Why did this shot come out looking so soft and blurry?

[FlipsidE]

This afternoon, I spent some time over at my parents' place takin some shots of a tree they wanted to get some shots of. Afterwards, I snapped a few of them and their dog. Seems they came out rather...wel, not sharp (not sure if blurry is the right word). I would assume it's because I was using such a long focal length with a relatively large aperture. But, I don't know for sure. Is this lens just maybe not the best in the world? Is my lens/camera front focusing (this I kinda doubt after doing the focus test with this lens)? Or is it just that I was using such a long focal length with a relatively wide aperture?

Anyway, here's the exif:

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel
Lens: Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5
Focal Length: 102mm
Aperture: f/4.5
Shutter Speed: 1/320
Exposure Compensation: +2/3
ISO: 100

Here's the shot:
http://www.wesculbertson.com/photos/momdadnikki_800.jpg

Thanks in advance

FlipsidE

[Scottes]

Looks OK, not great but OK, at this size. At 102mm and 15 feet (guess on my part) you get a DoF of about 1 foot.

How about a 100% crop of the dog and one of the parents? (I'm assuming the dog was the focal point, and his fur will help determine sharpeness.) Given these assumptions, I'd say that the dog would be as sharp as possible and your father OK and your mother a little soft.

[Hellashot]

Looks like a very good image to me. If you're looking at the image full size - 6MP it may look a little soft. Did you sharpen the image at all? Even using default settings in a Drebel you need to sharpen more.

[pcasciola]

Like Hellashot said, sharpen it. USM is your friend, especially with a good shot like this.

Scottes knows a thing or two about this stuff, and he can definitely do a lot better than I did. I only spent a minute on this one to give you an idea.

All I did here was apply a little USM, saturation and contrast adjustment. These are just the settings I happen to like, but you can fiddle with it and get it to where you like it. It would be a lot less noisy starting with the original as well.

Hope you don't mind.

http://www.casciola.com/pics/flipside.jpg

[FlipsidE]

Nice work Phil! I appreciate ya showing me that. Honestly, I know so little about photoshop that it's just pathetic...plus I honestly just loathe post processing (maybe because I know so little about it). I didn't have a clue that it coudl turn out like that.

Sottes, I'll see what I can do about getting 100% crops for ya, but it'll probably be tomorrow at the earliest.

Thanks again!

FlipsidE

[pcasciola]

No problem, flipside. Glad you like it. Some people would say this is too sharp, oversaturated, etc. It's just a matter of finding the settings you like and going with it.

I used to hate post processing too, but it's pretty much required with dSLR photography in my opinion. Once you get a system down that you like, you can start creating automated actions in Photoshop, and easily blow through a batch of a hundred pics in 5-10 minutes doing something basic adjustments like these.

[F1_Fan]

This is worth restating even though it's hinted at above... Canon themselves say that Canon DSLR images need to be sharpened. This is a result of the anti-aliasing filter that improves colour accuracy and removes moire. Photoshop USM of 300/0.3/0 is recommended for full-resolution images.

Download this PDF. It's for the 1-series cameras but there's 300D content in it (and has a lot more tips than just sharpening). You will not shoot the same again after reading this document :)

http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

[pcasciola]

F1_Fan is correct, but just to clarify, the 3 in 300/3/0 is actually 0.3, so it's 300/0.3/0 for the recommended default USM settings.

[Tom W]

Just a note to expand on what F1_Fan says - the article that he references does recommend unsharp mask settings of 300%/.3/0, but that is for the 1-series. The 1-series cameras generally have less in-camera sharpening applied than do the 300D/10D/20D, so you might want to start out with something a bit more conservative, such as 100%. Also note that the middle number (radius) is, I believe, 0.3, not 3.

[F1_Fan]

F1_Fan is correct, but just to clarify, the 3 in 300/3/0 is actually 0.3, so it's 300/0.3/0 for the recommended default USM settings.

Oops, sorry for the confusion... typing too fast.

[pcasciola]

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been using Parameter 2 on my 20D, assuming this meant the camera was not doing any in camera sharpening, similar to the 1 series. Is this not the case?

[kb244]

Ok I'm kind of surprised no one mentioned this yet, But your lens was shot at 102mm or so, the max zoom of the lens is 105mm. The widest aperture at the max zoom is f/4.5, the picture was shot at the widest aperture avalible.

Its quite known that with lens , 90% of the time, the widest end of the aperture is usaually soft. For example My Sigma 105mm Macro widest is f/2.8, but at f/2.8 its soft, however if you go in a lil its very sharp between the f/5.6 and f/8 aperture range, what you probally need to do to get the sharpest pictures out of your camera is to find that 'sweet center' area of your lens, for many that are 4.5-5.6 especially if they're not expensive glass like L lens, the sharp area is like f/8 - f/11.

So the above could be half the reason why your images if you go back over them and notice they are shot at widest aperture, are soft.

[Tom W]

Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been using Parameter 2 on my 20D, assuming this meant the camera was not doing any in camera sharpening, similar to the 1 series. Is this not the case?

Just going by the chart on page 26 of the EOS Digital PDF in F1 Fan's link, it looks like the standard setting on the 1-series is still less sharpened than parameter 2 on the 20D (which on the chart matches the 10D's standard setting). But there's plenty of overlap there.

I guess that it pays to experiment a little. Also note that some subjects take better to sharpening than others, so it doesn't hurt to mess with the more important images a bit to get it right.

[mbze430]

I like the first shot better. With people you don't want too sharp. Than you get too much details. But it really depends. With a tight shot of men, its better to show the wrinkles and the age. But for women it should be the opposite. IMO.