Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner
Thread started 10 Dec 2017 (Sunday) 08:23
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

not sharp enough?

 
mully4235
Member
62 posts
Joined May 2007
Dec 10, 2017 08:23 |  #1

So, I posted under a different category about the 85mm 1.8 I just got. I've been trying to microadjust it. I think I might have got that figured out, but honestly, it's still giving me inconsistent test results. Anyway, what is acceptable for full body sharpness? These were underexposed and just quick test shots I did yesterday of my daughter. She was freezing and I was panicked and rushed. We were out for like 2 minutes :-( I'm still not happy with them. They're complete crap. I got better pics with my 28-135 :-( 100% crops if I did that right and slight exposure adjusting and some noise removal. I think if I mess with them any more they'll get more pixely.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
fordmondeo
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2007
Portsmouth England
Post has been edited 1 month ago by fordmondeo.
Dec 10, 2017 08:35 |  #2

Where was the focus point.
Camera tend to use closest point af in auto mode?

Like your subject btw.

"let it snow, let it snow..............."


Vaginator9000

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pigpen101
Member
Joined Mar 2017
Dec 10, 2017 08:49 as a reply to fordmondeo's post |  #3

Something is definitely going on, I have this lens and love it. If these were at f/1.8 I might think is was just "missed" focus but @ f/5 it should be sharper.




LOG IN TO REPLY
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
rrblint's Avatar
19,840 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Joined May 2012
U.S.A.
Dec 10, 2017 09:38 |  #4

Definitely soft particularly for f5. No wonder she's freezing, put a coat on the poor kid!


Mark

LOG IN TO REPLY
aquaforester
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2011
Dec 10, 2017 10:13 |  #5

Just gonna ask. how far away from the subject were you?


Flickr (external link)

Current Gear
Canon 60D, 10-18, 24 Pancake, 60 macro, 70-200 F4

LOG IN TO REPLY
mully4235
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
62 posts
Joined May 2007
Dec 10, 2017 14:15 |  #6

I really don't remember how close I was to her. Maybe I was too close, could that be the problem? It was center focus point, I always choose the focus point and not the camera. I always focus on the eye. Maybe I focused and then moved? Here's the full thing for the one. I told her to give me an Elsa angry face, that didn't work so well :-) These were just to try the lens out, but I was hoping for better. I wish I could figure out what I'm doing wrong. Everyone says it's a great lens so it has to be me.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2006
Cordova, TN
Post has been edited 1 month ago by bob_r.
Dec 10, 2017 14:53 |  #7

Are you shooting at the distance of the last image and cropping them to the size of the first two images? If so, that's the reason for the softness. These are 300%+ crops and rarely will any image be sharp at that magnification. Move closer to your subject if you only want a head and shoulder shot and you'll get much better results. I also suggest that you get to the same approximate height as your subject and use one of the top AF points.


Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

LOG IN TO REPLY
aquaforester
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2011
Dec 10, 2017 16:30 |  #8

It could be what bob_r stated that you simply cropped to much or if you were too close they wouldn't be sharp. I think that lens has about a 2 1/2 foot min focus distance.


Flickr (external link)

Current Gear
Canon 60D, 10-18, 24 Pancake, 60 macro, 70-200 F4

LOG IN TO REPLY
mully4235
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
62 posts
Joined May 2007
Dec 10, 2017 17:40 as a reply to bob_r's post |  #9

The distance was in the last image. The two close ups were a 100% crop to show sharpness, I wasn't going for a head and shoulder shot. I wanted to know if that was an acceptable sharpness for full body with this lens. Hope that makes sense :-)




LOG IN TO REPLY
bob_r
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2006
Cordova, TN
Dec 10, 2017 18:13 |  #10

mully4235 wrote in post #18514966 (external link)
The distance was in the last image. The two close ups were a 100% crop to show sharpness, I wasn't going for a head and shoulder shot. I wanted to know if that was an acceptable sharpness for full body with this lens. Hope that makes sense :-)

This shot is much smaller than full body since your subject occupies less than 20% of the image.
Personally, I don't believe you're giving the lens a fair assessment under these conditions.


Canon 7D, 5D, 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 200L, 10-22, 17-55, 70-300, 100-400L, 500D, 580EX(2).
Sigma 150 macro, 1.4X, 2X, Quantaray 2X, Kenko closeup tubes, Yongnuo YN685(3), Yongnuo YN-622C-TX. Lots of studio stuff.
** Image Editing OK **

LOG IN TO REPLY
aquaforester
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2011
Dec 10, 2017 19:51 |  #11

bob_r wrote in post #18514995 (external link)
This shot is much smaller than full body since your subject occupies less than 20% of the image.
Personally, I don't believe you're giving the lens a fair assessment under these conditions.

Agree


Flickr (external link)

Current Gear
Canon 60D, 10-18, 24 Pancake, 60 macro, 70-200 F4

LOG IN TO REPLY
mully4235
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
62 posts
Joined May 2007
Dec 11, 2017 10:14 as a reply to bob_r's post |  #12

Ok, I think I get what you're saying. What about this? Is that still too far away to be considered full body?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


And the 100% crop. It's always that one eye that isn't as sharp.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,628 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Dec 11, 2017 10:30 |  #13

Which eye isn't in focus?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Also, how are you processing your images? Raw or JPG from the camera? What tools and filters?

Just a few small filters can help a snowy cloudy day image (before/after)...


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
mully4235
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
62 posts
Joined May 2007
Dec 11, 2017 10:52 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #14

In your post they both look sharp.

They were raw files. I didn't do anything to the dolls to process them or save for web. The girl was just a little bit up on exposure and some noise removal. Both were whatever is set for default sharpening in acr. Am I just being too picky?

I posted it here too and added some photos. When I focus on the dolls right eye, I can get both in focus at +10 on microadjustment. But when I focus on the dolls left eye they are both soft. Why? http://photography-on-the.net ...showthread.php?p=18​515380




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,628 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Dec 11, 2017 12:09 |  #15

You will have to do something with sharpness for post processing. If you use DPP, and set up your picture styles, then the raw will come out with your selected settings, else some sort of canned set of settings will be made for you using 3rd party raw processors.

You should always post process, and this includes a bit of contrast control if there is little contrast, and sharpening. Raw content without any work always seems quite blah to me, anyways.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

812 views & 2 likes for this thread
not sharp enough?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00094 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is jqualmann
1002 guests, 534 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017