What factors cause your photos to be sharp, as opposed to fuzzy

[Ursie]

I have great lenses, a decent eye for composition and capturing emotion, but I cannot seem to get tack sharp images.
Anyone have pointers on how you achieve those tack sharp, saturated color images?

[Pete]

Can you post examples of images that you're having problems with, seeing them will help us to advise you about improving your technique.

[prime]

Camera shake and not focusing correctly (especially at apertures <f/4 because of the depth of field) are the two main ones I believe.

A tripod, cable release, and possibly mirror lockup will solve camera shake. If a lens doesn't focus right using the center focus point in good light pointed at a contrasty object on said tripod, there's probably something wrong with it (or it's a bad lens - in that case, stop it down maybe 2 or 3 stops from wide open).

Using a tripod and center focus point should get you pretty sharp photos of something still. Moving things are a bit trickier, you need fast shutter speeds for that.

[EcoRick]

I had a similar problem and discovered it was just my technique. I had to slow down and eliminate camera shake. I had to go back to the basics.

[Ursie]

Here's a couple from yesterday's shoot
http://ursula-scrapgirls.smugmug.com/photos/152017206-M.jpg

http://ursula-scrapgirls.smugmug.com/photos/152017238-L.jpg

I was focusing on her belly and then recomposing. I did that all day and I never seemed to get tack sharpness. I was using the Canon 24-70 f2.8L USM

[jwtex]

Try selecting a different focus point. Recomposing can be tricky if not done correctly. Also, what aperture were you using on the shot?

[condyk]

As long as your gear is decent then it's all about exposure. That is all about control of lighting.

[condyk]

... and don't forget good post-processing can make a good shot spectacular.

[Pete]

The focus-recompose thing can throw off focus like that. It's often best if you're going to do that to select the closest AF point to your point of interest and only recompose the shortest possible distance.

I'm not sure what aperture you're using, but it might be an idea to stop it down a little to increase the depth of field.

[René Damkot]

Here's a couple from yesterday's shoot

I was focusing on her belly and then recomposing. I did that all day and I never seemed to get tack sharpness. I was using the Canon 24-70 f2.8L USM


First one seems pretty sharp. Hard to tell on this size however.
FLR can give some problems (http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm). Specially when shooting wide open and recomposing much.

'Her belly' doesn't offer much contrast for the AF system to focus on in the second shot. That might cause the AF to lock on something in front or behind the intended subject: The actual AF sensor is quite a bit bigger (http://www.pbase.com/chuckwestfall/eos_tech) then the dot in the VF...

Motion blur can also be an issue. What shutterspeeds were you getting? Was this shot off a tripod? MLU? Looks like window light, so I'd expect slower shutterspeeds. (No exif in the image)

[Croasdail]

Being in focus is only the first step.... color saturation, contrast, noise ( or grain) all dramatically impact sharpness too. An ISO 1600 shot will never be as sharp as an ISO 200 shot.... regardless of how you focus. Using noise reduction software will surely kill sharpness. Proper focus technique and shooting from a stable platform are only the first two steps to getting sharp images.

[Radtech1]

Focus manually, for one thing. If you are not using the autofocus correctly you are going to run into trouble. This is not a case where using it wrong is better than not at all.

It is hard to help because you never say what your technique was, so I am going to make some assumptions here:

I will say you are using a 30d, I will guess you are using the lens at f/2.8, at about 50mm, and I will assume you are standing about 5 feet from the subject.

IF those are correct (or nearly so) you have only about a 4" depth of focus. Anything closer than 2" this side of the correct focus is starting to blur, as is anything 2" further back. Perhaps not dramatically, but perceptibly.

Please share the technique you used on the shots, and that would allow us to help you identify the most likely problem.

Rad

[Ursie]

Okay, here is one that is very typical of what I get. I don't shoot with a tripod, but I know I'm not the only one and I see lots of folks shooting that way and getting sharp photos. The photo below has the exif data in tact so take a look at it and see what you think. By the way, it was underexposed. This was my first trip into full Manual mode so I'm still working on that exposure part. Maybe that is why I get unsharp images. Does correct exposure contribute signifigantly to sharp images? The other thing is I have noticed that I can't seem to focus lock and then recompose with any reliability. Is there a trick to that?

In this particular photo, I had the focus point set to the center and focused on her face and then recomposed the shot.
http://ursula-scrapgirls.smugmug.com/photos/152690402-O.jpg

[liza]

Maybe you need to revamp your post processing routine. I recently switched from USM to High Pass shapening, using an action. I also have actions for color and contrast, which lend a lot to the images.

[Technophile]

for your 3rd shot here, the exif is 1/25sec, f/3.5, focal length 25mm (40mm FoV equivalent on 30D). it seems like your shutter speed is a bit slow, which makes camera shake a concern for sharpness. typically the rule for hand-holdability is to have a shutter speed at least as fast as 1/effective focal length. so in this case that would be 1/40sec minimum, according to this guideline/rule. you were using ISO100 in that shot, so i would bump it up to ISO400 and get 1/100sec which should solve the camera shake issue pretty well.

secondly, focusing on her face and then recomposing to the belly with a wide angle (such as 25mm) and using a wide aperture (such as f/3.5) would be risky, because when you recompose, you put the focus behind where you really wanted it. for example, if you put the focus on her face, which is say 5 feet away, and then recompose to her belly which is say 4.5 feet away, then your focus is now 0.5 feet behind where you wanted it, and with a wide aperture that could potentially put most of your subject out of the depth of field.

[René Damkot]

Don't use focus-recompose if you recompose so much, certainly when shooting almost wide open.
Use a tripod, monopod or IS, or make sure you get *at least* 1/(2*FL) (that would be 1/50 in this case, which I still think is critical if you have sloppy technique).
As said, use higher ISO.
In a case like this, I would have used the 17-55, IS on, f/5.6, ISO 800 and 1/100 at around 50mm...
Or a similair FL without IS off a tripod. Monopod at least. *No way* hand held.

Image doesn't look underexposed by much by the way, and underexposure has nothing to do with focus...

What the next person can hand hold says nothing about what you can hand hold. Everyone is different in that aspect. A friend of mine can get sharp shots at about half the shutterspeed I need...

[Ursie]

OK, all of that makes sense. At what aperture would I need to shoot this in order to get here belly and her face into focus? I have noticed that this is definately one of my problems. Especially if I have more than one subject, ie a group shot. What is the miniumum aperture to get sufficient depth of field for group shots, or multiple distance subjects?

[René Damkot]

This link (http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html)might help...

[Ursie]

Very helpful link, thanks Rene