Sharp Landscape Photos

[lbeck]

I've been trying to get some sharp landscape shots here in Maui and I'm just not satisfied with the results. I have to apply a decent amount of sharpening in processing to get the results I want. I'm using my 5D/24-105 combo with hi-tech gnd filters. I've tried with and without filters with the same results.

Shooting in manual mode with tripod. Aperture is anywhere from f9-f22. I've used manual focus to infinity and also tried auto focusing. Also using mirror lock up with self timer.

Can anyone tell me if there is something I'm missing?

[jrader]

I don't know what you mean when you say: "I've used manual focus to infinity and also tried auto focusing". If you are manually focusing, at some point the object you are focusing on will be in focus.

It sounds like you're doing everything else right. Maybe your lens needs calibration. Maybe there is moisture in the lens or on the sensor. I can't tell you without more information though.

The only thing I can think, based on the statement quoted above, is that you are manually focusing to infinity with the thought that most landscapes are at great distances, so you need to focus to infinity. This, however, is not the case. In fact, the majority of my landscape shots are focused on some interesting, close object, while shooting at a high f# to achieve a deep depth of field (practically to infinity).

If I'm wrong, please let me know. Hope you are enjoying Maui.

John

[argyle]

Read up and learn about hyperfocal distance (HFD). There are plenty of charts on-line that can be downloaded, or you can do what I did and set up an Excel spreadsheet to create your own. I have it laminated and it stays in my bag.

Basically, once your shot has been composed in the VF, estimate the distance of the nearest object in the frame that needs to be in focus...double that distance and that will be the HFD. Refer to your chart for the focal length of your lens and the corresponding HFD to get the required aperture. Set your focus to the HFD, camera to the needed aperture, and snap away. Sounds more complicated than it really is...

One last thing about using GND's: do not go for "true balance" between the foreground and background. Since the sky will always be brighter than the foreground, try to keep a one-stop variance between the two. For example, if the sky is 3 stops brighter than the foreground, use a 2-stop filter...this will present more of a "realistic" capture. OTOH, if you don't have that flexibility with your filter kit as of yet, use what you have.

[lbeck]

thanks guys, this helps. I've been reading up on HFD, thanks for the quick explanation Argyle. I'm going to find a chart, I've mainly been shooting at 24mm.

Maui is insanely beautiful, I did manage to capture this shot last night before dinner.

[argyle]

That's a nice image in that the different pastel layers work to pull the viewer's eyes through the image (just a shame about the movement of the palms).

Wide angle lenses aren't only for expansive vistas, as most people are wont to use them. Try to incorporate an interesting foreground element in the frame...this will greatly improve the composition.

For example, this pic was shot at 17mm on a 5D2. If I stood up and took a "normal" wide angle shot of the scene, it just wouldn't be very interesting. By setting the tripod really low and getting the main foreground rock into the composition, it made for a more interesting and visually appealing shot. Just a damn shame about the two water droplets that got onto the polarizer...ruined a wallhanger for sure. For this shot, the rock was just over one foot from the camera, which made the HFD three feet. According to the HFD chart, it called for an aperture of f/11, but I decided to stop down to f/22. As you can see, by using HFD the image is very sharp from front to back as evidenced by the details in the rocks and foliage (even after converting to jpeg and re-sizing). One more thing about HFD...the distances will vary based on your camera's sensor size. So if you have several cameras with different sized sensors, you'll need to be sure that you're using the proper chart.

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/562053243_237Q6-XL.jpg

[lbeck]

Awesome shot. Thanks for the info. I just realized that the IQ of the shot I posted went down from the original which looks much clearer that that.

Can you post a 100% crop of the unprocessed image? I'm curious how sharp it is sooc.

Even though the HFD called for an f11, you took it up to f22 since you wanted it sharp throughout. So in theory, f22 should make a photo sharp throughout no matter what the HFD is, right? This is my line of thinking and I'm not getting the results I want.

There is nothing wrong with the lens either, I use it all the time for stuff other than landscapes and I get superb images, handheld. It's strange, as soon as I use a tripod/mirror lockup/self timer and a smaller aperture, my images are no longer nice and sharp like you would expect. It's driving me crazy!

[argyle]

The typical HFD charts are based on print size, specifically for an 8x10 output. Rather than perform the calculations again with a different CoC for a larger print, its easier just to stop down one stop from the stated aperture value for the next size larger print.

Also, lens diffraction can come into play as you get nearer to smaller apertures such as f/16 and f/22, especially on a crop. Something to be mindful of...

The first is a 100% crop from the middle rear, straight from the camera:
http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/569832855_W6VYz-XL.jpg

100% crop of front left corner, straight from camera:
http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/569832938_5Sz9x-XL.jpg

Even for straight out of camera, the details are still there. I don't use the Unsharp Mask filter for sharpening...I use a plug-in for PS that will do a bit of capture sharpening as my first PP step, followed by the usual. Final sharpening is done based on the file output type (print process, web, etc).

If your camera has live view, its a great benefit. Once I determine what my HFD is, I pick an object at that distance to focus on. In live view, I go to 10x and use the joystick to scroll to the focus object. After getting AF, I check the live view screen and then fine-tune the focus manually to ensure that the HFD is sharp (by having my focus set to the star button, there's no need to switch the lens to MF to avoid re-focusing when pressing the shutter). Then just snap the pic. Without live view, you may have to a focus/recompose.

[lbeck]

Thanks Argyle, I'm close to that sharpness sooc. I wish I had live view, good reason to buy the 5D Mark 2!

I'll post more pics soon.

[blackcap]

As you can see, by using HFD the image is very sharp from front to back as evidenced by the details in the rocks and foliage (even after converting to jpeg and re-sizing). One more thing about HFD...the distances will vary based on your camera's sensor size. So if you have several cameras with different sized sensors, you'll need to be sure that you're using the proper chart.

Does the HFD make much of a difference when shooting at a focal length between 10-20mm? The reason I ask is that I usually use my Sigma 10-20 for landscapes and I seem to get sharpness from front to back (I usually shoot at f/11). I have a 40D so it's a crop sensor.

Also, I love the pic you posted. What sort of PP did you do besides sharpening?

I had a look at your Smugmug page but most of your galleries are protected. Any chance of seeing more of your work?

[blackcap]

I've been trying to get some sharp landscape shots here in Maui and I'm just not satisfied with the results. I have to apply a decent amount of sharpening in processing to get the results I want. I'm using my 5D/24-105 combo with hi-tech gnd filters.

I have a 24-105L too and I find the landscapes I shoot with it aren't that sharp. Haven't figured out whether it's me or the lens yet, but I don't have the problem with my Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 17-50, which is what I mainly use for landscapes. If you can get your hands on either of those, give them a try and see if you're happier with the sharpness.

[argyle]

Does the HFD make much of a difference when shooting at a focal length between 10-20mm? The reason I ask is that I usually use my Sigma 10-20 for landscapes and I seem to get sharpness from front to back (I usually shoot at f/11). I have a 40D so it's a crop sensor.

Also, I love the pic you posted. What sort of PP did you do besides sharpening?

I had a look at your Smugmug page but most of your galleries are protected. Any chance of seeing more of your work?

Thanks for asking (and reminding me). The galleries are protected since I'm not quite ready to launch them...still weeding out and updating. Plus, I haven't had the time to customize a site just yet.

[sas8888]

I want. I'm using my 5D/24-105 combo with hi-tech gnd filters. I've tried with and without filters with the same results.

Shooting in manual mode with tripod.

It's strange, as soon as I use a tripod/mirror lockup/self timer and a smaller aperture, my images are no longer nice and sharp like you would expect. It's driving me crazy!

Are you turning off the IS on the 24-105 when you put it on the Tripod? I have seen sometimes the IS will fight with itself when left on when you mount on a tripod.

[rtmeyer]

I am so glad to know I'm not the only one having this problem with this lens. I haven't really researched HFD until now, and that will probably be helpful.

Argyle, great shot. I was wondering, have you captured any good, sharp landscape shots with the same lens that seems to be giving us all problems? Or has anyone else here had good results with landscapes from this lens?

[DunnoWhen]

..... I was wondering, have you captured any good, sharp landscape shots with the same lens that seems to be giving us all problems? Or has anyone else here had good results with landscapes from this lens?

See if you can find what you are looking for HERE (http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=29&perpage=12&focal_min=24&focal_max=24&aperture_min=11&aperture_max=11&res=3&p=2).

Edit.

As to carrying excel spreadsheets, Ha! Old fashioned and not nearly geeky enough. There are apps you can download for your mobile :D

[rtmeyer]

DunnoWhen, that site is pretty helpful, getting bookmarked for sure. But looking at those samples, it seems like a lot of the landscape shots lack clarity to an extent, especially when it comes to foliage in the shot. It does a fantastic job with a closer subject, but anything distant seems to suffer a little bit. My cheapie EF-S 55-250 IS sometimes does as well or better at the same focal lengths.

[DunnoWhen]

But you must remember that image clarity is not just a function of the lens. You must also consider atmospheric conditions. There may be a heat haze or lots of dust in the air etc. This is especially true if your image background is miles away.

[argyle]

See if you can find what you are looking for HERE (http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=29&perpage=12&focal_min=24&focal_max=24&aperture_min=11&aperture_max=11&res=3&p=2).

Edit.

As to carrying excel spreadsheets, Ha! Old fashioned and not nearly geeky enough. There are apps you can download for your mobile :D

Small spreadsheet, laminated, fits in a small pocket in the backpack...seems pretty simple, doesn't add any weight, doesn't require batteries or a charger. Sometimes, being a geek just isn't very practical...

[argyle]

I am so glad to know I'm not the only one having this problem with this lens. I haven't really researched HFD until now, and that will probably be helpful.

Argyle, great shot. I was wondering, have you captured any good, sharp landscape shots with the same lens that seems to be giving us all problems? Or has anyone else here had good results with landscapes from this lens?

Sure have...it's a great lens (at least my copy anyway). And I don't turn off the IS...no need to with this generation.

[DunnoWhen]

Small spreadsheet, laminated, fits in a small pocket in the backpack...seems pretty simple, doesn't add any weight, doesn't require batteries or a charger. Sometimes, being a geek just isn't very practical...


I know, that why I carry a (4*6) laminated sheet:)

[argyle]

I have a 24-105L too and I find the landscapes I shoot with it aren't that sharp. Haven't figured out whether it's me or the lens yet, but I don't have the problem with my Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 17-50, which is what I mainly use for landscapes. If you can get your hands on either of those, give them a try and see if you're happier with the sharpness.

I am so glad to know I'm not the only one having this problem with this lens. I haven't really researched HFD until now, and that will probably be helpful.

Argyle, great shot. I was wondering, have you captured any good, sharp landscape shots with the same lens that seems to be giving us all problems? Or has anyone else here had good results with landscapes from this lens?

DunnoWhen, that site is pretty helpful, getting bookmarked for sure. But looking at those samples, it seems like a lot of the landscape shots lack clarity to an extent, especially when it comes to foliage in the shot. It does a fantastic job with a closer subject, but anything distant seems to suffer a little bit. My cheapie EF-S 55-250 IS sometimes does as well or better at the same focal lengths.

There are a lot of factors that can affect lens performance/image quality...so before you write off the 24-105L, do all you can to eliminate the potential causes of so-called problems. As DunnoWhen already mentioned, distance to subject and atmospheric/weather conditions play a role. A few others:

1.) Tripod not up to the job (not just load weight, but also ability to resist torque)
2.) Windy or breezy conditions (causes torque that's mentioned in #1)
3.) Quality of any filters that are on the lens
4.) Cleanliness of lens element and filters
5.) Post-processing techniques (sharpening methods)
6.) Shooting in RAW or jpeg
7.) ISO
8.) Lens issues (last but not least)

If you can be sure that 1-7 are good, then I'd think about having the lens checked out...maybe its calibration needs a tweak. I guess I've been lucky with my L zooms...never once had an issue. For primes, I shoot with older MF lenses from Zeiss, Leica, and Olympus (but I still grab the 24-105L as my go-to lens).

One thing you have to remember about foliage...its doesn't take much air movement to get it moving. If you're shooting waterfalls with a slow shutter speed, and there's foliage in the scene, there's a very good chance that it will not be pin sharp. And don't forget...leaves are very small (there are a few exceptions), so the ability to render them razor sharp also decreases as distance increases. My theory is, as long as its not a green blob, and I can make out some edges, I'm okay with it.

This is a 30-second exposure taken with the 24-105L on a 5D2...I used a Singh-Ray Vari-N-Due filter to stretch out the shutter speed. Other EXIF is: focal length 93mm, f/16, ISO 100. I used HFD when setting this up, and double-checked the focus using the camera's live view. Even for a 30 second shot, the foliage is still pretty clear and defined, even the foliage in the distance:

http://northlake.smugmug.com/photos/568858814_MdnLk-XL.jpg

[USER876]

I have this lens on my 40d and landscapes were soft until I sent it and my camera to canon for calibration. Now, the pictures are so sharp, they almost look fake, esp when there are a lot of tree's

[Ranana_type]

Ditto to Peter Ho. The slowest shutter speed you can han-hold or put on a tripod and the smallest aperture is a must. In every landscape use a tripod Just remember in landscapes a viewer usually would like to see from foreground to background as sharp as a tack. But then, rules were made to be broken too. So just photograph what you see and be happy as the day is long

[tigerotor77w]

And don't forget...leaves are very small (there are a few exceptions), so the ability to render them razor sharp also decreases as distance increases. My theory is, as long as its not a green blob, and I can make out some edges, I'm okay with it.

Interesting lesson. Do you have an example where this is the case -- where, at 100%, the leaves aren't supposed to be and also aren't the same sharpness that a macro of a leaf would be? (As you've likely noticed, I'm trying to reset my notions of what is and is not acceptable in terms of sharpness. :))

[argyle]

Interesting lesson. Do you have an example where this is the case -- where, at 100%, the leaves aren't supposed to be and also aren't the same sharpness that a macro of a leaf would be? (As you've likely noticed, I'm trying to reset my notions of what is and is not acceptable in terms of sharpness. :))

No...you'll have to do what I've done over the years and just experiment for yourself. My notion of "acceptable" sharpness may not be what yours is, and vice versa. But one thing for sure...there's a whole lot more to successful landscape photography than simply dialing in the smallest aperture and firing away, as others have suggested. Good luck.