View Full Version : Soft pictures? (10D)
johnmate
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 12:35
Three weeks ago I bought the 10D. And I must say a really impressive camera.
But I have a question. Most of the pictures I took until now are in my opinion a little soft. Of course I am just starting with shooting digital with an SLR (used the G2 for two years) and the lens I am using is nothing special (Canon 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 II) but I am curious what you think.
Example:
http://www.mateboer.com/digitalgallery/21temp/eos.jpg
100%, no resizing (piece of original)
Exposure time 1/250 s
F-number 9.5
ISO speed ratings 100
I have set the sharpen parameter to +1. The focus was on this boat.
What do you think about this picture? Or am I being to critical (or doing something wrong :eyes)?
Derek Smith
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 13:00
Hi Johnmate,
try this thread,
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21825#127319
iwatkins
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 13:41
johnmate wrote:
What do you think about this picture? Or am I being to critical (or doing something wrong :eyes)?
Nothing wrong as such. Just needs a little unsharp mask to sharpen the image up. This is normal on the 10D (and most high end dSLRs)
Example posted below. Quality will suck a little as I had to do it on the JPG but you get the idea.
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/example.jpg
Cheers
Ian
defordphoto
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 14:14
Setting white point and black point in PS would also perk it up. It kinda has a haze to it.
Johnmate: Pro-style dSLRs do usually require some post processing. You'll leanr this as you learn the camera. You're not doing anything wrong.
Of course, kicking up your lens collection a couple of notches would make all the difference in thw world. These digital cameras will expose any and all flaws in the lesser quality lenses.
johnmate
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 14:45
I took the original and did some Unsharp Mask.
http://www.mateboer.com/digitalgallery/21temp/full.jpg
defordphoto
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 14:59
The one thing you want to be careful about is not not oversharpen too much. Much of the time we see photos on the Net that have way, way too much sharpening in them. Hitting white/black point, perking the color saturation a notch or two and some gentle USM will creata an awesome photo.
You last picture here looks fine, except I'd kick the white and black point at it. I don't have time to do it now, but will tackle it a little later.
You're doing fine. Do not get over obsessed with sharpening. It'll ruin your photos.
EXA1a
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 15:16
RFMSports wrote:
Of course, kicking up your lens collection a couple of notches would make all the difference in the world. These digital cameras will expose any and all flaws in the lesser quality lenses.
That's the point! Your 10D has a much higher potential than the Canon 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 II lens. We all had to learn that lesson. Get a cheap 50/1.8 or a 50/1.4 lens (or some expensive L glass) and you'll see the difference.
--Jens--
johnmate
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 15:23
EXA1a wrote:
That's the point! Your 10D has a much higher potential than the Canon 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 II lens. We all had to learn that lesson. Get a cheap 50/1.8 or a 50/1.4 lens (or some expensive L glass) and you'll see the difference.
--Jens--
Jens,
The 28-80mm was the lens from my 'old' EOS 300. And my pocket was empty after buying the 10D... :(
Now the stupid questions...
What is exactly the point? Is the 1.8 or 1.4 doing the trick? And why 50mm? Or is it just the lens itself?
EXA1a
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 15:30
johnmate wrote:
EXA1a wrote:
That's the point! Your 10D has a much higher potential than the Canon 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 II lens. We all had to learn that lesson. Get a cheap 50/1.8 or a 50/1.4 lens (or some expensive L glass) and you'll see the difference.
--Jens--
Jens,
The 28-80mm was the lens from my 'old' EOS 300. And my pocket was empty after buying the 10D... :(
Now the stupid questions...
What is exactly the point? Is the 1.8 or 1.4 doing the trick? And why 50mm? Or is it just the lens itself?
Normally, you pay much money for excellent quality lenses. The 50/1.8 is an example of a very inexpensive lens with a very high optical quality. If you can afford $60-70, you will see what your 10D is capable of. And it's a great low-light lens, a great portrait lens, a great develop-your-photography-skills lens.
--Jens--
defordphoto
29th of December 2003 (Mon), 18:28
Well, with a little creative processing, you can even make that dingy shot sharp, crisp and bright. How's that look?
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/MiscPhotos/full.jpg
J.A.F. Doorhof
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 02:33
Way too harsch my friend :D.
Sorry.
Try the following.
Make a seperate layer.
Filter it with highpass.
Unsharpen mask with 500% 1.9 pixel
Than select soft light in the layer menu
Play with the transparancy
And see a perfect sharpened picture without the awfull artifacts.
Greetings,
Frank
defordphoto
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 06:52
I know it's a little harsh. I spent like 10 seconds on it. It wasn't my photo so I was just showing that you can make drastic changes and get rid of that brownish cast over the photo.
Show us your version.
johnmate
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 07:00
Thank you guys for your advice and work. :)
Besides the optimizing in Photoshop I think I have to look out for another lens.
Jens suggested a cheap 50mm lens. Sigma?, Canon?
defordphoto
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 07:08
johnmate wrote:
Thank you guys for your advice and work. :)
Besides the optimizing in Photoshop I think I have to look out for another lens.
Jens suggested a cheap 50mm lens. Sigma?, Canon?
Yeah. Start with the inexpensive, but extremely sharp 50mm f1.8. They're like $70.
J.A.F. Doorhof
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 10:03
RFMsport please don't take it personal, it was not meant that way.
This is my attempt, the resolution is poor so I could not get what I wanted.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~itc/fotos/full.jpg
Greetings,
Frank
defordphoto
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 11:23
Nahhh...I didn't take it personal at all, Frank. We're both working with a lo-res, already processed photo so the results will pretty much suck anyway. :) In your version I still say that white point needs to be set. It looks drab.
Anyway, the goal is to show you, John, the different impact you can have on your photos and the many, many different approaches that can be taken to improve the look of your photos.
In the end it's up to you what workflow you use. Everyone has their own methods and there is no wrong or right method, there is only your method.
J.A.F. Doorhof
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 11:38
Thank God you didn't take it personal :D.
I loved the slightly warm look, my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 also has a slight warm tone and when setting the white level correct the pictures are sometimes just cold :D.
Personal taste indeed, it could benefit from a bit.
Greetings,
Frank
Mikesht
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 11:41
Let me ask you a dumber question yet:
How do you insert your picture in your answer here?
Thank you
Mike
defordphoto
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 11:50
Mikesht wrote:
Let me ask you a dumber question yet:
How do you insert your picture in your answer here?
Thank you
Mike
Go up the very top of this screen and click on "help."
Mikesht
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 12:38
I went there and read. I understand that I have to copy a code into a body of message, but what do I put for the address of my picture?
Thank you.
vsolanoy
30th of December 2003 (Tue), 17:39
I have to second the opinion of getting the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens. It's permanently affixed to my 10D simply because the lens results in awsome photos. I too have been using the 28-80mm lens since I have the Rebel 2000. The 28-80mm lens isn't bad, but the color and contrast that result are not as good as the inexpensive 50mm lens.
I did notice that with suficient natural light, th3 28-50mm lens is capable of producing excellent photos... despite what I've been reading not just here, but on some of the other boards I've perused.
I was a little frustrated because of the level of postprocessing I had to do with the 10D photos, but I realized that the camera captured much more detail than my G3 because it does less processing. My G3 produces that trademark "Kodak" look -- high contrast and saturation. By playing with the custom settings, I can achieve similar results, while retaining a "professional" look to the photos and found that different settings really impacts the feel of the photos...
With that saidI'm still learning the camera (have had it for 2 weeks now)...
Victor
johnmate
31st of December 2003 (Wed), 01:23
Just ordered the Canon EF 50/1.8 II.
Some other reviews of this lens also told me that this lens made sharp pictures for a good price.
Thanks again to everybody for there lens and photoshop advice.
Will post some pictures with the new lens soon!
Everybody a happy new year!!!
Greets,
Jan
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.