Improving Sharpness of Original Image Without Post?

[Toob]

I'm looking to improve the overall quality and sharpness of my photos before they come off the camera (Digital Rebel). I am not opposed to doing post work on them, but I'd really like to have maximize my camera's abilities for still shots. For example, last night I took a pic using my 70-300mm Quantaray, a tripod, and remote shutter switch: http://www.weatherreno.com/images/moon.jpg Granted, it was in the middle of 30 mph winds, so I guess this result isn't too bad. What would you suggest to ensure a sharp image coming off the camera, especially when using a telephoto? Okay, so I can't turn off the wind as I live in the high desert, so that's not an available option. However, I am open to other suggestions! :D

[Headcase650]

You can creat a custome perameter and turn up the sharpening in the camera.

[lancea]

The moon shot looks about what you'd expect - not really the best subject to show sharpness :) As Headcase650 says, if your images are JPEG then you can turn the sharpness up. Other things as you are doing, plus fastest shutter speed you can use for the lighting and depth of field. I don't think the Rebel has mirror-lockup - but it's unlikely to make much difference anyway.

The image will also appear sharper in brighter light which will give greater contrast.

If you're saving to RAW files, then you can't do any sharpening in the camera, but all the other things apply.

[BDM]

There are two principal enemies of sharpness - the effects of the Bayer filter in front of the sensor chip and camera/subject movement. The first can be helped considerably by either turning up the parameters in the camera if you are shooting JPEG files or intelligent use of post sharpening in Photoshop or other processing software if you are shooting RAW.

However, the most trouble with the type of shooting you describe is camera or subject shake or movement. Unfortunately, the traditional methods to combat this are the only effective remedies - use the biggest, heaviest tripod you can manage, the fastest shutter speed you can use and the fastest lens you can afford and carry. Higher shutter speeds and a steady camera support are the keys. You can also reasonably increase the ISO speed to allow a higher shutter speed. 400 or 800 look pretty good on the Rebel. Any slight incfrease in noise is more than offset by the improvement in sharpness.

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any magic button on the camera which will appreciably improve adverse shooting conditions. It takes work (schlepping a heavy tripod around, etc) and sometimes money (faster lenses, etc.)

If sharpness is important to you, the best advice I could offer is ALWAYS use a tripod for EVERY possible shot. A cable release is also a good idea. If the action is too fast for a tripod, than you must hand hold and should value the action stopping while accepting a certain degree of unsharpness - - unless you can really get the shutter speed up high - say at least 1/500 etc.

Good luck.

Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tripod, fast shutter speeds and good glass.

[robertwgross]

The only thing I would add is about tripods. If I find myself shooting some place with a high wind or with a lightweight tripod, then I simply stiffen the tripod as much as possible with ballast. If I hang my camera bag from the bottom of the center column, and then place any other weight around the tripod feet or legs, it helps a lot.

---Bob Gross---

[Jim_T]

Your image doesn't look too bad..

Shooting the moon against a bright blue sky isn't the best way to get a sharp moon image. It's just too washed out from all the bright sky light.

Try shoot the moon after dark.. You'll get much better results. The shadows of the craters and mountains will have much more detail.

[MTalley]

Smaller aperatures (higher numbers) sometimes help, depending on the lens, too. I've got a few pics taken with my 18-55mm kit lens that look really good without post-sharpening, taken with the standard Parameter 1 setting and aperature values between 8 and 11.

[ron chappel]

Assuming you allready have the in-camera sharpening turned right up -there is one 'magic' setting no one has mentioned yet - try increasing the in-camera contrast setting, it makes the image 'pop' and look sharper.:)


That pic is pretty good! About what you'd expect from the lens


http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3466503-lg.jpg

[Toob]

Thank you everyone who responded. I've got some very good ideas now.

I do generally use JPEG to shoot, although it's fun sometimes if I'm just milling around the place with the camera to try shooting in RAW so I can play in post.

I've been contemplating the idea of a heavier-duty tripod. I think in the wind that we have, it would be a very good investment. I'll have to do some research into tripods as I haven't purchased one in over 10 years! Until then, I may resort to something akin to sandbagging!

ron chappel Assuming you allready have the in-camera sharpening turned right up -there is one 'magic' setting no one has mentioned yet - try increasing the in-camera contrast setting, it makes the image 'pop' and look sharper

Ron, do you actively use these in-camera settings? And is it most adviseable to create a custom parameter for it as Headcase 650 suggested, and just use it sparingly, or is it "safe" (i.e., images will turn out decent and crisp but not overly so for most purposes) to keep those type of settings in place indefinitely?

There is so much to learn and so much to take in. I was out today shooting airplanes as they went about a Pylon Racing Seminar in preparation for the National Air Races. I hoped to 'perfect' some action shots with my telephoto today with crisp images of some planes but, ah, no such luck. I will have to wait until September to try that again. My photos, although I used between 500 and 2500 shutter speed (and my tripod, and remote shutter release remote), turned out smudgy and out of focus. I found I couldn't even use AF so I set my manual focus and apparently didn't do so well. I know that sharpness has nothing to do with focus, I mean it does but -- it doesn't excuse completely out-of-focus planes flying by (using ISO of ~200 in full daylight, facing away from the sun). Today was really my first attempt at full action photography. . . . There is soooo much to learn! ;)

[ron chappel]

Ron, do you actively use these in-camera settings? And is it most adviseable to create a custom parameter for it as Headcase 650 suggested, and just use it sparingly, or is it "safe" (i.e., images will turn out decent and crisp but not overly so for most purposes) to keep those type of settings in place indefinitely?

A very good question Melissa ! I should have explained it better in the first place hey;) :o
I have several custom parameters set that i'm experimenting with.
At the moment i'm running in-camera sharpening at the maximum (+2) with no ill effects.Sharpening is one of those things that is irreversable once done so it was worth worrying about.
But even with the camera set that way i still have to boost sharpness in photoshop on allmost every image so it's obviously completely safe.

As for the contrast.....I have experimented with the camera settings but as yet have not permanantly set them at a higher level. I'm slightly concerned that the highlights may possibly blow out more often but haven't had the chance to prove or disprove it yet.
In theory it shouldn't have any effect because the sensor still sees the same contrast range-it just arranges the light that it sees slightly differently accross the image.
So i'm not absolutally sure it's completely safe to run in-camera contrast at or near the max.Contrast is easily changeable after the fact but blown highlights aren't:confused:

There is so much to learn and so much to take in. I was out today shooting airplanes as they went about a Pylon Racing Seminar in preparation for the National Air Races. I hoped to 'perfect' some action shots with my telephoto today with crisp images of some planes but, ah, no such luck. I will have to wait until September to try that again. My photos, although I used between 500 and 2500 shutter speed (and my tripod, and remote shutter release remote), turned out smudgy and out of focus. I found I couldn't even use AF so I set my manual focus and apparently didn't do so well. I know that sharpness has nothing to do with focus, I mean it does but -- it doesn't excuse completely out-of-focus planes flying by (using ISO of ~200 in full daylight, facing away from the sun). Today was really my first attempt at full action photography. . . . There is soooo much to learn! ;)

Don't be too dissapointed,action photography is difficult:rolleyes:
Trying to do it with the Drebel/300D and a slow focussing telezoom is really working at or past the limits of the AF capabilities.

Trying to prefocus was the right choice,all experienced sports photographers do the same in that situation (but usually they'd rather spend big $ on Pro body and lenses that CAN handle sports;) )
The hardest to do is with subjects that are oncoming or moving away.One just has to prefocus and try ,accepting alot of dud shots in those situations.

Panning shots are a WHOLE lot easier .......you may even be able to use AF.

You may find you get better results without the tripod when shooting sports.Maybe.
I'm not experienced enough (at using a tripod with sports) but i suspect a tripod may give better results but take longer to learn to use well (because it limits freedome of movement)?

By the way -on the news the other night i saw an air race -probably a pylon type thing- it was run above a river right in the middle of a city! I think it was perhaps amsterdam but can't rem.It looked seriously intense!!!:D :D
Not the sort of dull stuff one expects in an overly safety concious world!

[Toob]

I set up last night with the tripod again with the 300D and Quantaray 70-300mm (F/5.6), with the rising moon making an excellent subject. My first 15 or so shots were disasterous, blown-out overexposed white discs against the darkness. The next were soft-focused bright white discs with halos against a bluer sky. I knew something wasn't right, so I backed down to ISO 200, F/11 and 1/125. The results improved by bounds! Although why was I thinking I needed a huge ISO with the lowest possible aperture and a low exposure? Of course I was limited with my lens at F/5.6. I used a tripod and my RC1 shutter remote, the wind was minimal. I still wasn't getting things as clear as I wanted. Is this because it's the $150 lens? I was drooling over others' pics of the moon taken last night (was it clear skies all over the world last night? ;) ) but then I realized they were taken with the 350D, 20D, and nice lenses.

http://www.weatherreno.com/pics/4467.jpg
The above image is straight off the camera, simply cropped to remove the dark sky behind (I was facing Reno at the time I took this picture and although I couldn't see the Reno skyline and it seemed dark to me, there simply were not any stars in that direction, and I'm not sure I could pick any up, anyway).

http://www.weatherreno.com/pics/4467 clarify.jpg (http://www.weatherreno.com/pics/4467%20clarify.jpg)
This image is hit with a "clarify" feature in PSP9, I like how it added a bit more depth to the craters. I feel like I've cheated!

Thank you Ron for your hints. I am sure I need a new tripod now -- I believe my tripod is too lightweight to handle the weight of this telephoto lens, as I have been noticing a bit of "camera droop" even when I believe it is all tightened up. It will droop to just below where I am trying to focus, and then I have to re-position things.

I have a huge feeling that the Quantaray lens is just what it is -- a cheap way to get telephoto results, although they're not *great* telephoto results ....! :rolleyes: