Yes, AGAIN the question arises..... Why Aren't My Images Crisp??

[klt]

<p>Let me apologize in advance for a lengthy post. But, this problem has been my nemesis....<br>

I am searching high and low for the answer to "Why are my images not crisp?" I have taken classes, sat through webinars, I have bought new lenses (4 of them recently), I have sent my Nikon D7200 in for repair (per suggestion of the camera shop referred by several professional photographers), I looked into having a professional photographer follow me around and tell me what I'm doing wrong (that's definitely not in my budget), and so here I am. My last effort to save the day. It's either I solve this problem or I'm going to put the camera up on a shelf and call it quits. Yes, I'm to that point.....<br>

My equipment consists of the following: Nikon D7200 (with new autofocus and updated firmware along with mirror adjustment per Cam Tech); Nikon Nikkor lenses -- 50mm fixed 1:1.6, 85mm fixed 1:1.6 (I have tried my kit lens 15-105mm and a Nikon VRI 70mm-200m f/2.6 with the same results). I do own more lenses, however, I did not use them on this trip.<br>

I took these images on 11/05/2016. The time of day was 3:30pm- 5pm. The images looked great on the camera display zoomed in at least 100%. I got all excited and uploaded the RAW/NEF files into Lightroom. I ALWAYS view them at 1:1 because somewhere along the way, I was told that if the images are clear at 100%, then it is good, if not great. So, being an over-achiever, I want at least good, but, really want great. Then, BOOM! All I saw was out of focus/grainy (not sure how else to describe it) images. I then looked at the JPEG files on whatever Windows viewer has to offer. The JPEG files were a little better, but, not enough to say, "Yes, I think I've got it!" I then sent off a whole pile of images to the local Walgreens just to get an idea of what they may possibly look like printed (didn't want to spend alot of money on mistakes). The printed images look a whole lot better. I have to admit, that I have seen some "Photographers" actually sell that type of quality. But, I want to improve my skills, not settle.<br>

So here are some of the images: http://www.photo.net/photos/klt <br>

<br />Here is the metadata for each image as well. No, I haven't learned the proper way to post images on this site's forums. So, bear with me, please. (It's my first day)<br>

Image 0072 -- ISO 320, 50mm fixed lens, f/5.0, 1/125sec<br>

Image 0095 -- ISO 400, 85mm fixed lens, f/4.5, 1/160sec<br>

Image 0134 -- ISO 320, 85mm fixed lens, f/1.8, 1/640sec<br>

Image 0237 -- ISO 200, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/200sec<br>

Image 0330 -- ISO 400, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/200sec (focus eye on your left)<br>

Image 0426 -- ISO 160, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/125sec (focus on baby's ear on your left in hope to address DOF issues since not all subjects were in a straight line)<br>

When I was shooting these images, I used AF-S, center weighted focal point set at 8pt. I set the autofocus "beep" on to make sure the camera was recognizing the subject as "in focus" and I didn't second guess myself. I did not use a speedlight. I did not use focus point wrap-around (truthfully, I'm not sure what that really is...). I did take a couple images on Auto to compare. There wasn't much difference. I took these in Aperture priority mode. My autofocus is set on Focus, not shutter button. However, I have in the past, had it on the shutter button with no difference.<br>

I apologize, once again, for a lengthy post. However, I am extremely grateful to any input on what in the world I could possible be doing wrong. I am use to constructive criticism and welcome it. That's truthfully a great learning experience. So, feel free to tell me honestly what you feel the problem is.<br>

Thank You!</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Kim-do you do any post processing of your images after you open them up in Lightroom?<br>

If you're not, then you might want to consider it-most images look better after a little 'tweaking'.<br>

I use Photoshop Elements and if there is one thing I do, it is to use the levels function as I find my<br>

images look a little dull after importing them into the computer.<br>

I imagine that Lightroom has a levels function or something similar; check it out and give it a<br>

try.<br>

There are also other things you can try such as Vibrancy in Camera RAW but levels is my own<br>

personal go-to control.<br>

cb :-)</p>

[blumesan]

<p>You seem to have accumulated a good bit of equipment (lenses), but the one item which might help to solve the problem is missing: a sturdy tripod. Camera movement, however slight, is often the culprit when ultra critical scrutiny shows the images not as "crisp" as one would like. To convince yourself, borrow a tripod if you can. Take shots both hand-held and with the tripod and compare.<br>

Remember that all raw images need some degree of sharpening to look their best. This is done automatically for most jpegs, and perhaps also by Walgreens.<br>

<br /> Note also that DOF issues won't be "addressed" by shooting at f/2.8<br /> Don't give up; keep trying.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>1st. download Capture NX-D http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/197/D7200.html and at least use it to convert the NEF files to Tiff or Jpeg. I have a D300 and my images look much better converted in NX-D than with Adobe products. I have PSCS5, I do not use lightroom.</p>

<p>Now lets talk Depth of Field. I'm assuming 10 feet subject distance. Using f/Calc online version<br>

https://fcalc.net/online/<br>

Img 072 dof for f5.6 is 9 ft to 11.25 ft barely enough to get the group of people.<br>

Img 095 dof is .6 feet barely enough to get the persons face in focus but auto focus appears to have locked on the boy's shirt.<br>

Img 134 dof is .24 feet, not enough to get one persons face in sharp focus let alone two.<br>

Img. 237 dof .377, not enough for the subject.<br>

Img 330 dof .377 too shallow for the figure<br>

Img. 426 dof .377 works only if the focus is on the child's face.</p>

[kerry_grim]

They do look sharp and probably would be a little sharper with a tripod. But I think the main thing is the

depth of field is very shallow at f2.8 and the lens may not be its sharpest at near maximum aperture

either. Use a tripod and shoot f8.

 

Don't necessarily believe the so called handheld rule that would suggest 1/100 second is acceptable for

sharpness of an 85mm lens. Even 1/200 might not be enough. But you need a tripod to prove that to

yourself.

 

However, as suggested, lack of apparent sharpness may be in processing so you need to share that

detail with us. Or, perhaps make the RAW file available and have someone process it to see the results.

 

Sometimes my pictures do not look very sharp. It is likely the monitor because when I process to be a

full screen background on my 21.5 monitor, much more detail is visible and they are extremely sharp.

[User_6502147]

<p>Yes, you probably could improve things if you are using higher ISO's and faster shutter (tripod is v. helpful too + a cable/wifi trigger release ). If that doesn't improve your photos, check all the lenses at a local shop....preferably on their camera. Other than that, your camera should be looked at by a Nikon tech.</p>

<p>Anyone who is proficient in D7200 should be able to narrow down what the issue is....and what can be done to correct it.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[klt]

<p>Wow! Thank All of you for quick responses and giving me great advice. I will definitely try your suggestions.<br>

<strong>Charles Becker - </strong>The images I posted on the photo.net url are <strong>not</strong> processed. I truly took them straight out of the camera and uploaded them from the SD card. The only thing that may possibly be processed is if the camera does something itself during compression, etc. I have played around in Lightroom with other images of mine. I tend to stay away from clarity, contrast and sharpening. I guess my reasoning is that I have heard of so many others using it and "overdoing it" which resulted in ruined images. It's my beginner mindset. I have a subscription to Adobe CC which includes Lightroom and Photoshop. I am still learning what Lightroom does and Photoshop looks very overwhelming at this point. I hope to get better with the whole processing. It's just a step by step method and I thought starting with my focusing would be the better way to go. However, if my focus is acceptable, then maybe my priority should be processing instead. I will definitely look into it. Thank you!</p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>What "mirror adjustment per Cam Tech" are you referring to? I don't think "adjusting" the mirror was the thing to do unless that was something Nikon repair did. You have not mentioned doing AF Fine Tune on your lenses. You can adjust the camera all you want but until you tune each lens to your camera you're not going to accomplish anything.</p>

[johnkenthill]

<p>I think a little post processing is the ticket. I usually do some sharpening on all my images. I definitely do some sharpening if I create a sized (smaller) image for posting. I always keep my original images as is, then save any post-processed images as a copy. You got this! </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>All good ideas from everybody. I would add/reinforce a few ideas: Use smaller f stop when shooting a group in order to get more depth of focus, but use a high enough iso to have a sufficient shutter speed when hand holding a telephoto lens, as Leszek points out. Looking at a 100% image will often seem somewhat soft and grainy, but remember, unless you are printing at 16 x 20 inches, images will become sharper when resized smaller. Try using your raw files in adobe camera raw and save to jpg. There you can do some sharpening (looking at the image at 100%). I use a D7100 and with all my very good lenses I usually sharpen some. In adobe camera raw you can do fine adjusting on the colors, shadow and highlight detail, etc. I usually tweak virtually every photo I take. Please check out my folders here.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Hi Kim - I agree with most of the other comments. The sweet spot of your 2.8 lenses is probably not 2.8 - but more like 4.0-5.6, where you should see optical improvement. Unless you are dealing with a highly corrected professional lens optimized to shoot wide open, better results are often obtained when closed down a stop or two. Faster shutter speeds make sense as does a tripod, unless you plan to effectively use strobes to "stop movement". My last comment is that viewing the files at 100% will invariably lead to disappointment unless you move yourself the proper distance from the computer. I suggest a simple test - bring a photo into your choice of post processing software, resize the picture to fill your screen, apply auto levels to see what the effect is on colors as well as contrast & brightness will be, if you like it keep it, if not move the sliders around a little, then apply sharpness...about 20% of the lower end of the scale. If that provides an improved image you just have proven to yourself that you need to experiment a little with post processing to achieve the results you want, and good luck - it is a learning adventure, don't give up. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I'm looking at 0426 right now and have to second Mike above. 1/125sec handheld with a 85mm lens on a DX sensor is more "camera shake prone" than "safe". Just a bit of arguing to support that: In the old days we learned to forget anything below 1/focal length in mm for handholding <em>to gain a </em><em><strong>somewhat</strong></em><em> presentable 3x6" print</em> from 35mm film. - The other opinion was to "weld" the shutter speed dial on 1/250 sec, because anything less isn't really handholdable. (Talking about standard lenses here! 35mm for your DX camera.) That means the 85mm shouts for 1/focal length x crop factor x 2 (01/500sec) for really safe handholding for pixelpeeping sharpness or 1/ focal length x crop factor (= 1 /125 sec) as absolute minimum shutter speed for spray & pray or 4x6" prints.<br>

What are the workarounds? - VR lenses do the job frequently. - An alternative to gain crisp images is to use flash / strobes. Even fill flash should help, by freezing things partially. And yes, tripods... You could also experiment with putting your camera in continous mode and hoping that the 2nd or 3rd frame of a short burst is sharper than the first.<br>

If I look at pros at work, I get the feeling: They usually bring their own light. - All those old street photographers with a hotshoe flash in their left hand. - I suppose most of that is to eleminate hints of camera shake. Making one's own overcast day with diffuser skirms or tents is probably not much different. Before you give up entirely dive into the Strobist blog and get some inspiration on portable budged lighting. - Although tripods were mentioned before, I question my ability to convince anybody (myself included!) to lug one around. In the borderline shutterspeed range we are currently talking about monopods and maybe even gunstock like camera braces might give a little advantage and are at least more convenient to carry.<br>

This stuff takes learning, practise and trial and error. - Its a good idea to test one's handholding abilities standing, crouched at various pulse rates and coffee tides once on a static subject and set exposure automatic like auto ISO or aperture accordingly all the time.<br>

I also recommend consulting a DOF calculator. At 2m your 85mm produces 6cm DOF at f2.8. - That is not much! - I can not comment on AF accuracy, since my primary camera has none but to say things simple: a sensor can be a tad off related to it's marking on your focusing screen, it can be a tad off compared to the lens sensor distance and if you use focus and recompose at wide open apertures you and your subject are likely to move in between. - I think your camera came with an option to do AF fine tuning for lenses? - Search for manuals and try your luck... Its unlikely that the repair shop you sent it to calibrated it to <em>your</em> 85mm lens, if you didn't send that along. <br>

0072 looks crisp to me. If junior's head isn't - you have more pixels than I am seeing - I'd blame AF spot selection and again handholding: 1/250 would have been safer.<br>

0237 I suppose no chance at all DOF wise? <br>

0095 looks reasonably sharp to me. - I'd suspect handholding and recommend more light.<br>

0134 What do you expect from a wide open lens? At photonet resolution I see reasonable sharpness somewhere. <br>

In general: DxOmark rate your 85mm lens at 17P-MP the 50mm at 15 P-MP. Your camera is 24MP so at pixelpeeping level there will be a gap. - Does it matter? - Megapixels are meant to be eaten by denoising raised ISO settings, perspective correction in post processing and anti aliasing filters in camera. You end with an image printable up to a certain size. - Either its big enough or maybe time to consider a drastic upgrade which would make you even more tripod and flash dependent. <br>

Before you spend another ton on equipment try closing up as a workaround, to use megapixels at hand for the important part of the subject. It also makes aligning eyes and AF spots easier when they appear a bit bigger in your VF.<br>

Try to change your shooting style. - Nail a few basic keepers at a safe aperture by hook or by crook be it with VR zooms or flashes before you dare the artsy stuff wide open. Playing "available light desperado" with barely handholdable shutter speeds and wide open fast lenses gets you maybe 5% keepers on a great day. <br>

Were the great artists' shots as sharp as you are demanding yours to be? - Its fine to be one's own worst critic but after a while you might grow an eye for "good enough". </p>

[johne37179]

<p>Have you done the fine focus adjusting for each of those lenses? The camera records and adjusts the focus for each lens. I know that with my D7000 I had two lenses that required no adjustment and two that did.<br>

https://photographylife.com/how-to-quickly-test-your-dslr-for-autofocus-issues</p>

<p> </p>

[klt]

<p>Thank all of you for your great suggestions. I planned on replying to each one of you separately. However, due to Photo.net's policy, I am a new subscriber and I am only permitted two posts per day..........<br>

<strong>Mike Blume--</strong> Great idea! I never even considered using a tripod because I heard somewhere that hand held is typically done anywhere greater or equal to 1/60sec. Thus, I felt I would be okay. However, your suggestion makes complete sense and I'm going to give it a try. Thank you for your help and support. As far as DOF, I will be working on that as well. I guess I was wanting it all. And, maybe it's still a little early for that right now:)<br>

<strong>Charles Monday -- </strong>Thank you so much for the info. You brought up a good point. After viewing my images, I wondered if distance of lens to subject might have been my problem. Now that I see your calculations, it definitely is a contributor. Thank you for including the link to the calculator. I will be putting that in my "toolbox". I will also look into the file conversions you suggested. I do have a question... Once I convert the files to TIFF or JPEG, will it affect the post-processing? <br>

<strong>Kerry Grim -- </strong>I am going to definitely attempt the tripod idea. I did not post-process the images that I posted on photo.net. Thank you for the point of the hand held rule. I sometimes take things literally and need to learn to play around a little more to see what works. Other times, I get so wrapped up in two things and I forget the third and even the most import aspect of the situation. I'm hoping that comes with more experience and practice.<br>

<strong>Leszek Vogh --</strong> I will be bumping up my ISO and shutter speed. I will trying out the tripod too. As far as the lenses, I tried them on one of their new cameras at the shop and they performed well. So, I thought I was safe. Thank you for you suggestions.<br>

<strong>Alan Olander -- </strong>When I sent my camera to Nikon to be repaired, they outsourced it to a company named Cam Tech. I guess they are a certified repair center for Nikon on the East Coast. The work that was supposedly done on the camera: Repaired the AF unit; adjusted the AF operation; adjusted the mirror angle; checked communication; modified firmware upgrade; cleaned the CCD; and checked the general check and clean. Due to extreme lack of communication with Cam Tech (which Nikon is aware of), I'm not sure why exactly or what exactly they found and felt the need to do these things. But, that's another story and definitely water under the bridge. I will definitely take your suggestion and fine tune my lenses. I asked the camera shop that exact question and they told me it was not necessary for every lens I purchase, only if I seem to have trouble with it. So, I wasn't sure if it was me or the lens. However, I will definitely revisit that idea. Thank you.<br>

<strong>John Kent Hill -- </strong>I am definitely going to try some post processing today. Great idea to create copies of different sized images. Thank you for the encouragement!<br>

<strong>Steve Murray -- </strong>Thank you for the suggestions. I was wondering what the images would look like in an 8x10 or slightly larger. I will be looking into the adobe camera raw. I believe I get that with the adobe cc. I will look you up on Photo.net since I didn't see a link at the end of your post. Thank you!</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I will be looking into the adobe camera raw. I believe I get that with the adobe cc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's the same raw processor as Lightroom, no need for that.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>I took one of your photos and did a little processing on it. I used Adobe camera raw but Lightroom would be the same. To add to what everyone else has said here I would suggest trying a small softbox as a fill light to get some light in the eyes. You can buy them made for speedlights and they are very effective and may allow you use a smaller f-stop. You could experiment with an off camera flash and a home made bounce card also. As far as what I did to your photo I added a little exposure, contrast, clarity up to around 60 and used the adjustment brush to lighten the eyes. I used unsharp mask in Photoshop and sharpened the whole photo. You can use sharpen in Lightroom. The photo is still not as sharp as it should be so stay away from f-2.8.</p><div></div>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Kim, I do not have the same camera as you but I think the D7200 is a good performer at 800 ISO and probably up to 2400 ISO. This link is to a Dpreview page where you can change the speed and look at the results. Even after incorporating the techniques suggested by PN members you may have to sharpen a little in post.<br>

Good luck,</p> https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/12

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>. Once I convert the files to TIFF or JPEG, will it affect the post-processing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the tiff or jpeg from any raw converter can be edited the same as if it were saved as tiff or jpeg.<br>

Here is a sample taken with my D300, 60mm f2.8 macro lens at f8, 1/400 shutter, aperture priority, ISO 400.<br>

The left side is Capture NX-D set to 300dpi resolution 350 pixels wide, the right side is Adobe camera raw conversion in CS5 with no editing in camera raw then reduced in pixel width to 350 wide. Adobe camera raw saved it at 240dpi resolution. I could edit in Adobe camera raw an equal NX-D but why spend the extra time?</p>

<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> 300dpi resolution... 240dpi resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Completely irrelevant. dpi has nothing to do with how these display.</p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>No, the tiff or jpeg from any raw converter can be edited the same as if it were saved as tiff or jpeg.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beg to differ. A jpeg can only be saved at 8 bits. Tiff file can be saved at 16 bits. That difference alone can have a significant effect on your flexibility in editing. If you intend to do any post processing, do so on the raw file in any application which handles raw files.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>If you set the camera to save the image either as Tiff or as Jpeg then the edit range of those files will be no different than a converted raw file to either of those formats.<br>

I save as raw, convert to tiff for editing then duplicate, convert to 8 bit and save as jpeg if a jpeg is needed or convert raw to jpeg if I'm only going to post it on the web. <br>

The difference between 240dpi and 300dpi may be insignificant but it does show one of the differences between the two converters.</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Kim, to look at people's folders here on photo.net, just click on their names!</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The difference between 240dpi and 300dpi may be insignificant but it does show one of the differences between the two converters.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

No, it's completely irrelevant. A file at 300x200 at 1dpi is the same as a file at 300x200 at 10000000dpi.

 

[klt]

<p>So, here it is, my second and last allowable post of the day. That's why I waited to see what everyone was going to say:)<br>

Wow! Lots of info I still need to learn. I think for now, I'm going to stick with post-processing in RAW since that's what I've known so far and it's straight from the camera. That's not to say that I won't try TIFF, I'm just not familiar with it, other than it's considered to be "lossless". I am somewhat familiar with JPEG compression and it is not what the engineers call "lossless". No, I'm not an engineer. Far from it! But, I did work with one who taught me alot about compression. I'll be looking into that a little more eventually.<br>

<strong>Stephen Lewis --</strong> The info regarding my 85mm lens being better at a certain aperture is great to know. Is there a resource available for such info regarding specific lenses. Or, is it one of those things you obtain through experience and trial/error? I'm going to a 2 day course on Lightroom which hopefully will help with my post-processing. So far, what little knowledge I have of it has been self taught through the Adobe tutorials and a book I'm reading on it. This class is hands-on and hopefully will help make things more clear for me.<br>

<strong>Jochen Schrey -- </strong>Thank you! I have heard the rule of Shutter Speed needing to equal 1/focal length x crop factor (in my case 1.3). Thus, I thought I was safe. However, I did not know to double it.You provided alot of info to consider and I greatly appreciate it. Also, thank you for providing me with tools to work with and giving the perspective that I may be asking for too much at this point. I need a dose of good reality at times:)<br>

<strong>E.J. --</strong> No, I have not performed the fine-focus of each lens at this time. I was originally told that I didn't need to do that with newly purchased lenses. However, you have changed my mind that it's something I should at least try. This way I truly can't blame my equipment :) I also copied your link for future reference!<br>

<strong>John Crowe -- </strong> I have to admit, you made my image look so much better with your post-processing. I can't believe it was something that I took. I really appreciate you showing me what it can look like and you shared the info of what you did. Thank you! I'm inspired to try it myself and see what I can come up with. Also, thank you for all of the great ideas. Once I get the A, S, and use of a tripod down and results are much better, I'd like to take a course on lighting. Any suggestions??<br>

<strong>Randy Cooprider --</strong> I have been told that the D7200 does well at higher ISO. However, I have not had good luck with higher ISO. Of course, it most likely was my technique and settings, knowing what you all have taught me now. Thus, I will revisit this idea as well.<br>

<strong>Steve Murray -- </strong>How did you know that I needed simple info like that for photo.net :) Thanks!<br>

I will be working on my post-processing over the next day or two. And, will go out and shoot some more. I am excited to try the techniques you all suggested. I'm learning that I need to go back to baby steps first, then build on them. I do want you all to know, that I was hesitant to post on this forum. I wasn't sure if I'd get any feedback at all. And once I did, I couldn't believe how supportive, constructive and feasible it is for me to use. You all have given me hope that maybe my goals are achievable in the future with practice, trial/error, and dedication.Thank you!</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm going to stick with post-processing in RAW since that's what I've known so far and it's straight from the camera. That's not to say that I won't try TIFF, I'm just not familiar with it,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I strongly advise not to edit your original RAW file, duplicate it or convert to TIFF. You may want to revisit the image at a later date and edit it differently. You will not be able to go back to the camera original once you have changed it and saved the changes. RAW files are limited to the original equipment software or limited third party software.<br>

RAW files saved will remain unchanged regardless how many times you open and close them unless you edit them and save the edit. TIFF files are recognized by a large verity of programs including office programs and remain unchanged regardless of how many times you open and close them except when edited and the edit saved. Jpeg files will change each time you close them however minuscule and that will show up after multiple open and close cycles. They are good for emails and web postings, not archival storage.</p>

<p>The general rule of thumb is that a lens is at its sharpest 2 stops down from its widest aperture. To the best of my knowledge this applies to all lens regardless of format or recording medium. I will become more versed in digital when someone gives me a new D5 or I can afford a capture back for my 4x5 format cameras. <br>

</p>