Soft images on the 10D - What do I do?

[steffen]

:?:
I have recently purchased a Canon 10D and have been very disappointed with the images.

The images appear to be very soft/ unfocused and almost have a grayish haze over them - I have experienced this while shooting in Auto as well as P mode. The Camera has been set in the default settings.

Should I be trying to send the camera back to canon or am I doing something wrong.

I am Have used both the Sigma 17-35mm and Canon 28 - 105 lenses.

Your help would be much appreciated.


Thanks


Steffen

[ssim]

When I got my 10D my first images had a very blueish cast to them. Other than that they weren't overly sharp but generally satisfied.

First thing I did was to reboot the camera. Go to your menu settings and it says something along the lines of "clear all camera settings", this got rid of the blueish cast. After much playing around I found out that I had inadvertently set the camera to use a custom AWB and that was the cause of the color cast.

All digital images are subject to some post-processing sharpening. I'm not sure if that is all that is needed in your case. Maybe you could post an example or two. Generally speaking the more you pay for your glass the better the quality. Yep, here is comes, the infamous L word. I was in such a haste to get lenses that I bought a couple of cheaper Canon lenses and paid the price in quality. I then made the conscious decision that if I was paying that much for a body then I would only put Canon glass on it and the best they could provide. That's why I have ended up with a series of L class lenses, all Canon. Upon acquiring the last of my lenses I took the whole lot to the Canon service center and had them calibrate them which they did for nothing.

[scottbergerphoto]

Images right out of the 10D all need some tweaking. That's true of all DSLR's. If you do a search above on "soft images" you'll find your not the first person to ask.
Scott

[Osmer Toby]

i think your problem might be the the type of file you are shooting in- in your menu on the camera, change file type to RAW- you are probably shooting in JPEG mode- this causes the poor quality. RAW will give you much better pictures, believe me. takes a few more steps to get to final print, well worth the time and effort. 10d nothing more than expensive piece of glass when shooting in jpeg mode.

[slin100]

It's a bit misleading to blame the poor results on JPEG.

It's very well known that the 10D produces soft images. Canon has admitted that this was intentional, so you either have to post-sharpen in Photoshop or bump up the sharpness setting in the camera.

Regarding the flatness of the images, many have noticed this, as well. Again, you can adjust it in Photoshop or you can bump up the contrast setting in the camera. A very popular Photoshop technique that often produces very nice results is local contrast enhancement. Read about it here (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml) at Luminous Landscape (http://luminous-landscape.com).

[Osmer Toby]

i still contend that shooting in jpeg gives sub-par results. if he is not shooting RAW, that's his first step and may find that these other steps are not necessary.

[slin100]

There's no question that RAW will give you the absolute best results, but dismissing jpeg is going too far. There are several RAW vs jpeg threads in the 10D forum at http://www.robgalbraith.com that have demonstrated that jpeg can produce excellent results. In fact, one photographer over there is a staunch believer in the capabilities of jpeg and has displayed the images to prove it.

Personally, I have tried RAW, and still find that sharpening and contrast enhancement are usually necessary.

[w10d]

10d nothing more than expensive piece of glass when shooting in jpeg mode.

What does this mean? (just curious)...

[Double Diamond]

Based on this discussion thought you all might find this of some interest.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

[w10d]

thought you all might find this of some interest.


Interesting, no - but very, very funny. I especially liked: "RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for."

:lol:

[Pekka]

Based on this discussion thought you all might find this of some interest.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

"Prolific shooters shoot JPG because time is money and we are able to get things right the first time."

Yeah, right. First, it is "profilic", second, JPG is a print, RAW is step BEFORE negative. What Rockwell is saying is pros throw away the neg and just keep the prints because pro's are so competent? The article is full of similar nonsense.

About the initial question on this thread: to see what the problem is I would like to see some original shots with EXIF data.

[Canuck]

Take harder pics!!! LOL!!! :)

Ok, really it has been covered in previous posts and I was after a laugh.

[robertwgross]

Yeah, right. First, it is "profilic", second, JPG is a print, RAW is step BEFORE negative.

I think Rockwell did mean "prolific", and that was obvious in his text.

JPG is not a print at all. JPG is a digital file format that has nothing to do with the print process.

RAW is another digital file format that our Canon cameras use, and it is easiest to think about it as being equivalent to a digital negative. That is easy for me to say, because I never alter my RAW files. I convert my RAW files into TIF files or maybe later to JPG files. For me, calling a RAW file as being a digital negative works accurately. I recognize that others alter a RAW file.

I did not agree with everything that Rockwell said in his text, but then, I don't agree with lots of things that are posted on the web.

---Bob Gross---

[w10d]

I never alter my RAW files. I convert my RAW files into TIF files or maybe later to JPG files. For me, calling a RAW file as being a digital negative works accurately. I recognize that others alter a RAW file.

What software can you use to alter a RAW file, and what can it alter?

[Tom W]

:?:
I have recently purchased a Canon 10D and have been very disappointed with the images.

The images appear to be very soft/ unfocused and almost have a grayish haze over them - I have experienced this while shooting in Auto as well as P mode. The Camera has been set in the default settings.

Should I be trying to send the camera back to canon or am I doing something wrong.

I am Have used both the Sigma 17-35mm and Canon 28 - 105 lenses.

Your help would be much appreciated.


Thanks


Steffen

I guess I have to ask; what are you viewing them on and what are you comparing them to? There's a couple of reasons that I ask. I find that my 10D produces very natural images, but I'm viewing them on a pretty good monitor. Unprocessed, they aren't quite as "vivid" as those from my S-400, but they are much more realistic in most cases.

As others have pointed out here, Canon does give you plenty of leeway to make adjustments after shooting, rather than having the camera do much of the sharpening and contrast boost prior to your seeing the image (as is more often the case with P&S cameras where the users aren't as apt to work with the images). That gives you some precise control over those factors.

BTW, you do have a range of adjustment in the camera - it wouldn't hurt to experiment with the various color, contrast, and sharpness settings to see which you prefer.

[robertwgross]

I never alter my RAW files.

What software can you use to alter a RAW file, and what can it alter?

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

Technically JPEG is NOT a photo format. It is a compression format, though it is used as a file/photo format these days.

Think of JPEG as a slide and RAW as a negative, but RAW is really one step BEFORE a negative in relation to film.

One of the biggest problems new dSLR users have when coming from point and shooters is the seemingly flat photos they produce. That applies to ANY dSLR, not just Canon products or the 10D in this case.

The camera is set from the factory to have little or no processing done in the camera. Also as said before this was designed into the cameras as most dSLR are more serious photographers than P&S users and want more say over the final output.

There are some settings you can change on the camera IF you want in-camera processing. Most of us set our cameras flat and then process afterward to our liking as every photo requires special treatment in our world.

Just like the audiophile will record their music on the flat side and let the buyer of the music have their choice of enhancement for their particular tastes, Canon has done that for all their dSLRs and we thank them every day for that. I would not be buying Canon equipment if they forced processing on me.

To say that JPEG produces an inferior photo is just being plain naive. Some of the best photography you'll see on the Net and now even in some magazines was shot JPEG first. I use both formats (yeah I know, I am calling JPEG a format) equally and they both have their place. To shoot ONLY JPEG or RAW is also naive as there are many instances where you can save yourself time using the JPEG format and other times where shooting RAW is best. That's a personal choice and to tell anyone that either format is right or wrong is well....wrong.

And in spite of what some other people say you CAN post process a JPEG and re-compress it with marvelous, printable, enlargeable results!

And not knowing what settings Steffen had on the camera all we can do it throw darts at what is wrong. I can be white balance. It can be bad glass, incorrect focus point or (what I'll guess) is just a new dSLR owner that needs a little guidance into their new world that we are all familiar with.

Can you post a photo sample with EXIF information attached to the JPEG, Steffen?

[w10d]

I recognize that others alter a RAW file.


But how? If you recognize they're doing it, what are they doing, retouching? Changing the EXIF data? Can you give me a clue what you meant???

[Tom W]

I recognize that others alter a RAW file.


But how? If you recognize they're doing it, what are they doing, retouching? Changing the EXIF data? Can you give me a clue what you meant???

Well, with the File View Utility software that is supplied with the 10D, you can adjust exposure compensation (+/- 2 stops in 0.1 stop increments), color saturation (in 5 increments), color cast or tint (5 increments), contrast (5 increments), sharpness (5 increments), and color balance (all the presets that the camera provides plus custom). Note that "camera settings" is the default for each adjustment when you open each file, and that the camera default is the center setting on color, contrast and such and "Auto" on the White Balance.

In other words, I believe that all or most of the adjustments that you can make in-camera are available after the shot in the File View Utility software. These changes can be made prior to saving as a TIFF or JPEG file with no loss in the original picture fidelity.

I'm a little less experienced in this post-processing game, but I've had good results making preliminary adjustments (especially color balance) in RAW with the File View software, then converting to JPEG and making final changes with Photoshop Elements. I'll graduate to TIFF some day soon.

[w10d]

These changes can be made prior to saving as a TIFF or JPEG file with no loss in the original picture fidelity.

Thanks, but AFAIK there is no way of re-saving a modified RAW back into the RAW format with Canon's FVU, (or Adobe Camera RAW). I don't know of any way to modify a RAW without then saving a new file in another format, so I wondered what Robert was refering to.

I believe ACR saves any modifications made to a RAW file's settings in a seperate location, always maintaining the original data in the RAW file, so I was wondering what people use to modify RAW files...

[Andy_T]

Thanks, but AFAIK there is no way of re-saving a modified RAW back into the RAW format with Canon's FVU, (or Adobe Camera RAW). I don't know of any way to modify a RAW without then saving a new file in another format, so I wondered what Robert was refering to.


Why would you want to do that ??? ?

I think there's a misunderstanding based on the wording 'modify raw images' ...

I'm guessing now, but what the original poster might have meant could be


When you create JPG/TIF/... files from your RAW files by converting them, you have the possibility to modify the settings , e.g. exposure, sharpness, whitebelance etc. without losing quality. You can't do that with a JPG file, as these settings are already done in the camera

Regards,
Andy

[w10d]

Why you might want to do it doesn't really matter, perhaps you've taken a great self portrait, but you have a big red spot on the end of your nose and don't want your grand children to discover the RAW file, and see your spotty face.... (assuming they can even open it). Maybe you want to fake the EXIF data...whatever.

Point is, I didn't think it was possible, but Robert's post seemed to suggest it is, so I'd like to know how. Just want to learn.

I think there's a misunderstanding based on the wording 'modify raw images' ...

I'm guessing now, but what the original poster might have meant could be


When you create JPG/TIF/... files from your RAW files by converting them, you have the possibility to modify the settings , e.g. exposure, sharpness, whitebelance etc. without losing quality. You can't do that with a JPG file, as these settings are already done in the camera

Regards,
Andy :wink: :wink:

Yes, but he said 'I convert my RAW files into TIF files or maybe later to JPG files. For me, calling a RAW file as being a digital negative works accurately. I recognize that others alter a RAW file.'

So he is doing that, but seems to suggest that others can 'alter' - rather than convert - the RAW file itself.

[defordphoto]

But, anyway, Steffen, does any of the above suggestions (before the thread got terribly off-topic) make sense to you? Please let us know as you have one of the most color accurate cameras on the planet and they are all capable of producing top-notch photos.

Let us know if we can help further.

[Pekka]

Yeah, right. First, it is "profilic", second, JPG is a print, RAW is step BEFORE negative.

I think Rockwell did mean "prolific", and that was obvious in his text.

My mistake, did not know such a word existed - I'm a Finn after all :)

JPG is not a print at all. JPG is a digital file format that has nothing to do with the print process.

RAW is another digital file format that our Canon cameras use, and it is easiest to think about it as being equivalent to a digital negative. That is easy for me to say, because I never alter my RAW files. I convert my RAW files into TIF files or maybe later to JPG files. For me, calling a RAW file as being a digital negative works accurately. I recognize that others alter a RAW file.

I refer JPEG as a print because to it the camera has FIXED the white balance, tonal curve, color space, amount of bits per channel, sharpening, NR, and every other manipulation the camera has to offer. It's "burned" into the file and that's it.

Why RAW is a step BEFORE being an equivalent of film "negative": RAW contains sensor data. It is not developed in camera in any way, bit amount is not specified, color space is not specified, sharpening or curves are not specified. You decide everything after shooting, while sitting comfortable in your office with big screen.

I just wonder why wouldn't anyone consider a file format like RAW a big advantage, especially when working professionally? Instead - merely on speed reasons take lossy format 8 bit photos in sRGB? If one works professionally he can surely invest some to RAM and CPU speed - meager investment compared to lenses and cameras.


I did not agree with everything that Rockwell said in his text, but then, I don't agree with lots of things that are posted on the web.

---Bob Gross---

Quite ok to me. This is not "mutual agreement" forum - everyone has right to an opinion and freedom of speech.

[Jim_T]

"Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?"

"Umm, no Jack, I really haven't given it much thought"

"Because I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids".

Jack D. Ripper from the Stanly Kubrick' move, Dr. Strangelove

-------

I do get amazed at how some people embrace RAW with almost a religous zeal. "There CANNOT under ANY circumstances or for ANY reason be any other way of shooting". I shoot RAW, the rabble shoots JPEG because they're happy with garbage".

Unfortunately it's like discussing politics.. There'll never be a consensus :)

I shoot both RAW and JPEG.. Depends how many shots I take in an outing.. If I'm going to take over 100 photos, I almost always shoot JPEG. I like to think of it as being flexible. I have options and I use them.

[WillsMa]

I got my 10D a couple of weeks ago and have been noticing the same thing as Steffen, minus the grayish haze. I have been blaming it on the lens I'm using - a 35-80 4.5-5 ? off of my RebelX film SLR. I'm hoping that a better lens makes the difference in the future.

I will shoot RAW for awhile and see how that goes. I just moved up from my G3 and have only shot jpeg.

[MediaMagic]

A very popular Photoshop technique that often produces very nice results is local contrast enhancement. Read about it here (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml) at Luminous Landscape (http://luminous-landscape.com).

Quoting from the link:

"Digital image processing is still new enough for most people that no matter how much we read, experiment and work at it, there seems to be an endless amount to learn. This is particularly true as regards Photoshop, that invaluable tool yet also bottomless pit of a time sink."

Now there's the understatement of the year. That program is like freakin' kudzu. The more you chop through it, the faster it grows up behind you.

Okay, photoshop jokes aside, this is a very informative, valuable article. Well worth the read and some practice shots.

[MediaMagic]

[i]...I shoot both RAW and JPEG.. Depends how many shots I take in an outing.. If I'm going to take over 100 photos, I almost always shoot JPEG. I like to think of it as being flexible. I have options and I use them.

I like my shots RAW in the middle, but nicely JPEG'ed on the edges. :twisted: