Help me learn - what did I do wrong?

[MTalley]

OK, this weekend was our local town's Whitewater Festival. I figure - good photo opportunity. The place I picked to photograph from was on the other side of the river from the rapids (such as they are at this point). So, out with the Tamron 75-300, zoomed to it's full 300mm.

I had all the right intentions. I was on a tripod, the sun was nearly overhead, so I put on the circular polarizer and lens hood to be safe. All the pictures came out fuzzy.

1. The night before, I was testing some new backdrop material with my strobe setup at home. So, the camera was still set to f/5.6, ISO-200, 1/200 sec. shutter and sunlight white balance. Fortunately, as you can see by the attached picture (only resized from the original Large/Fine JPG), these settings were, ironically, about spot-on for exposure level at this certain vantage point. So, I at least lucked out there.

2. I knew the canoeists (sp?) were going to be coming through this particular spot on the river, so I focused in advance there. I remember from watching the first people coming through that the image looked sharp in the viewfinder, but I didn't snap a picture of them, just got the lens to focus.

3. For each subsequent party that came through this spot, I stood away from the camera and just gently pressed the shutter button. No eye to the viewfinder, just a button press. I probably should have used my remote release, but it was in my other camera bag at home.

Later, when I was taking some still shots of a small set of waterfalls, I was setting up the camera with my eye away from the viewfinder and noticed that when I covered the eyepiece, the exposure time was much longer. At that point, I remembered that it is recommended to cover the eyepiece, especially when there is a lot of ambient light.

Looking back on the cross-river pictures, I realize that this probably had a fair effect on the fact that the focus doesn't seem spot-on anywhere. Looking at full-size versions of the pictures, I can't find anywhere in the frame where anything was focused. I have focus manually set to only the center focus point.

Was that my major mistake, letting the ambient light into the viewfinder? I have no idea if the focus light was flashing, since I wasn't looking through the viewfinder. I do remember the lens "hunting" just slightly each time I took a picture (not a full in and back out "I can't find any focus point" type of action, just a slight "tweak" each time).

Let me know if I'm probably on target here. I did notice on a few pictures where I rezoomed a little closer that I would get some areas of the picture well in focus, but I probably had my eye to the viewfinder at that time. I know that the lens was not on Manual focus. I also know that this lens can be super sharp at 300mm, because I took a great picture yesterday afternoon at 300mm (Posted in the "Nature and Animals" forum under "White Heron" - Click Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78818) ).

I also inspected my filters (CP and UV) as well as the glass on both ends of the lens and all were clear and spotless.

[Inspired Photography]

I find it very hard to find any technical fault for OOF with an image less than 800 pixels wide. If you can send me the original i could probably offer more advice. However...

You said all your glass was clean, so that rules out water-spray etc...
I would say that your camera simply didn't focus on the correct point. I don't know that you needed to not look through the viewfinder. At 1/200, i don't think camera shake would be that much of a problem that you couldn't touch it. Even though you had your camera on a tripod, i would have still shot it with a faster shutter speed than 1/200. f5.6 is probably the fastest that lens will go when you are at 300mm, so maybe bumping the ISO up a notch or two would have been worthwhile to gain an extra stop or two at the shutter.

Back on track though... i think that you should have checked what your camera was focusing on. If your lens was moving, it was obviously changing what it was focusing on... that might be an indication that the focus was on the wrong spot, even if it is hard to find that in-focus spot. With that said, even if camera shake did play a part, it wouldn't be the same in all.

Now that i have written all of that... i thought... where would the centre focus point be? This image tells the story. The centre focus point is not actually on the canoe or the people. If you focused on people passing before, i would have switched the lens then to manual focus, and left it at that. Using AF, i would have looked at what was being focused. That's what i think anyway, hope that helps.

[PacAce]

Did you switch the lens to MF after you initially checked the focus point? If not, then the camera would have tried to refocus every time you pressed the shutter button. And if your subjects were not right there in the viewfinder where the center AF point is, then the camera would have focused on something else.

[PhotosGuy]

What they said, +
Was that my major mistake, letting the ambient light into the viewfinder? One of them. Personally, with my style of shooting, my "major mistakes" usually come from letting the cam think & adjust things! In your place, I'd have looked at what the cam suggested for the exposure, corrected if I thought it needed it, & then put those settings into "M" mode.

So, Leo suggests MF & I suggest M. Looks like the start of a trend to me!:D

While I'm at it, you might be interested in some other Auto settings I have issues with:;)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54281
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43761&highlight=sunliner

[Curtis N]

Question re ambient light entering the viewfinder:

I took some shots using a remote the other day that came out quite underexposed. After reading this thread I realized that the viewfinder was pointing south, right into the midday sun. Now I'm thinking that may have affected the metering.

Is there a cover made specifically for this purpose? Or does this situation call for some good old redneck engineering on my part? I'm thinking some sort of black plastic thingamabob that would slide into the hotshoe and pivot up for viewing.

[MTalley]

OK, after looking at the pictures more, I found that all the pictures I took at full zoom (300mm) were out of focus, including ones that I had my eye to the viewfinder. I took a few pictures where I wasn't at full zoom (Exif indicated anywhere between 180mm and 250mm) and those are sharp as a tack.

I think it is an issue with the lens being at full extension in conjunction with two filters (UV and CP) stacked on the end. I'll test this theory again when I get another sunny day to try this out.

[CyberPet]

Suggestion: Check if the camera back or front focus. That could be why those images are out of focus.

[PhotosGuy]

Someone probably does make a cap for the viewfinder. I think I saw one somewhere online.
A "good old redneck" would use duct tape. Another pro might use gaffers tape. I'd use black masking tape, which has a lot of other uses, too.

[Curtis N]

Someone probably does make a cap for the viewfinder. I think I saw one somewhere online.I found one!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=41178&is=REG

Of course, I'm too cheap to buy one, so I'll fabricate something on my own.

I'm not too keen on the tape idea - the last thing I want is guey adhesive residue on my viewfinder.

Thanks for the hints, though.

[PhotosGuy]

Real Pro "gaffers tape" wouldn't leave any at all. It's one of the things it's known for. Glad you found the link, though.
"utility grade gaffers tape - strong & waterproof - leaves no adhesive residue - tears straight"
http://www.thetapeworks.com/gaffer.htm

[MTalley]

Actually, the strap on my DRebel came with a rubber thingy inline with the strap that was advertised in the manual as a viewfinder cover. Darned if I can figure out how to attach it, though. When I remember, I'll usually just hold the wide part of the strap up and cover it manually.

[MTalley]

Here's an updated photo. This is a 100% crop out of the original photo, with an X marking the exact center of the entire image and, thus, the exact center of this crop. This is the area where the camera would have tried to focus.

From the looks of the blur, it looks like a combination of general lens flare and the inability of the camera to gain sharp focus, so it probably ended up at the far end of the focus (infinity) instead of the just shy of it.

Anyway, the above settings (as mentioned in #1 of my original post) were set as I mentioned, the night before when testing indoor lighting, and the camera was in Manual mode.

[rent]

there's a viewfinder cap on the canon neckstrap. to use it, you have to slide off the rubber eye piece though. i usually just cover the viewfinder with my hat.

-alex

[MTalley]

Ah, there you go. I figured it involved removing the eye piece. I'll stick with either your or my method.

[ScottE]

Several suggestions:

If your camera is on a tripod and you are trying to press the shutter button without supporting the camera with your other hand it is almost guaranteed to cause some camera motion. Either use a remote release or support the camera with your left hand.

If you are going to pre-focus on a set spot, put the camera on manual focus or assign focus to the * button and don't touch the * button after focus is obtained. If you can hear the camera searching, you know it is not on manual focus and your pre-focus has been changed. If you are not watching through the viewfinder, how can you tell if the camera has attained focus when the shutter releases?

If you want an easy way of keeping light out of the viewfinder when your eye isn't there, just put your cap over the top of the camera. I don't think that is a problem for your shot because the faces are in shadow as if the light was coming from the other side. Unless there was something reflective behind the camera, it is unlikely there was enough light shining in the viewfinder to throw exposure off by much.

I used to use pre-focus when I was shooting sports with a manual focus camera. I would pre-focus, then watch through the viewfinder and press the shutter just as the subject came into sharp focus.

With modern autofocus and something as slow moving as a canoe, it is seldom necessary to use pre-focused manual focus. Why not use AI Servo autofocus and track the subject, just don't lock the head on the tripod. Start focus tracking by putting the centre auto focus point on the front canoeist, once you can see that focus has been attained, recompose when the canoe is close enough that the subject will move from one autofocus point to another. Press the shutter when both focus and composition have been achieved. I assume you are using a ball head on the tripod and can set tension so that the camera can move easily but is still well supported.

Check the review screen on the back of your camera. If somethng isn't working, don't just keep doing more the same. Try something different.

The 75-300 shot wide open is not noted as being a very sharp lens at 300 mm. Use a higher ISO setting and shoot at f/8 to get better performance out of your lens and more depth of field.

Keep trying. I'm sure you will have better results next time.

Scott

[tim]

I would suggest doing this lens test - on tripod, mirror lockup and cable release if you can, otherwise self timer. Do it at short, medium, and long settings, wide open and maybe at F8 as well. That will tell you if the issue is with the gear or technique.

http://www.canon-dslr.com/Canon_Jan05/Canon_SLR_Focus_Test.htm

[Andy_T]

Plus, using CF 4-1 (does the DRebel have that custom function?) to separate focus from the shutter button (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46965).

Best regards,
Andy

[Dew]

Plus, using CF 4-1 (does the DRebel have that custom function?) to separate focus from the shutter button (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46965).

Best regards,
Andy

Andy - I know the 350 has this - but I don't think the 300 has (could be wrong!)

[tim]

The 300D doesn't.

[jfrancho]

I'd say that 1/200th sec. is too slow for moving subjects at 300mm. There is also the possibility of camera shake from the slight push of the shutter button. Manual focus in M mode in conjunction with a remote shutter are good advice in this situation. I don't think a custom function ar viewfinder cover will make a better picture. Try 1/500 at f/8-9 and adjust ISO to get the proper exposure.

[PhotosGuy]

Andy - I know the 350 has this - but I don't think the 300 has (could be wrong!) There is that little switch on the lens... ;) I'd say that 1/200th sec. is too slow for moving subjects at 300mm. That can be true, but there are a lot of factors involved. This shot was at 1/250 & I think the wheels look better at that than at 1/500. As you said though, try different settings & find out what your own "personal settings" are.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/WHRRI/Sunday%20July%2004/CRW1_0029.jpg

[montreal]

Just a thought here...

Are you entirely sure your polarizer is circular? If it doesn't say "CP", "circ pol", "circular polarizer", "pl cir") or something like that on it, it isn't.

I once got images that were very similar to the one you posted. Some images taken with my polarizer were okay and some others were just like yours (with some kind of flare or image separation). Turns out the polarizer was linear. I had bargained to get a free one when I purchased my 70-200 lens, and the salesperson made a mistake. I went back and he exchanged it. It's normal for some SLR cameras (not sure which) to have focusing issues with linear polarizers.

[jfrancho]

There is that little switch on the lens... ;) That can be true, but there are a lot of factors involved. This shot was at 1/250 & I think the wheels look better at that than at 1/500. As you said though, try different settings & find out what your own "personal settings" are.
Now you're showing off - awesome pic, Frank. Was this taken on a tripod, or did you use the panning technique? Panning may work on a canoe shot, but I bet it would be most effective if the subject filled most of the frame.

[PhotosGuy]

:D That was panning. I'd pre-focused on the spot where I wanted to take the shot.
Some of the rest of the shots from that weekend are here, almost all of them are full frame, & were pre-focused as I was using my old Nikkors on the 300D:
WHRRI Club Racing (http://photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/WHRRI/Sunday%20July%2004/)

[Jon, The Elder]

MTalley - you have a pretty fine line that you are focusing on. Also, (assuming center point focus) the area is larger than the red box indicator. At that distance you don't have a well enough defined contrast for the lens to grab onto. Keep in mind the water reflections shift and change constantly - another thing to confuse AF.
On another tack, falling (not just moving) water needs about 1/800+ to approach stop action (rule of thumb there). Plus you might have had some moving foliage out there.
And yes, even the great "L" series seem to go a bit soft when fully extended. At least I know mine all do.
I imagine several factors contributed to your problem.
The guys suggesting MF are probably on the right track.
I'm trying to figure how PG's car shots help?

[PhotosGuy]

The guys suggesting MF are probably on the right track.
I'm trying to figure how PG's car shots help?

You said it in the first line? ;-)

[Hellashot]

With my Drebel I have trouble manual focusing on things that are hard to definatively focus on because of the small size of the viewfinder. That may be the problem along with the f5.6 giving a rather shallow DOF for that scene. A suggestion may to AF in that area, then turn it off so the focus stays there.

[RichardtheSane]

I do remember the lens "hunting" just slightly each time I took a picture (not a full in and back out "I can't find any focus point" type of action, just a slight "tweak" each time)..

There, you said it.
You pre focused on a spot but didn't then set the lens to manual focus. This is your problem and this is why your shots are out of focus. Plus looking at the crop there is some motion blur, most likely caused by the fact your shutter was at 1/200th and you were not panning with the subject.

You may think the AF may have only moved a little, but I suspect it decided to re-focus on the water closer to you. Have a look through your camera with that lens and just see how much different a little movement of the focus makes at 300mm

Good luck in the future

[d'homme]

MT
That second image looks more like camera movement. Note the slight ghosting.

[MTalley]

Thanks for all the tips. I'll try those out next time I'm out. I had switched camera bags from my normal bag to my backpack and didn't pack the remote release, so that is an additional lesson learned. :D

[lostdoggy]

Low Battery!!!

[MTalley]

Not a low battery. I had just charged it up the night before and popped it in before shooting.

I think it's just a plain old case of not carefully focusing and an issue with camera shake (among all the others mentioned).

[Chazs]

To me, the blurriness looks entirely due to heat waves distorting the light. There's quite a bit of light (heat) reflecting off the water causing interference. Nothings going to fix that except different weather conditions on a different day.

[Beeclose]

If You slide the rubber eye cup off viewfinder, there is a slide on piece on neck strap that will cover the eye piece to stop light from getting in to camera.if You use the remote shutter release, focus and set it to manual focus other wise it could change when You touch the release. EW

[mkh]

I'ved never had this problem but I would have approached the shots the same way MTalley did and would have got the same results. I know now to prefocus then switch to manual. Not something I would have thought of on my own.

Very informative thread.