Lots of softness

[kbreit]

Hey,
I was at the pit-walkabout today at the United States Formula 1 Grand Prix shooting some pictures. I was looking at a few of my pictures shooting into the team's garage and noticed there was this weird haloish effect. If you look, the image is pretty soft. What's the problem with this? See the image below.

http://kbreit.dyndns.org:8080/code/IMG_0897_1.JPG

Thanks,

Kevin

[tim]

Lack of contrast could be lens flare. The whole image looks soft, nothing's really in sharp focus. Strange.

[kbreit]

How can I reduce the lens flare? I have a few pictures where there's things in focus. However, most images with high constrast are getting this effect.

[jfrancho]

A lens hood will reduce the flare. Can you post the Exif data? A link to the original would be useful, too. It looks like the wing and the mechanics' backs are in focus. Hard to tell in that busy garage, though.

[kbreit]

I'm posting the original image now. The URL is...http://kbreit.dyndns.org:8080/code/IMG_0897.JPG. The file is quite large, but all the EXIF data _should_ be there. If it isn't, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Also, I have a lens hood, but it's a small lens hood, only about an inch a full way around. I am thinking of purchasing a better one. Any suggestions?

[MTalley]

The Exif data is present in the picture at the top of the thread:
1/100 sec., ISO-400, f/5.6, Pattern metering, Av mode, Rebel XT, Focal length 106mm.

Looks like some decent purple fringing on the chrome bar and the shelving. Looks like the best area of focus is around where the three gentlemen toward the right side of the picture are standing. I'd guess from the looks of the full-size picture that some of the blurriness is from a slight amount of camera shake. Were you hand-holding?

[kbreit]

I'd guess from the looks of the full-size picture that some of the blurriness is from a slight amount of camera shake. Were you hand-holding?

Yeah, I was hand holding. However, it still doesn't explain most of the softness, or does it?

[ssim]

Hand holding at 1/100th at that focal length could contribute to some of the softness. Now this may sound a little on the wild side. Was it really hot there. I have found with alot of heat waves in the air that some lenses have a hard time hunting through them properly (I told you it was weird).

[kbreit]

Was it really hot there. I have found with alot of heat waves in the air that some lenses have a hard time hunting through them properly (I told you it was weird).

No, it was in the high 70's or low 80's, not too hot.

Kevin

[MTalley]

Well, the only other thing I was going to add is that at f/5.6, with the back wall well in focus, you will get some softness in the foreground objects.

Haven't gone to check any DOF calculators, but I would imagine that would lend to the softness up close.

[aam1234]

I'm no expert, but it looks like haze of some kind. Was it humid at that time (not sure if that's relevant).

[jfrancho]

Ok, I finally had a chance to tak a look at this, and there is a lot to think about. First I used the dofmaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)online calculator to determine true DOF.
Values: 106mm @ f/5.6 @ ~20 ft. (guess) for Rebel XT
Total: 2.3 ft.
Front: 1.08 ft.
Rear: 1.22 ft.
Pretty narrow considering DOF looks like less than 10% of the entire depth captured. We can expect a lot of softness outside the focus plane. More later.
I created a Threshold adjustment layer to check for blowouts. Not the best tool, but it shows the brightest points pretty easily. Looking at the histogram showed some clipping of highlights.
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/25224345-L.jpg

Moving the slider to the right confirms it. The white areas are totally clipped.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/25224344-L.jpg
Sorry about the low res on that one, but you get the idea. These areas in white are not going to sharp at all.

Now for the flare issue. I don't see any lens flare at all here, but I did notice something odd that when searching the image at full res, thought was what looked like ghosting, or a reflection from a window or something. It was very weird. Do you see the "Mild Seven" logo ghosted across everything? How about the vertical streaking or bands?

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/25224343-L.jpg

But when I zoomed back out I saw that it was a reflective surface on the back of the garage wall. So there really are only two guys to the rear, and one up front. This could be a focus issue right here. Speaking of which, where are thing most in focus? I think I found it, though I'm not sure.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/25224342-L.jpg

That does look like it is in focus.

There also seems to be a tiny bit of ghosting around everything in the picture, which explains some of the softness. I think the mirror in the back gave a false reading setting up an unexpected plane of focus. That combined with the shallow DOF, the vast amount of clutter not in the focal plane, the blown highlights at several distances combined to give a hazy, soft look picture. It also appears that some minor camera shake softened and obscurred the focal point.

So my advice, increase DOF, using f/8 - 11 as a starter. Pick a subject for the shot. Use the center focus point for AF lock. and increase teh shutter speed to 1/125 or 1/160. Don't be afraid to move up to higher ISO, eveb 1600. A noisy pic is easier to deal with than a soft pic. Besides with all that color, noise won't be noticable anyway. It could be a cool shot if one of the mechanics doing something interesting, holding up a part, making hand gestures, etc. You get the point.
Hope this helped.

[jfrancho]

Here it is with some correction in Curves and some USM applied.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/25228067-L.jpg

[tim]

How can I reduce the lens flare? I have a few pictures where there's things in focus. However, most images with high constrast are getting this effect.

Use a lens hood. To fix it in post production, increase the contrast and saturation a bit. jfrancho's done a great job! It has much better colors and contrast, and the USM makes it look sharper.

[jfrancho]

Thanks, Tim.

I wish I took the picture, it looks like a fun time to be there, and it isn't a half bad picture.

There is another thread that had similar issues: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79514&page=2&pp=20
Some of the info is redundant, but it is another case where you need to look closely at the photo and the data to deterrmine what, if anything is wrong. A little USM goes a long way. People were actually telling the other person that he had a bad lens or that something was wrong with his camera.

[kbreit]

I wish I took the picture, it looks like a fun time to be there, and it isn't a half bad picture.

Yeah, I understand how that goes. It was a good day. Look for me posting some pictures of the cars in action tonight. I can't wait!

jfrancho! Thank you so much for that analysis of my picture. I think I have a new favorite forum member.

[aam1234]

jfrancho! Thank you so much for that analysis of my picture. I think I have a new favorite forum member.

Yeah, jfrancho is very cool guy. And he has a thick skin. I remember critiquing one of his photos and he didn't get defensive.

[PhotosGuy]

You have 6 lights in the background pointing right into the lens. A lens hood won't help with something like that, but it doesn't seem to have affected this shot.

[MattL]

It looks like the wing and the mechanics' backs are in focus. Hard to tell in that busy garage, though.

Theres a garage in this shot?
All I can see are mildseven signs :rolleyes: