Is this sharp enough?

[LexLuther]

Just wondering what some people might think of the following photo's in terms of sharpness. It was 8:30 am, very overcast, maybe more of a shooting in shadows situation, and I was shooting from a hotel window. I am only now reading about the 1/focal length rule and understanding it. I've picked 2 photo's that more or less abide by the rule, and am still left scratching me head as to wether there's anything wrong with the photo's, and if there is, how much my fault it is. I don't know if I'm just zooming in too much in Photoshop and thinking it's blurry, or maybe expecting too much.

First one, taken with 20D, 17-40 f4L, taken at 40mm, f4 @ 1/160, iso100, post-processing DPP WB set to Cloudy, +1EC, Save HQ jpeg. 100% crops inset.

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Niagara_Falls_02.jpg


Second one, taken with 20D, 70-200 f4L, taken at 200mm, f5 @ 1/250, iso100, post-processing DPP WB set to Cloudy, +1EC, Save HQ jpeg. 100% crops inset.

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Niagara_Falls_01.jpg


Again, I don't have the best eye or experience for this stuff... yet, but I AM working hard at it. The only photo's I have to compare these to are ones taken in full sunlight in Cuba, or shots taken indoors with flash. Maybe it's just the weather making everything look bland and blending in to one another? Maybe there's nothing wrong with it at all (sharpness)? Maybe I should just add a bit of unsharp mask, and print it out as an 8x10 and see just what the finished product might look like? Any comments/insight GREATLY appreciated.

[roanjohn]

Not too bad, considering you're shooting with a window in front of you......Both pics show pretty good detail............a little USM and everything should be nice and sharp.

:-)

Ro1

[LexLuther]

Uhm, actually, I could open the window, it was like this little balcony 11 floors up. There was no glass between me and the subject, other than what was mounted on the camera.

[PacAce]

Yes, a little bit of USM should do the trick. For the image that you posted here, you can start with USM of:

Amount 80%
Radius .8
Threshold 0

You can increase or decrease the Amount to suit your taste (between 50% and 120%).

After apply the above USM, try apply a little bit of local contrast to spice up the picture a little. Try these USM values and see how you like it.

Amount 20%
Radius 50
Threshold 0

If you want a little less contrast change, try using 10% for Amount instead of 20% (or something in-between).

[DocFrankenstein]

You are the judge if it's sharp enough, but the WWII statue is definitely soft.

here's an example of what I consider "sharp"
http://andrew4137.fotopic.net/p10106359.html
Click on "full size"

[LexLuther]

Thanks guys. I know I have a ton of learning to do, but I also want to feel safe in knowing the equipment is far from being the problem. I don't think I'm giving myself the best learning opportunities either. Seems I'm always trying to take pictures of things in situations pro's would even consider difficult or not worth it. Taking photo's between 6pm-6am doesn't help either.

My list of situations I hate, so far,

Overcast, gloomy, sun in front, leaving you with no contrast (is that the right term?)

and

indoors, halls, conventions, nice super high ceilings, with TONS of tungsten lighting just to make you more frustrated in picking a WB in DPP.

and forget about tripods, people I take pictures of can't even stay still for 0.5 seconds, much less actually look at the camera. :(

[LexLuther]

DocFrankenstein, I agree that I am the judge, and to me, it isn't sharp enough. I am trying to work on getting better pictures out of the camera, rather then having to put so much time into post-processing. I understand post-processing is perhaps mandatory, but I'm finding that a large portion of my shots are beyond post-processing and more like complete overhauls to make them useable, and that's no fun. I'm still in the stage of "Take as many pictures as you can and hope 25% are great!". Someone used an EOS with B&W film in Cuba (only 24 shots), and although ALL of them are SUPER grainy, they're all in focus and _good_ shots, which is weird, maybe the grain helps make more of the shots good?. I took 400 photo's in cuba, of which maybe 15% are straight to print, 15% need alot of WB work, and the rest were horribly out of focus.

I do think the camera can take wonderfully sharp pictures, as seen here (large appx. 300K)

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/nap-time.jpg

I just need more knowledge, and learning and understand the 1/focal length rule may just help me in the near future. I think the 1/250 on the statue shot was probably way to slow for my unsteady hands.

[mdude85]

wow, if THAT is the quality I can expect to get from a piece of L glass, remind me never to get one. No offense but those pictures don't seem sharp at all. I've gotten better results on the wide end from my $80 Vivitar 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 and at the long end from my $100 Canon 70-210 f/4 (even at f/5). I have seen some VERY sharp results from the 85 and 135 mm L glasses, but these ones you post seem under par. You may want to try getting the shots on a clear day ... there may be some small fog here that is clouding up your shots.

There seems to be a lot of haloing and CA in both of these shots.

Yuck! If this is L, Count me out. Again, no offense to you as a photographer. Were these handheld?

Also, LexLuther, the 1/focal length seems to be a good rule. But REMEMBER, you should use this as 1/the 35 mm focal length, not 1/the focal length on the lens. If you are shooting at 200 mm with a 1.6x crop, you'll need probably 1/400 sec (1/320 seconds + some to be safe) to get a sharp shot handheld.

[DocFrankenstein]

Yeah... it does seem like fog to me...

Try shooting a playboy cover at the end of your room.

[elbirth]

wow, if THAT is the quality I can expect to get from a piece of L glass, remind me never to get one. No offense but those pictures don't seem sharp at all. I've gotten better results on the wide end from my $80 Vivitar 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 and at the long end from my $100 Canon 70-210 f/4 (even at f/5). I have seen some VERY sharp results from the 85 and 135 mm L glasses, but these ones you post seem under par. You may want to try getting the shots on a clear day ... there may be some small fog here that is clouding up your shots.

There seems to be a lot of haloing and CA in both of these shots.

Yuck! If this is L, Count me out. Again, no offense to you as a photographer. Were these handheld?

Also, LexLuther, the 1/focal length seems to be a good rule. But REMEMBER, you should use this as 1/the 35 mm focal length, not 1/the focal length on the lens. If you are shooting at 200 mm with a 1.6x crop, you'll need probably 1/400 sec (1/320 seconds + some to be safe) to get a sharp shot handheld.
I agree, my Sigma 100-300 gets much sharper photos than the ones posted here. However, the shots posted here are not typical of the majority of shots taken with L glass that I've seen. These seem very soft in comparison, to me. Go looking around for some examples taken with L glass and don't be discouraged from it (though the price is enough to sway many people)

[boone]

Maybe it's not a sharpness problem, perhaps it's a depth-of-field problem? f4 is fairly shallow for a landscape shot. On the bridge shot you're checking the sharpness of 3 places at completely different distances from the camera.

[mdude85]

boone, as for the bridge, it seems far away enough that all the points should be about equally in focus. However, all the points in the bridge shot appear to be equally soft. It's not that some are sharp and some are not.

[KennyG]

The main problem is that the top shot should really have been taken stopped down to something like F8 and if necessary the ISO upped to keep the shutter speed. In winter conditions like that you will have problems and those saying their cheap and cheerful lenses are way better should take the same shot from the same location if they want to draw comparisons. The moist air can have fine particles that create a haze and any lens/camera combination will struggle. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Getting AF in essentially a white and grey scene is also a problem, and I notice you focussed on the centre of the bridge where the higher contrast was way behind it and in the 'capture' area of the central focus point. Always difficult to get this right and MF would probably be better in these circumstances.

I would write this one down to conditions, not equipment, but neither shot is a waste. You would be better off converting in DPP to TIF and post-processing in PS (or whatever) and apply some contrast masking and USM.

[peter/c]

I can only say that My 17-40L on 300d and now 20D is very sharp.either You have a bad one or as I suspect it is atmospheric. Peter.

[Jon]

By the looks of them, the first one's impacted by atmospheric haze, and for the second, you should have been using a higher shutter speed for a 200 on the 20D, plus your DoF probably isn't that great and the spots you picked your 100% crops from may not have been in the zone of maximum sharpness. Try a couple of more shots, maybe at ground level of the war memorial with the 17-40, and something you can shoot squarely head on with the 70-200, but with less air between you and the subject.

[Scottes]

"Take as many pictures as you can and hope 25% are great!".

25% are great? If you manage that please let us all know how you did it! I consider 2% to be an awesome day.


I know a couple people mentioned it, but I'm going with the fog/haze/particles theory as to why these aren't sharp. Long distance shots have to be done on very clear days. I've lost too many shots because of haze or heat waves and such.

[LexLuther]

Thanks for all the information and insight. It's nice to atleast know why some things aren't turning out good. All the shots were handheld. Anyhow, as some have asked, they want more pictures. Let's see just how bad my technique is, shall we?

With camera in hand and long underwear on, I headed to the lakefront that pumps out hot water from the hydro plant. Nice clear day, about -10°C, noon. Different shutter speeds, different apertures, different modes (P, Av, Tv), different lenses.

(and the nap-time.jpg shot was on a tripod with my 50mm f1.8, go figure)
http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_1.jpg

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_2.jpg

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_3.jpg

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_4.jpg

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_5.jpg

Would this be a bit of a better situation in terms of light/weather? Again, no post processing other than converting raw to jpeg in DPP and needing to add +1EC (guessing because of the snow being so bright). No sharpening. Camera Parameters are set at 'Parameters 2' just as the last pictures.

If everyone agrees that these are MUCH better, and perhaps even the 'norm' then I know to keep my camera in it's bag unless sunny, or perhaps just move closer to the equator.

[LexLuther]

Scottes, sorry meant to say, 2% obviously a typo. Although I was asking for much, plopping my camera into a friends hands and saying "Good Luck" with my wedding photo's.

[mdude85]

These look sharp, but then again you did stop down a lot (especially to f/10!) The 70-200 could have fared better at f/9. Most shots from even consumer lenses are going to look good when you stop them down to f/10. Let me take a few sample shots and show you what I mean.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Also remember: Your monitor is probably in the order of 72 - 120 pixels per inch. This doesn't allow for razor-sharp edges.

I know the lure of shooting jpegs and adjusting sharpening in-camera. But even in-camera sharpened images will need some attention in a photo editor. So I would recommend shooting RAW (or jpeg with no sharpening added) and then do all the sharpening in your photo editor. The photo editor tools will offer you more control.

[LexLuther]

Well, I have all the same photo's at f4 as well. Ya wanna see'em??? The shutter speeds were up in the 1/3200 range on some shots, yet more soft.

[LexLuther]

Okay, not all, but this one.

http://lexluther.shackspace.com/images/Sharp_or_not_6.jpg

[mdude85]

LexLuther,

that is scary. maybe you have a lemon?

Here is a shot I took of a mailbox at 210 mm with an older Canon 70-210 f/4. This was taken at f/4, 1/400 sec, ISO 200. In both shots I focused on the mailbox, and you can see some background blur in both shots. Notice the sharpness of the grass and the details on the mailbox, even wide open.

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg489q/210mmf4.jpg

Here is another shot I took at f/10, 1/100 sec, ISO 200

http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg489q/210mmf10.jpg

[wei-ste]

I think the un-sharpness came from window glass ( I guess even two level of glasses considering the climate), it's like mounting two very bad (& dirty?) glass fliters in front of the lens, try and you will notice the difference.

[mdude85]

Also remember: Your monitor is probably in the order of 72 - 120 pixels per inch. This doesn't allow for razor-sharp edges.



alright, enough is enough here. I have never heard of anyone using monitor resolution as an excuse for what is plain old softness. No amount of resolution is going to make those crane shots any sharper, it will just make them smaller, which gives the false appearance of sharpness. I know we all wish that the L glass would provide "razor sharp" edges (considering the price we pay for it), even wide open, but either this person got a lemon (which is definitely possible), there is some user error (which is also possible). Or possibly L glass is just not that sharp, but we make excuses for it simply because it's supposed to be and because we hope it is? I was strongly considering purchasing a 70-200 f/4 L, but these shots make me want to think again.

[Steven M. Anthony]

alright, enough is enough here. I have never heard of anyone using monitor resolution as an excuse for what is plain old softness. No amount of resolution is going to make those crane shots any sharper, it will just make them smaller, which gives the false appearance of sharpness. I know we all wish that the L glass would provide "razor sharp" edges (considering the price we pay for it), even wide open, but either this person got a lemon (which is definitely possible), there is some user error (which is also possible). Or possibly L glass is just not that sharp, but we make excuses for it simply because it's supposed to be and because we hope it is? I was strongly considering purchasing a 70-200 f/4 L, but these shots make me want to think again.

I wasn't suggesting that monitor resolution was an "excuse" for lack of sharpness--just that you really need to print the image to judge just how soft it is. Maybe I have a crappy monitor--but images that look fairly soft on it will look great when printed.

[wolf]

Lex, I would definitely say you have a major focusing problem there. Even a consumer grade lens would be sharper than that. Here is an example of a consumer grade Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 shot at 1/100 - f/5.6 - ISO 100 @ 55mm

http://www.wolverineenterprises.com/photo_net_forum/IMG_8672-R.jpg

You can even see the fly fisherman's fly line in the 100% crop below.

http://www.wolverineenterprises.com/photo_net_forum/IMG_8672-R_crop.jpg

[DocFrankenstein]

Yep... I can definitely see... The guy's fly is open :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[wolf]

Hey Doc, what are you doing looking down there. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/santa/icon_lol.gif

[DocFrankenstein]

Hey Doc, what are you doing looking down there. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/santa/icon_lol.gif
If you think that's bad, don't try the USM mask. :p

[colliewalker1]

The first photo is lacking in contrast - an improvement here would make it look sharper.

[DocFrankenstein]

Any chance you used that infamous "plastic UV filter" to protect the front element?

[LexLuther]

I have B+W UV filters on the front of all my lenses. Such as this one,

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/PageDisplay?dest=frames.jsp&currency=CAD&storeId=10001
I got off the phone with canon, which is 2 streets over from where I work, but the lady said it might take 3 weeks to take a look at the camera and lenses. I need to leave the country on Jan 23rd to take pictures of my brother's wedding. This is really gonna suck.

[LexLuther]

Just a general question if someone could possibly provide me with an answer. Is it acceptable when focusing, to zoom in on something that has good contrast, lock focus, then back out the zoom to recompose the shot?

I think this might help me with shots like the crane, which was really shot at 113mm with the 70-200 f4L.

I just now went outside and noticed that if I focused on something like the bark of a tree at the 70mm end, when I zoomed in to 200mm it was all blurry, and upon hitting AF again, it would then get 'infocus'. If I then backed back out to 70mm it looked much better than originally.

I could have sworn I read somewhere that this was an acceptable practise.

[Jon]

Yes, with a good parfocal lens this is acceptable practice and as you see can help in getting sharper photos. In the Good Old Days (we now only scream the acronym instead of the entire phrase when mod. cons. don't work right) most affordable "zoom" lenses were instead "variable focal length", where the focus shifted with the different focal lengths. Canon's parfocal lenses are listed here (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/30_parfocal.stm).

[phili1]

Lex how did you have your focus set was it nine point of center point. Were you using servo or single shot.?

I have had the same problem and it is me, in most cases. I have the 70-200L F4 and it is sharp as can be.

The thing you have to remember is that teles have no DOF so you have to be right on the mark. If Your crane is slightly tilted you will get out of focus on part of it.

The reason I ask what you had it set at is, nine point makes mistakes, it has a tendency to focus on other then what you want, I find that center focus is the best.

The thing I have noticed is the 20D is finiky with certain lenses.

[LexLuther]

Thanks again for all the advice. Once again, I just want to say that there was no glass in any of the shots between me and the subject other than the filter at the end of the lens. All the shots were taken in Single Shot Focus with only Centre Point being active.

I did a bunch of shots today while at work focused on the gas station across the street since it was brightest in todays overcast. All shots were at f4 with a shutter speed of about 1/320 to 1/500, and ALL of them turned out very nice and sharp. No complaints on my end. Ofcourse there was blur in the fore/background from the shallow DOF but other than that, perfect.

What I did learn was 2 very important things.

1, Never (or atleast try not to) focus on a point of contrast that is miles behind the subject your trying to focus. Much of my focusing was NEVER having a focus point(s) on the subject, but pretty much ALWAYS half on the subject and half on something way off in the distance. To me it made sense at the time because the crane's white paint stood out on the blue sky in the back ground, but I think the lens/camera was having a very hard time distinguishing what it was I wanted accomplished. I now try to find contrast for focusing within the bounds of the subject. It helps lots. Also defaintely using the advantage given by having a parfocal lens (thanks Jon.)

2, Sharpening!! The set of shots I took today were all RAW+Large Fine JPEG. I then loaded both into PSCS, the RAW using the PS converter and I was STUNNED at what a huge difference there was between the 2 formats. Photoshop's RAW converter defaults to "Sharpen +25" which brings the RAW to being on par with the JPEG. I still have yet to compare what DPP1.5 does to the photo at a default level, although unfortunately DPP1.5 does not allow preview of sharpening and only accomplishes it when you are about to output the files to JPEG with a sharpness scale going from 0-5. I found 3 to be pretty ugly. I looked into the aspect of sharpening RAW images after having read this wonderful site (all the articles) http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/tech_tips/index.html

I guess I still have lots to learn, but I'm slowly getting there. It's unfortunate so many shots get wasted but I guess that's the price I have to pay. Atleast I'm making progress on a subject that's been plaguing me for the past 7 months.