Unsharp Focus Issue, is it my ap & shutter combo or too much movement?

[capturedexpressions]

I am noticing more and more that my focus is not 100% sharp on my focus point and I'm trying to pinpoint why. I didn't notice it before but I haven't had my camera (30D) serviced either. I shoot Manual and often use the lightest setting on both so maybe they will not sync properly that way. (60 at f/4)

Any advice?

[tim]

Best post a picture to show us what you mean.

[Tish]

Definitely post some pics--pref link to full resolution shots. And are you tracking which cameras/lenses you're using when it happens? If not, go back and look.

I was able to figure out that I had one 20D failing by noticing "soft" images all tracked back to that camera, regardless of which lens I used. But more times than not, you're dealing with camera shake or user error. :) We can't tell without seeing what you see.

[restech]

Sometimes if you use center focus and you re-compose after half-click, it would make your picture a tiny bit off focus.
That's my own experience.
Try to play around with that thin (move it to the right or the left, depending on your object) and see what would happen

[capturedexpressions]

Here is one example

[GertS]

For me it seems a bit back focusing. But the whole picture is not sharp. It's definitely not motion blur.

[Curtis N]

Let's see a 100% crop of this area.

[imchillindave]

What lens are you using? To me it seems to be an issue of lens quality.

[bnlearle]

Since you're manually focusing, I would say it's you. The leaves look more in focus so that shows that the lens is definitely capable of focusing correctly. Try comparing your MF shots to some AF shots and see if there's a difference.

[capturedexpressions]

Since you're manually focusing, I would say it's you. The leaves look more in focus so that shows that the lens is definitely capable of focusing correctly. Try comparing your MF shots to some AF shots and see if there's a difference.


Actually I was on Autofocus. I use a the 17-55 IS in AF and put the focuspoint on his face. I did notice that the FP would jump off as I was holding it half way and then when I hit is fully, I seen the FP (red square) move. Here is another one.

[capturedexpressions]

Actually I was on Autofocus. I use a the 17-55 IS in AF and put the focuspoint on his face. I did notice that the FP would jump off as I was holding it half way and then when I hit is fully, I seen the FP (red square) move. Here is another one.

Here it is... I hope.

[capturedexpressions]

Here it is... I hope.

See if it worked this time, if not, I'm giving up! :oops:

[imchillindave]

I checked a lens comparison chart and this lens isn't a very sharp lens, especially compared to the 24-70 2.8L, which is what I would've bought instead of this one because they are near the same in price.
Under your gear you have a 20D as well as a 30D. Does this lens yield the same results on that body as well or is it only on the 30D? I would do some comparison shots and see what happens. If it's the same on both, I'd be willing to bet what you're seeing is the poor quality in a cheaper lens, thus being the reason I buy nothing but L-series lenses anymore.

BTW, that last picture you posted is much too small to see the detail in.

[Rick Rosen]

Digital and especially Canon will always require sharpening in post processing to get a noticeably sharp image. With Canon this is due to the anti-aliasing filter that sits in front of the sensor. With digital in general it is a technical challenge related partially to the design of the light path through the optics (angular) VS the receptive path of the sensor (straight on).

Try using "smart sharpen" in Photoshop. I tested and found that 200% at 1 pixel produced a nicely sharpened image. Filters > Sharpen > Smart Sharpen > 200%

Rick

[Phil V]

I checked a lens comparison chart and this lens isn't a very sharp lens, especially compared to the 24-70 2.8L, which is what I would've bought instead of this one because they are near the same in price.

There's shed loads of happy users here that would disagree with that statement. We'd all love the L build quality on a 17-55 2.8, but optically it has nothing to be ashamed of.
And it might be near in price to the 24-70, but try explaining to the customer that you missed off half the group because your lens wasn't wide enough (butyou got it cos it's a better quality lens);).
We buy the best tools we can to get the job done, and for crop shooters the best lens is the 17-55, the 24-70 just isn't wide enough.
BTW, I'd like to see a link to the test you quoted, as it flies in the face of everything else I've read.

To the OP, the first pic you posted was mis-focussed, the 2nd? it's impossible to tell at that size. Maybe a 100% crop from that pic.

[RobKirkwood]

Actually I was on Autofocus. I use a the 17-55 IS in AF and put the focuspoint on his face. I did notice that the FP would jump off as I was holding it half way and then when I hit is fully, I seen the FP (red square) move. Here is another one.As Phil V says, this lens is capable of great results on a 30D/20D, and the leaves do look a bit sharper than the subject in your original image.

As you talk about the red square moving I'm guessing you've got all focus points enabled? If so, try setting the camera to use centre-point only (that's center-point for some of you ;)), and then use the focus-recompose method. Centre-point will also make use of the camera's most sensitive detector with the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens.

Despite the complicated electronics, the camera is pretty dumb and doesn't know what it is you want in sharpest focus - its AF system will generally search out the most contrasty thing to focus on, which frequently is not what you actually want.

Rob

[Phil V]

As Rob says you should try to use centre focus point only (or choose the FP on a shot by shot basis), also I always recommend CFn 4.1 to get the focus control onto the back button, this avoids the camera refocussing when you don't want it to.

[EOS_JD]

If you are using all the focus points then that is the reason that the focus will be poor. When shooting close ups, the camera will select what it believes to be the subject. In the image you posted it's focussed on the leaves behind the main subject therefore the subject is out of focus.

Switch to one AF point (normally the centre although you can select any one using the wheel).

Now focus and shoot making sure your aperture is suitable to get your subject in focus. Remember at close range and large apertures, the depth of field may be pretty narrow.

[bnlearle]

Digital and especially Canon will always require sharpening in post processing to get a noticeably sharp image.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/VENZ5494a.jpg
This photo is crisp all over at 100% (I think it was at f/22)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/WITE7182web.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/school8328my.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/dodiaalinds.jpg
My wife took the above on an XTi with a really crappy Tokina wide angle lens.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/WITE9842myspace.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/TREV3403.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/bnlearle/WITE0284my.jpg

These were all shrunk by photobucket from their original resolutions and they still look just fine, in my opinion. Now, you may say that these aren't that sharp. If so, then I just don't care about being terribly sharp then. But this idea that digital photos (particularly Canon) have to be sharpened in photoshop is crazy.

[Curtis N]

Some of the people contributing to this thread seem more interested in pointless arguments than helping the OP. Go to the lens forum and do your bickering there.

Both equipment and post-processing are important, but they aren't the root cause of the problem here. The 18-55 kit lens can produce sharper pictures straight out of the camera.

It seems like you missed focus on this one. I would be more sure of that conclusion if you posted a crop of the area I referred to earlier.

The only way to make autofocus do what you want is by selecting a single focus point. Sometimes it's best to select the center AF point, lock focus and recompose. Sometimes it's best to select the AF point closest to your intended area on the subject.

[bnlearle]

Didn't mean for my post to come across as a pointless argument ;) I didn't want the OP to believe that his image was a normal, as sharp as it gets with Canon, image (and that the answer was in photoshop). Maybe I went a little overboard with my response, lol, but it's a little arrogant to deem what others feel is relevant as "pointless arguments" and "bickering." My post was relevant to another post (that Canon cannot produce sharp images). The part of your post that was addressed to me wasn't really beneficial to the OP but it was relevant as it was responding to what I posted. That was all I did, so let's be a little more charitable with eachother, eh? :p

If it's out of line, than a mod will PM me, delete my post, or, god forbid :), ban me.

[Rick Rosen]

This is demonstrably incorrect.

According to Canon themselves my statement is correct and I will stand by it.

"Canon EOS digital camera shave an anti-aliasing filter installed on the image sensor.
This filter improves color rendition and practically eliminates moiré. The liability is a
slight reduction of sharpness. To reduce the softening effect of the anti-aliasing filter we
recommend applying an unsharp mask to the image in Adobe®Photoshop®. Although
there is no such thing as a “best” setting for all applications, we suggest the following
as a starting point:
Amount: 300%
Radius: 0.3 pixels
Threshold: 0 pixels"

http://www.usa.canon.com/content/Handling/EOS_Digital.pdf

But this idea that digital photos (particularly Canon) have to be sharpened in photoshop is crazy.

I won't get into an argument here over this issue. I will stand by what I posted though.

Rick

[Curtis N]

If the image is out of focus, it won't matter if you sharpen it or not. And the image posted here is out of focus.

[Philco]

Yep- it's backfocused, that's all there is to it. I'm with Curtis.

Cheers,
Phil

[bnlearle]

According to Canon themselves my statement is correct and I will stand by it.

I think what you said and what Canon said is different. I don't see canon saying that, in order to get a sharp image, one must use sharpening effects through post. Even if they did, I just disagree experientially. Sure, there may be a slight loss in sharpness with digital but if it goes unnoticed, I guess I don't care.

Even still, what you are talking about has nothing to do with the picture posted. Sharpening won't fix it. The photo posted is not correctly in focus (therefore the focusing is the issue, and not the sharpness of digital technology). As someone else said, you can get a sharper focus on a kit lens. So, if you mean that digital cameras give up a certain (minimal) amount of sharpness, sure, I'm fine with that. But if you think that Canon's digital technology is responsible for the photo at hand, you're just wrong. And demonstrably by the images I posted.

[Rick Rosen]

Even still, what you are talking about has nothing to do with the picture posted. Sharpening won't fix it. The photo posted is not correctly in focus (therefore the focusing is the issue, and not the sharpness of digital technology).

But if you think that Canon's digital technology is responsible for the photo at hand, you're just wrong. And demonstrably by the images I posted.

Here is a before and after of that image using Canon's recommended unsharp masking settings in Photoshop.

Feel free to believe what you want.

Rick

[Curtis N]

Rick,

You sharpened an image that had already been downsized to 800 pixels. I have often "saved" slightly OOF images for web presentation by sharpening after downsizing. But they still don't look as good as shots that are properly focused to begin with.

Sharpening after downsizing is standard procedure for me. But it's unrelated to Canon's recommendation on capture sharpening, and does not help the OP or anyone else learn proper focusing techniques.

[Rick Rosen]

Rick,

You sharpened an image that had already been downsized to 800 pixels. I have often "saved" slightly OOF images for web presentation by sharpening after downsizing. But they still don't look as good as shots that are properly focused to begin with.

Sharpening after downsizing is standard procedure for me. But it's unrelated to Canon's recommendation on capture sharpening, and does not help the OP or anyone else learn proper focusing techniques.

Obviously I started with the exact same image in both. The difference should be apparent and as such (when compared to each other) it is due only to the PS sharpening action applied to the original file that I grabbed off the post. I did slightly downsize the images and apply a slight reduction in "save for web" to keep the files below the maximum file size for this forum (it wouldn't let me upload the files at the original file size) but I applied the same changes equally to both image files.

Proper focusing techniques, optimal apertures, better optics, camera movement, etc. etc. all play a part in the sharpness issue, to be sure. I was addressing only ONE aspect and demonstrating how by following Canon's recommendation the "slight loss of sharpness' due to the design of their digital capture technology can be improved upon.

If we want to address all those issues I think that would make for a great and very informative discussion.

Rick

[Rick Rosen]

Sharpened by following Canon's suggestions in post processing.

Rick

[bnlearle]

Your version of my photo looks worse, in my opinion. Here's full resolution to show you how sharp an image can be if focused correctly.

http://www.bobbyearle.com/sharp.jpg

I don't know what we're arguing about. The photo at hand (from the OP) is improperly focused. It looks bad with and without sharpening because it needs to be properly focused first.

Now, my photo above is pleanty sharp for mine and my clients' tastes. Sure, you can sharpen it more but it sort seems like what someone does when they first get photoshop. They enhance everything because they think you're supposed to. You can use saturation to enhance some images and others will look overprocessed with any saturation enhancements. Same goes for sharpening. Less can definitely be more. The above image is sharp for me. I don't want to see sharpening sprinkles all over the place when I don't have to.

Again, nothing against sharpening photos or against you. I just think that the problem with the OP's photo is not a lack of sharpening. It's improperly focused. That's why I took issue with your initial post. Hopefully that puts us on the same page ;)

[Rick Rosen]

Your version of my photo looks worse, in my opinion. Here's full resolution to show you how sharp an image can be if focused correctly.

http://www.bobbyearle.com/sharp.jpg

I don't know what we're arguing about. The photo at hand (from the OP) is improperly focused. It looks bad with and without sharpening because it needs to be properly focused first.

Now, my photo above is pleanty sharp for mine and my clients' tastes. Sure, you can sharpen it more but it sort seems like what someone does when they first get photoshop. They enhance everything because they think you're supposed to. You can use saturation to enhance some images and others will look overprocessed with any saturation enhancements. Same goes for sharpening. Less can definitely be more. The above image is sharp for me. I don't want to see sharpening sprinkles all over the place when I don't have to.

Again, nothing against sharpening photos or against you. I just think that the problem with the OP's photo is not a lack of sharpening. It's improperly focused. That's why I took issue with your initial post. Hopefully that puts us on the same page ;)

I don't agree that there are focusing issues on the first image. There may be, there may not be but obviously following Canon's suggestion improved the sharpness. What I tried to bring into this thread was the information that Canon provides on this sharpness issue.

I cannot custom sharpen your full resolution image because I did not have it to work with. If the 300% setting created artifacts then obviously that was too much sharpening for that particular image. But I can't see that when I am not looking at the full image at 100%, which you should always do when sharpening. Canon states that their recommendations for unsharp masking are initial guidelines only. They further recommend that each photo needs to be sharpened depending on the qualities of the particular photo and the final application of that image file. Both are true statements.

I am not arguing but I don't like being confronted with the type of statements you made over the information that I originally posted.

Rick

[bnlearle]

I am not arguing but I don't like being confronted with the type of statements you made over the information that I originally posted. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure we even disagree...I think we're sort of arguing over semantics or different points entirely. My point still stands (and it seems several think the same) that the OP's photo is not properly focused. Just look at the leaves behind his head. They are more in focus than the subject. Therefore, it's a focus problem. Maybe it can be remedied to some degree (and maybe that's what you are trying to state?), but it is not, at it's root, a sharpening problem. It's not that it's terribly out of focus, or anything. But I think it's safe to safe that it could have been focused better, fair enough?

I really don't mean to come off rude or like your opinion doesn't matter, so I apologize if I did. Really, I mean that. I just don't think the OP's problem is a sharpening problem, that's all. It seems you disagree, and that's just fine ;)