so shooting a scene as this at f/1.6 in order to keep ISO200, seems a bit overkill. A groupshot as this, I'd try to be around f/8. The shutterspeed seems fine to control any subject movement, since they pose you might be able to squeeze out a slightly slower time. Let's say ISO1600, f/8 and 1/200th, or SIO1600, f/5.6 and 1/400th - roughly the same exposure, and a lot less problematic to fix afterwards. ISO1600 with a 6D should really be no issue at all.<br>

Given the shallow depth of field, the precision of focus becomes much more of an issue too; an misfocus (and autofocus isn't perfect - putting the focus somewhere doesn't mean it is garantued to end up there!) will become much more obvious. What also doesn't help is that most lenses aren't at their best at wide apertures - and especially with older very wide aperture lenses, the drop in quality can be very obvious. Hence again, stop down a bit to kill these two birds with one stone.<br>

Given the example, though, I think it is a focus issue, the focus is not at all on her eyes. Probably the wall behind, but it's impossible to judge from the crop. This isn't something you can fix in post-processing, this is really the stuff to get right in camera. So, I'd really start by taking a photo as this one at a midrange aperture (f/5.6-f/11 somewhere), and not fear the minimal noise you get at higher ISOs - with cameras as yours, it's a real non-issue in any normal print size.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>I agree with Matt, this is clearly out of focus. </p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Magic rule about editing: Every time you edit, you destroy a little (or a lot) of detail from your image.<br>

Magic falsity from TV: Zooming in makes everything clearer.<br>

Magic rule of processing anything: garbage in = garbage out</p>

<p>So........</p>

<p>To get as good of a shot as possible before your shutter fires, correct and optimize as much as possible in front of your lens. You are the photographer and not the camera. Keep your edits as infrequent as possible and you image quality will be much better.</p>

<p>Wouter gives some great advice.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Magic rule about editing: Every time you edit, you destroy a little (or a lot) of detail from your image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a pixel editor, yes. Not in Lightroom which is a <em>parametric</em> editor (you edit instructions). Then you render the raw data to new, virgin RGB pixels with said instructions. All in high bit. </p>

[Bill C]

Hi, two things come to mind. First, I don't know the Canon lens well, but it may not deliver best sharpness wide open (f/1.6 is very nearly so). I'd try some test shots stopped down a little, like f/4 and f/5.6. Second, exact focusing is finicky at wide apertures, and it's possible that you were not right on the money. (There might be a small disagreement between the autofocus hardware and the image sensor.) You can test this by doing a comparison shot, focusing manually on a"live" view. Check your user manual manual for how to do this - use live view at maximum magnification. If this gives better detail, then there is a slight focus discrepancy. Canon has a fine-tuning routine called micro focus adjustment that I THINK is available on your cameras. These are the things that I would check first. Best of luck.

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>In a pixel editor, yes. Not in Lightroom which is a <em>parametric</em> editor (you edit instructions). Then you render the raw data to new, virgin RGB pixels with said instructions. All in high bit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I was referring to the end product. Having to edit for the shortcomings of a photographer is evil. Even my wife learned to move in closer and stop zooming in on her phone. The benefits are instant.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Sorry, but I never heard of F1.6. It's usually f1.4, f1.8, f2, f2.8... I could be wrong ? In any case if you focused on your subjects face, then some part of the face should have been focused, the eyes, the chin, the nose, something, but it seems as if you focused on something else because the entire woman's face is out of focus. Try checking the focusing points before hitting the shutter. For portraits, I usually choose a focusing point rather than let the camera pick one for me. </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><em>"You are the photographer and not the camera. "</em><br>

You have to learn to use your camera, or tools. It is not the tools that make a photograph or any other product, it is the person knowledge and artistic talent to create the perfect work.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Karen, I would start out by taking a picture at f1.6 of a brick wall about the same distance from you as these people were. (Yes, a brick wall. A wood fence is fine of course - something flat, big and textured.) That should eliminate the issue of whether there is a big problem or some setting that is off, which I doubt since both cameras do this. I suspicion as others have suggested that you just didn't focus on the face like you intended. Look around and see if ANYTHING is in crisp focus. Frankly I have almost zero experience using an autofocus SLR of any sort, but like Bill suggests, use live view on the rear screen and focus magnification whenever you want to make absolutely sure the right thing is in focus. With a mirrorless camera you can do that in the viewfinder very quickly and conveniently. With Sony's newer cameras you can actually use DMF (direct manual focus) to first autofocus and then move the focus ring a little to automatically magnify the image in the viewfinder to make sure it is spot on. I realize that last part isn't the answer to your question, but it might be useful info in the future.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>It's just out of focus. If you're consistently getting this result with this lens then the focus needs to be calibrated.</p>

[alan_cox3]

<p>I'm with Bill. Start by expecting a sharp image using f/5.6, focused using Live View, zoomed on a face with highlights in the eyes. The square should go green indicating that the image-based focusing has locked in. If that does not work, then you may have a lens problem, or recheck your camera settings that you are not asking for some sort of noise handling etc. that's softening the images.<br>

(Tripod? I'm assuming you are using one, with a cable release is even better.)</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Check your focus points in Canon DPP or other Canon software that displays this, just as a check.</p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I am not using a tripod, honestly I never do because with families it's hard for me to be running all over the place and set things up on a tripod when you have an hour to get 30-40 good shots you need to deliver. Secondly, I usually like shooting wide open because of the bokeh. This lens is an f/1.4. That said, I'm not sure why I dialed it to 1.6 specifically, but it was an option on my camera apparently and I must've bumped it somehow off 1.4. In either case, like I said, I like the bokeh of shooting wide open so I really didn't want to take it down to 5.6 or narrower. So is this not going to be an option for me? :( After reviewing several images from this shoot, I could see that the foreground was in much better focus than the eyes that I clicked on for my auto focus. Please note I've set my AF to one point focusing, so I usually select the eyes of one person and recompose my shot. Perhaps when I recompose it's moving my focus plane too much (just from regular camera shake) and taking the eyes out of my plane of focus. With all the responses I'm also wondering if my AF needs to be recallibrated, or like someone said, perhaps there's just a focus issue with shooting in such wide apertures. Frustrating! Is there any way I can recalibrate the AF myself or do I need to send it off? (I don't live near ANY shops I can take it to.)</p>

[phule]

<p>[[in either case, like I said, I like the bokeh of shooting wide open so I really didn't want to take it down to 5.6 or narrower]]</p>

<p>There is nothing in this image to give you good, or bad, bokeh. Bokeh is the quality of the out-of-focus highlights. You have nothing in the background or foreground that can be described as an out of focus highlight. There is no "bokeh" to be had anywhere in this scene.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with your AF. The problem is that you're shooting at far too wide an aperture for reasons that are based on a misunderstanding of a trendy photographic term. The focus, no pun intended, should be on your paying clients. Delivering them a sharp photo based on sound photographic principles and practices should be your goal. I highly recommend you stop shooting portraits at f/1.4 until you have studied further the fundamentals. It hardly matters if the quality of your out of focus highlights are good or bad if your subjects are not actually in focus. </p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thanks, Rob. Perhaps I used the incorrect term. What I meant to say about shooting wide open was that I like an out of focus background. Now, I understand in this particular image there isn't enough space between my subjects and the background to create this particular blur, and honestly, it's been a matter of leaving my settings on aperture priority and at the widest aperture and merely adjusting my ISO so that when there is enough space between the layers of foreground, subject(s), and backgrounds I can achieve the out of focus look. So, that said, are you saying there really isn't a way for me to learn to shoot with those settings every time?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Karen - Very few lenses are optimized to shoot wide open, those which are are quite expensive (think starting about $6k and wandering upwards). Manufacturers try to design lenses to meet a variety of needs, and typically most are sharpest when stopped down 1-2 stops. Your shot, above, is clearly out of focus. Although you don't use a tripod for personal reasons, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that when shooting handheld below 1/500 sec, unless you have VR, there is some minor movement of the camera, just from the blood pulsing thru your system which contributes just a little to unsharpness. I suspect if you do a thorough test of your lens, both manually and AF focusing, you will discover the root of the problem. But when you're testing....include a couple of shots stopped down 1-2 stops, and see if the improved sharpness is worth it to you. For one thing, modern lens designs attempt to incorporate a lot of various distortion corrections, but that is extremely difficult to accomplish across the board with the lenses wide open....that is usually when they are at their worst. Not knocking the manufacturers here, but by really knowing your gear and incorporating appropriate techinques to improve IQ of your shots, you can be rewarded with not only consistency, but also stellar results. </p>

[Bill C]

Karen, the point of doing TEST shots at f/5.6, or so, was to find how sharp your lens can be. This gives a baseline so you can compare how

close your lens comes to this wide open. If you're ok with the wide open shots, great! But if they were significantly less sharp, then you'd

know it might be worth looking for a different lens.

 

Here's a little info on the adjustment process:http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/af_microadjustment_article.shtml

I've never personally done it, but you MIGHT have an issue where it helps. If I were in your shoes, I'd compare results between auto focus

and manual (magnified live view); if the results are close enough, no need to go any farther. Where I came from, we had a large number of

cameras in use, so microadjust focus wouldn't have worked for us; we needed the ability to move lenses between cameras. (We would

have replaced gear if necessary, but this never became an issue for us.)

 

On a different topic, the tripod, shooting from one is a skill that you can learn, and if you're gonna make a living doing portraits, I think it's

worthwhile doing so. I've got about 50k portrait subjects under my belt, of the hi-volume sort (not school pics, though), done on 70mm long

roll film, HD tripod on ball casters, moving the tripod and refocusing on every shot.I can shoot people, especially kids, much faster and

more reliably that way than if I have my eye glued to the eyepiece. The main thing is that you can interact with the subject(s), walk up to

them and bak (without losing the framing and focus), and be looking directly at them when you shoot. (You use a remote trip control.) You

can train yourself to notice blinks, so you can reshoot without breaking the flow by having to look at the back of the camera.

[Ed_Ingold]

<blockquote>

<p>I was referring to the end product. Having to edit for the shortcomings of a photographer is evil. Even my wife learned to move in closer and stop zooming in on her phone. The benefits are instant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! In my years in the darkroom, I never dodged or burned, always used the full negative (or whatever fit on 8x10 paper), and never changed the timer. Life was so much simpler in the old days. Who needs a rangefinder? That's what the distance scale is for (and f/8).</p>

[emil_ems5]

<p>Edward,<br>

With due respect to your processing methods, permit me to point out that one of the greats, Ansel Adams, subjected his negatives to all kinds of after processing, like dodging, burning in etc. He considered the negative to be the score and the processing to be the actual music making. You can get results more to your liking by processing even optimal negatives! Don't overlook this opportunity!</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Your image can certainly be sharper with that camera.</p>

<p>My recipe:<br>

- Check your camera/lens. Shoot a running fence at an angle and see where the focus lies at maybe f/2. Or maybe a row of some cans. Look at the straight-out-of-camera jpg to make sure nothing in your processing is messing with the sharpness. (e.g. you might accidentally have the sharpen or clarity slider fuzzing your image.)<br>

- f/1.4 lenses aren't optimal at f/1.4; I shoot at f/2 or f/4 or f/5.6, depending. But, your's should be better at f/1.4.<br>

- Today's cameras are fine at ISO 800; you don't need wide open for a daylight shot<br>

- Half press and let the camera focus. I use continuous AF, so it will keep focusing. Shoot a burst; often the 2nd and 3rd shots will be sharper than the first. The usual advice: steady stance, elbows into the body, hold everything still and gently pull the shutter release down. <br>

- If in doubt, print and shoot an ISO 12233 chart; post a link here to the full image. </p>

[karenmorelandphotography]

<p>Thanks, Sebastian. I just checked my settings and my AF was set on one shot. I changed it to AI Servo, which honestly I didn't know what it was before now. It said in the pop up that it was for focusing on moving subjects. I do have my shutter set to continuous so that will help me perhaps get better shots between the two settings. I will definitely try that! I just did another shoot tonight with multiple subjects and set my aperture to f/5.6. I figured there's no point in trying to figure this out at the expense of the client anymore! Thanks for the tips everyone and I'll keep working at this!<br>

I also wanted to mention that I have been following the work of Jake Olson and in some of his tutorials he mentions that he shoots with one lens only, the 80mm f/1.2L and that he always shoots wide open and that when he is 15 feet away the plane of focus is about 3 feet deep. I told him the issue I was having with my lens and asked him if the secret was really in the more expensive lens and he assured me it absolutely was! So perhaps I'm buying a Kia and expecting it to drive like a Porche. </p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>Well, either you heard that wrong or Jack doesn't know what he's talking about. Using a full frame camera, the DOF at f/1.2 and 15 feet is measured in inches, 8 inches actually. There is either something wrong with your focusing methods or something wrong with the lens. (Plus the DOF issue.)<br>

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Karen, which f/1.4 lens do you have? If it's the Canon lens, you are probably in good shape. You have a 16MPx full frame body. You should be getting very sharp images.</p>

<p>80 f/1.2 is pretty exotic. And, he must be shooting very small groups! </p>

<p>Here's I quick group shot I just did for an event I attended -- Is this the kind of sharpness you are looking for? No setup, no prep, just a grab, with a medium-wide lens. At f/4, that keeps both rows of people adequately sharp. And, I did move in quite a bit closer than in your shot.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151211-Sample-GroupShot-DSC2280-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>and here's the 100% crop, good enough for this, and definitely not painterly, but could be better:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151211-Sample-GroupShot-DSC2280-ActualPixels.png" alt="" /> </p>

<p> This with a 24MPx Sony crop sensor camera, 35mm equiv lens (A6000, 24mm lens).</p>

<p> </p>