Image sharpness... huge issues. (NOOB)

[illstaygold]

Hi folks, I am Anthony. I purchased a Rebel EOS XS as a start in the SLR photography world. So far, I am mostly happy with everything. HOWEVER, the sharpness of my photos are ATROCIOUS. I know focus is EVERYTHING, but even when the red light blips and I hear a beep, I still get soft looking photos.

I have every intention of purchasing the 50mm Canon lens. (Not L, I am not rich!) But I think that may have a significant effect on the sharpness of my images as well. Just to get myself started, of course I have the kit 18-55mm IS lens as well as a Quantary 70-300mm to give myself greater focal length.

Anyway, long story short... as a starter, any good advice here? Many thanks in advance to all who respond!

Antny

[canonnoob]

the quantary lens is your weak link.. if you want a longer lens get someting that canon has to offer or some of the competition like sigma.

[punkerz123]

Have any sample shots you could show us?

[illstaygold]

Yes, please stick with me a moment, I have them all archived on DVD's. I will post them in a few seconds. So you can't actually upload photos to the forums, it has to be linked, huh?

[illstaygold]

http://my.opera.com/illstaygold/albums/showpic.dml?album=894657&picture=12247178"><img src="http://files.myopera.com/illstaygold/albums/894657/thumbs/IMG_0033O.JPG_thumb.jpgThis is the original photo.

[illstaygold]

http://my.opera.com/illstaygold/albums/showpic.dml?album=894657&picture=12247178

[snyderman]

Not seeing photos in your post or on the link. Just red Xs.

dave

[tfizzle]

from the picture you posted it's the lens. It doesn't look atrocious to me. Just looks like a kit lens/quantaray compared to canon L glass.

[tkbslc]

I don't see anything wrong with the sharpness of your image, honestly. If you shot RAW and applied a bit of sharpening it would likely look even better.

Where do you see "soft"

[yogestee]

The pic of the child is quite sharp..

[illstaygold]

Try the same album link and look at the two I added.

[illstaygold]

I appreciate all of the feedback folks. I dunno, maybe I am too harsh on myself since I am new and still learning. I don't want to be making mistakes a habit if you know what I mean.

[tkbslc]

I appreciate all of the feedback folks. I dunno, maybe I am too harsh on myself since I am new and still learning. I don't want to be making mistakes a habit if you know what I mean.

I think you are being hard on yourself. The last two might be barely out of focus, but not enough to kill the shot.

Keep in mind many of the insanely sharp shots you see posted on the web have been edited and sharpened with software.


I actually think those are some great candid portraits and you are off to a great start. If you are going to be obsessive about sharpness, make sure to keep your shutter speed as high as possible, stop your lens down to f8 and shoot at the middle of your zoom range, like maybe 135mm or so. That will be the sweet spot of the lens.

[tonylong]

Getting good close-up shots like that is a skill -- the camera doesn't always focus where you want it to and the Depth Of Field (the area around the actual "plane of focus" that is accepably sharp) can be quite narrow. Add to that the fact that you were likely shooting hand-held and you can easily come up with a real mix.

The shot of the blonde kid is decently sharp, at least looking at the larger view. With the kid by the fence it looks like the focus point was closer to the fence than it was to the kid's face. Did you use auto focus points on this? That can easily throw you off -- they are not very reliable for critical focus in things like this. Choosing a focus point and making sure it lands on the face would have been the way to go.

The kid with the checkered shirt came out plain soft. I'm not sure why, but sometimes things do happen. Work with your camera, probably stick with the 18-55 IS because you may be less happy with that other lens, and practice a lot. The shot with the blonde kid is an example of what you can do and with practice and patience you should be able to get more keepers than non-keepers.

[tkbslc]

Just wanted to point out that the Quantaray 70-300 is actually made by Tamron. It is not a terrible lens by any means, just not the best out there. I would actually keep using the telephoto for portraits as it will help isolate the subject and blur the background.

[DStanic]

I just want to put this out there... I think that the 18-55 IS is probably the sharpest lens for under $200. Go ahead and buy a 50mm f/1.8 but don't buy it expecting spectacular sharp photos from it. I've owned 2 copies of that lens, and found that the 18-55 IS is sharper, and more expensive prime lenses such as the 85mm or Sigma 30mm are still much much sharper. what the 50 f/1.8 is good for is taking portrait shots and just learning about DOF. The autofocus on them kinda sucks.

As mentioned most photos that look incredibly sharp usually have been sharpened with software. My 70-200 f/4L is really the only lens I own that is so sharp I never bother to sharpen the photos afterwards.

[Cesium]

The photos look ok to me. What you're probably noticing is the much shallower DOF that SLRs tend to have compared to point and shoots.

Some sharpening in software can do wonders too.

[PMCphotography]

first off, the sharpness in your photos are by no means atrocious. One of the photos (the one by the fence especially) looks slightly out of focus- which is different than "softness." Are you choosing the focus point, then recomposing? Or are you letting the camera pick the focus point? Another thing to check is if you're using "One shot" or AI focus- if you're in one shot and he moves, your photo will be slightly out of focus.

Secondly, Sharpness in photos is highly overrated.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=755500&highlight=sharpness+is+everything

Your exposure looks good, so does your composition. So relax a bit and use the tools you have to make compelling images...you've started out great. Photos of kids especially look good when they are a bit soft anyway.

Nice work with your photos so far.

[illstaygold]

Okay, so I pulled a couple more photos down from my facebook page. Clearly, they're compressed so they won't look perfect my any measure, but you can see what I am working with. http://my.opera.com/illstaygold/albums/showpic.dml?album=894657&picture=12251456

[illstaygold]

DStanic, thanks for the input! I tend to think of Tele's as the death of handheld and mobility. Clearly I am wrong. I DO need a faster lens though. Something at LEAST in the range of 2.8-1.8 so I can get more light on my sensor indoors without a flash. I HATE. No... LOATHE the use of the pop-up flash on my camera. Goes from a photo to a snapshot in no time flat.

Cesium: The narrowed DOF is my FRIEND. What I ALWAYS wanted. But I didn't know if the images were soft to a fault if you know what I mean.

PMC: Thanks for your feedback. No, I am not independently selecting a focus point. Most of my shots are 100% manual from focus to exposure. So I guess more than anything it was human error. I am truly flattered that you have good things to say about how I have started. I truly appreciate it. My wife bought me Understanding Exposure--I have been a student since. But to answer your question, and to also ask your opinions, please visit my friend's photoblog and tell me what you think. Its the kind of sharpness I expect from my photos. Are his photos too sharp? (Believe me, you won't piss me off telling me the truth.) I just happen to like his style and after seeing the sharpness and details of his photos, that is what I see as standard sharpness in my mind. Please tell me if you believe otherwise. annnnnnnnnnd... the link! http://www.thefivemilegrace.com/photoblog/

[PMCphotography]

I dont care for the style of the photos, I honestly don't care much for the "vintage", cross processed look. But that's all a personal style thing, nothing against the photography itself.

Some seem over sharp to me, but your photos didn't seem oversoft to me either. It's a matter of preference to a certain degree. You can sharpen a bit in post processing, but honestly you really need to work on the basics- composition, lighting... and not be so concerned about arbitrary levels of sharpness. A photo that communicates emotion, tells a story, and evokes memories but is a bit "soft" is not a bad photo. Likewise, a photo that is arbitrarily sharp that is boring is NOT a good photo. Lenses today are sharper than anything photographers had even 15 years ago...But they managed to make some compelling images with what they had.

Here's another thing to digest: if you zoom in to 100% in photoshop to check the sharpness, it's equivalent to looking at a wall sized print from 2 ft away. Totally Unrealistic!

That's a good book, by the way :) i have it on my bookshelf at home.

[DStanic]

DStanic, thanks for the input! I tend to think of Tele's as the death of handheld and mobility. Clearly I am wrong. I DO need a faster lens though. Something at LEAST in the range of 2.8-1.8 so I can get more light on my sensor indoors without a flash. I HATE. No... LOATHE the use of the pop-up flash on my camera. Goes from a photo to a snapshot in no time flat.


Yes the 70-200 is very sharp. I've used other telephotos as well such as the 70-300 USM and they were good as well. The KEY is making sure you have fast enough shutter speed, so that you don't have camera shake making them *look* soft when they are in fact out of focus.

I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND getting a real flash (any of the speedlites.. 430ex, whatever) before getting anything else! It would be tremendously more useful then a 50mm for all sorts of photography using your existing lenses indoors and in other lighting conditions. You will be able to take pictures in darker locations with a flash and your 18-55 (using manual mode on camera) as opposed to using a prime lens only. Shooting at f/1.8-2.8 will yield a shallow DOF which might give you a "softer" effect then what you are really after, I was so happy when I got my first flash it was a huge leap forward in my photography. I never use the crappy popup flash.

[neilwood32]

Yes the 70-200 is very sharp. I've used other telephotos as well such as the 70-300 USM and they were good as well. The KEY is making sure you have fast enough shutter speed, so that you don't have camera shake making them *look* soft when they are in fact out of focus.

I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND getting a real flash (any of the speedlites.. 430ex, whatever) before getting anything else! It would be tremendously more useful then a 50mm for all sorts of photography using your existing lenses indoors and in other lighting conditions. You will be able to take pictures in darker locations with a flash and your 18-55 (using manual mode on camera) as opposed to using a prime lens only. Shooting at f/1.8-2.8 will yield a shallow DOF which might give you a "softer" effect then what you are really after, I was so happy when I got my first flash it was a huge leap forward in my photography. I never use the crappy popup flash.

Agreed - this will give the biggest boost in your photography once you learn how to use it. Abused (shot directly at the subject) they are really bad but with care and attention, they will produce stunning photos. They also allow you to use shutter speed/aperture and ISO combinations that you could only dream about without it.

[illstaygold]

So the 430EX is great, huh? Is it also good for OCF?

[yogestee]

So the 430EX is great, huh? Is it also good for OCF?

It is.. Teamed up with a Canon ST-E2 it's fabulous..

[tonylong]

DStanic, thanks for the input! I tend to think of Tele's as the death of handheld and mobility. Clearly I am wrong. I DO need a faster lens though. Something at LEAST in the range of 2.8-1.8 so I can get more light on my sensor indoors without a flash. I HATE. No... LOATHE the use of the pop-up flash on my camera. Goes from a photo to a snapshot in no time flat.

Cesium: The narrowed DOF is my FRIEND. What I ALWAYS wanted. But I didn't know if the images were soft to a fault if you know what I mean.

PMC: Thanks for your feedback. No, I am not independently selecting a focus point. Most of my shots are 100% manual from focus to exposure. So I guess more than anything it was human error. I am truly flattered that you have good things to say about how I have started. I truly appreciate it. My wife bought me Understanding Exposure--I have been a student since. But to answer your question, and to also ask your opinions, please visit my friend's photoblog and tell me what you think. Its the kind of sharpness I expect from my photos. Are his photos too sharp? (Believe me, you won't piss me off telling me the truth.) I just happen to like his style and after seeing the sharpness and details of his photos, that is what I see as standard sharpness in my mind. Please tell me if you believe otherwise. annnnnnnnnnd... the link! http://www.thefivemilegrace.com/photoblog/

OK, I see that you were manually focusing, and from that I'd say you nailed focus on the blond kid but missed it on the other two. Manual focusing is quite a skill and if you miss focus a flash won't help -- it will only mitigate some camera shake or subject movement at slower shutter speeds.

the viewfinders on digicams are very small compared to a lot of film SLRs and it can be difficult to nail manual focus. There are cameras with bigger sensors and bigger viewfinders that make it a bit easier, but the fact is that you have to be able to spot when focus is on.

If I were you, I'd spend some time practicing. Try switching back and forth between Autofocus and Manual and see if you can spot the shifting focus as you do AF then switch to Manual and fiddle with it. Also, many lenses have what's called Full Time Manual so you can switch back and forth without flicking the switch on the lens. This can be easy if you move the AF to a rear button -- press the button and release to AF, then just move the focus ring to manually adjust.

In time you will hopefully develop an "eye" for good focus. Shooting at wide apertures makes this critical. In fact, if you were to score a wide L prime such as an 85 f/1.2L, having that kind of eye and the ability to fine-tune focus is a real advantage.

Hope this helps some!

[PMCphotography]

Well, a flash would be a logical next step, but getting a faster lens would be a good idea too. It all depends on what makes more sense to you.

Whatever you do, don't fall into the "if I only had ___ piece of equipment then my photos would be great!" Trap. It's not a useful way to look at things, especially at the beginning of you SLR learning curve. Take the time to really learn how to make what you have work for you.

[yogestee]

Whatever you do, don't fall into the "if I only had ___ piece of equipment then my photos would be great!" Trap. It's not a useful way to look at things, especially at the beginning of you SLR learning curve. Take the time to really learn how to make what you have work for you.

How many new chums have fallen into this trap??

They buy their gear and expect their skill level to improve.. Or they have a misconception that buying ABC has a skill level bundled into it.. Then they post in these forums "I can't get my ABC to take good photos, what's wrong with it" or words to that effect.. Some wag will tell them you should have bought XYZ, so he/she buys XYZ expecting another skill level built in.. It's a savage merry-go- round..

[PMCphotography]

How many new chums have fallen into this trap??

They buy their gear and expect their skill level to improve...

Too many, I think.

Fancy, expensive gear doesn't make you eye any better, or make you better at squeezing the trigger at the right time.