What is the matter with my photos?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16778495
One more thing to add, the 28-135 is a budget lens, and won't resolve alot of detail to a 20mpx crop sensor. It works okay on a FF, and the old 8/10mpx crops, but on a 20mpx, it is going to disappoint, at least the copies I had would have.

I just picked up a used 28-135 ($200, used) for a bit more range with my new 6D. I certainly agree with what you said here. The lens works OK on my 6D, but not my 60D. It just doesn't resolve as well. Compared to my 15-85, this lens is a dog on the 60D. Why does it work so much better on full frame? I think that is weird.

SqueekyBoy wrote in post #16778641
I just picked up a used 28-135 ($200, used) for a bit more range with my new 6D. I certainly agree with what you said here. The lens works OK on my 6D, but not my 60D. It just doesn't resolve as well. Compared to my 15-85, this lens is a dog on the 60D. Why does it work so much better on full frame? I think that is weird.

More dense sensor on the 60d, the more photo sites jammed together for the same physical detail projected across them, then viewed at 100%, will show well the fine details are resolved (or not). The problem is really more due to the way we view the digital content at 100% more than the lens itself. An 18mpx aps-c image at 100% is more "magnified" than viewing a 20mpx ff image.

smallpotatoes - only very recently started using filters - I only have Hoya UV(C). I think they are reasonable quality. I didn't notice issue getting worse after using them.

Here are the same 2 lenses used in live view and taken on tripod without the window glass in the way. The live view doesn't seem to have saved the EXIF data but both were shot on the 70D at f11. It's quite cold and clear here at present and airport ATIS reporting 30km visibility, so no significant haze.

I am beginning to think the issue is not so much OOF but 'softness' of distant objects. The requirement to restrict image size to <150kB and max 1024 pixels doesn't help, but originals not much better. I 'get' the points made above about remote distance, budget lens, 20Mpx sensor, etc. I assume the conclusion to all this is that I had unrealistic expectations from the scenario and equipment.

Edit: sorry, my mistake - the EXIF data *is* present I just used wrong software to observe it. Both shots f11 ISO200. EF-S 17-55 at 51mm 1/160; EF 28-135 at 115mm 1/320

Nothing past the houses are going to be clear, you have some really poor viewing conditions that far out due to atmospheric haze.

OK, a clear consensus here that I can't expect middle/far distance objects to be sharp. Yet I've seen many impressive landscape photos (not mine) with distant objects that ARE sharp, or at least seem so. Or is it something like distant mountains are 'big' and distant aeroplanes are 'small'?

Given that most of my shots are outdoors/landscapes, what can I do that will improve the situation? Since the visibility today is above average round here, it seems not much?

You're on an island at highish latitudes in the Gulf Stream on a partly cloudy day with jet aircraft taking off and landing nearby. There is likely to be a lot of water vapour in the air. This vapour causes a softness in the image, just as if you were looking at something in a steamy bathroom. This effect is most evident in the first image in post #18.

Even on clear days, different countries have different levels of haze due to raised dust. It is generally clearer in the southern hemisphere than the northern, and at higher altitudes than at sea level. Don't expect to get the same results as a landscape photographer in Colorado would. I can expect clear results here in south-east Australia if I pick my time according to the weather report - but not every day.

You know the film industry moved from New York to LA because of this (before smog happened). It's a big thing.

As to what you can do - move or wait.

I don't know how you're metering, but the second shot is exposing for the sky, so the foreground is underexposed. You're probably using 'evaluative' metering. I would recommend picking another mode. With evaluative metering, the camera makes the decisions. For learning purposes, it might be best to try the 'spot' mode. With spot mode, you pick something in the scene that is important, and you tell the camera how you want it exposed. It's an interesting exercise. If you're interested in finding a very simple book to explain how a meter works, try 'The Confused Photographer's guide to Photographic Exposure and the Simplified Zone System' by Bahman Farzad. It breaks down exactly what is going on in very simplified terms. It makes things very simple for you. I'm not trying to be condescending. I bought it early in my photographic journey and I found it very useful. We all have to start somewhere. No one is born knowing this stuff.

The second bit of advice that I can give you is to pick out a subject and fill the frame with it. What popped into my mind when I saw these photos is 'what is this a photo of?' Good photos have a definite subject. Even landscapes. Pick a definite subject. Look for 'leading lines,' like roads, fences and rivers. I can't say that I'm really good at the art of landscape shooting, or anything else, for that matter. My photos are mediocre at best. But I do know that good photos often follow certain rules. I recommend looking at the photos that you feel are good, and study what's going on in the photo. How did the photographer compose the photo? How does the light illuminate the photo?

I'm really not a great photographer myself, but that is not the point. Photography is not easy. If it were just about buying expensive gear for perfect results, it wouldn't hold any interest for me at all. Taking a good photo is a learned art. I recommend looking around this site for examples of great photography. This community has a large number of really great photographers. Best of all, they're real people who are here to help. Most of the time they'll tell you how and why they shot what they did, if you ask them.

I hope that my ramble was helpful, and I hope you don't take it as a harsh critique. Like I said before, we all have to start somewhere. If you want to take better photos, you'll have to work at it. I know I have had to do that. I'm still not a good photographer, but I think I'm improving. I photograph because I love it, not because I'm naturally good at it. I'm sure most people on this site would say the same thing.

Dillan_K - no problem with critique. The shots were only for illustrative purposes - even by my standards they are boring. I didn't regard your post as condescending, I appreciate the guidance.

For anyone who's not tired of this by now, I've uploaded some original SOOC jpegs - examples of the sort of shots I tend to take. Examples of where I think they lack 'crispness'. In most cases the shutter is fast enough, and aperture narrow enough, to produce an acceptable dof and focus.

Please note I'm NOT dealing with composition here (I know they are not going to win any prizes for that), I'm only concerned with image quality. A common theme is trees, especially against a backdrop of the sky, often looking very blurred, even when they are the object of focus. Once I'm happy my eqipment is functioning correctly, I can concentrate on my quite possibly lamentable technique.

The sample images are on the Canon image gateway - I've created a publicly viewable album at http://opa.cig2.canon-europe.com/s/m/FWeXpL5​ZcmM - password 'potn'. It needs a recent version of flash player. I'll keep it available as long as I can.

jolly.tall wrote in post #16777916
My images are usually disappointing. I do post-processing in DPP, latterly LR5. The main issue seems to be lack of an obvious focal point, and sometimes exposure is off the mark.

I took a look at the gallery you posted, and your statement above about there being a lack of a focal point seems to be correct.

Your sunset/sunrise shots are well done IMO b/c your use of colors and silhouette is well done. For IMG-0686 I would of liked to of seen you pan to the right a bit more to have more of the boats and reflections of the water. You could potentially bring down the sky a bit to enhance colors, but that's minor. IMG-2708 could benefit by a tighter crop in post to make the bottom center of your image the final result.

To answer your original question IMHO, I think a good chunk of what's the matter with your pics is composition coupled with settings. The daylight examples you posted do lack a focal point and any areas of detail take up a very very small part of your image. It's going to be hard to find "crispness" in an image if it does not have something with a lot of detail occupying a large part of your scene. Lack of detail and/or things to anchor your scene (especially the wide ones) will make for problematic final results. I also see you stopping down to f 14 and 16 in some, when it was not necessary and will introduce diffraction into the images degrading the image quality. I also see some shutter speeds that may be marginally to slow for the FL you have chosen.

The image of the purple flowers along the water has to slow of a shutter speed, and the framing is to wide. In it's current form, I would crop it at least 50% to isolate some detail. Shooting it in person would benefit by zooming in way more to fill more of the image with detail vs a general capture. I would capture that scene zooming to 300, orienting to portrait, and capturing a couple of the flowers with reflection below. This would introduce much more detail and color, making it more interesting.

For IMG 2752 flat lighting and sky is working against you, and was shot to wide. Walk up to the rock bridge, get rid of the distracting overhanging branch on the right, and fill your scene with that wonderful gate and rock wall along with the 2 trees and stream. This would make for a much more interesting capture.

jolly.tall wrote in post #16779106
Given that most of my shots are outdoors/landscapes, what can I do that will improve the situation?

stop down to f/8, use manual focus and mirror lockup on a tripod, and try to shoot during golden hour (shortly before sunset or after sunrise)

First of all, I really can't agree with ct1co2's comments regarding image 2752 - for me the lighting and composition are fine. I actually like seeing this more than a cliched version with just the stone bridge and wall. I don't see any problem with your style.

Be aware that these might be "SOOC" but they are 2816 x 1880 rather than the native 3888 x 2592, and the camera has to do significant work to downscale it. I don't know how good it is at that - although the few times I tried it in my 5D, which is the same era camera, the results seemed OK.

With that out of the way, I'll offer some analysis of the images in your posted gallery. I may not be right with all of these, but here is what I think may be going on:

2752 - motion blur in the tuft of grass at right. 1/200s is not fast enough to stop motion from strong wind.

2767 - missed focus. It locked on the gravel at front centre.

2784 - soft overall due to diffraction at f/18 i.e. stopped too far down.

2785 - ditto, diffraction due to f/14. As well, chromatic aberration in the trees against the sky; this is a lens defect that can often be fixed in post.

2791 - motion blur due to only 1/100s. The buildings are sharp, the grass is not.

2795 - ditto.

2700 - again, too slow a shutter speed (1/160s). Not only is this too slow to stop the wind-induced sway on some of the twigs (look at the flowers), it's also right on the border of acceptability for hand-holding a 100mm lens on 1.6 crop.

2708 (sunset) - this is lens or filter flare, not softness. If you had a filter on, clean it, and if that doesn't work take it off. Flare resistance is one of the things more expensive lenses get you (sometimes).

2549 (stone cottage and field) - this one looks good to me. f/16 is maybe a little too far stopped down on crop, but it hasn't suffered too much.

2388 (magenta flowers by stream) - also good. I don't think 1/200s is too slow a shutter speed, because we can see from the water there isn't much wind; I would normally prefer to be at 1/250s though. Some areas are soft because the depth of field at f/5.6 isn't enough; ISO 800 might have been better. Actually this image is rather nice. It's a shame you didn't shoot full res, as it could have been a decent 8" x 12" print. You might try getting a size down printed anyway to give yourself some encouragement.

0686 - uncorrected chromatic aberration in rigging of boat, excessive noise. Underexposed (one cause of the noise). The chromatic aberration and noise would have been easier to correct had you shot in raw.

So there's no one thing, and combined with earlier images posted in this thread it really just boils down to lack of technique. Technique can be learned from books.

smallpotatoes wrote in post #16778639
Agree that these are not good images to judge. But since you said you're pretty much never happy with images using multiple lenses on 2 different bodies, do you by any chance have cheap filters on your lenses?

I agree, if you have any UV filter on your lens, remove it !!
In all case your lens are cheapo lens, do not expect to have the quality of a L lens !
There is an another factor, at the end of all zoom ( both side, fully extend and retracted ) it's where there is the most diffraction problem, so the lowest quality ...
Buy a prime lens

melcat - i have CR2 for all these images so I can work on the boat and the flowers shots. I tend to shoot RAW + medium JPEG, the latter so I can quick preview directories on PC's.

Some interesting observations regarding chromatic aberration at small apertures with crop sensor, but so far no suggestion from anyone that there is an obvious focussing problem with my equipment. So it looks like a techniques issue. That is heartening as I can (theoretically) do something about that. Thing is, I already have some books, but possibly haven't absorbed enough yet.

Thanks also to ct1co2 and aximrocks for input - much appreciated.

reservoir dog (I like the nick!) - accept 28-135 is a budget lens. 17-55 IS USM had great IQ reviews when I bought it, comparable to an L-series in opinion of many. I don't think my 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM is a cheapo though That features in my image gateway collection of 'dissapointing' images (not sure if you saw those). I don't have a prime though. Point taken about extreme ends of zoom lens.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #16781669
There is an another factor, at the end of all zoom ( both side, fully extend and retracted ) it's where there is the most diffraction problem, so the lowest quality ...

You're mixing up the words "diffraction" and "aberration".

jolly.tall wrote in post #16781701
Some interesting observations regarding chromatic aberration at small apertures with crop sensor,

So are you, in the other direction!

Diffraction: physical effect which means light "bends around" very small gaps. The classic demonstration is the slit experiment. In photography, this begins to soften images from around f/16 on full frame, wider open on crop, due to the light bendomg around the small aperture. Not a property of the lens and cannot be designed away.

Aberration: any lens defect.

Chromatic aberration: a lens defect which causes coloured fringes around borders. Different types have different effects, but generally they are worse wider open - and worst of all wide open on faster lenses. Some types are easily corrected in post, and recent software can do a decent job on most types. I think what you showed here could be fixed.