Why aren't these photos sharp?

Why aren't these photos sharp?

I had a rare opportunity last night to go out and do some shooting all by myself (I usually have my two boys along) and decided to try to capture the lovely Pittsburgh skyline.

I shot these images with a Rebel XTi on a tripod and used a wireless shutter release, autofocused, with lenses noted below. None of them look sharp to me. Any ideas where I went wrong?

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens
1/50 f/9

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157604276118294/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …in/set-72157604276118294/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

looks to me that you had a very wide DOF. (f/1.8, f/2.8 ) -- if you wanted to get EVERYTHING sharp & in focus, maybe should have gone with something more centered: f/8 or f/11 ?? Of course you would have need a longer shutter speed with the less light at those apertures; but you were using a tripod anyway. Just a thought. Nice composition though.

cody: they were taken with small apertures. i think you're a bit confused heh.

To me, they like fine. But it's really hard to judge when the images are so small and dark.

Beware of diffraction at high f-stops by the way: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ffraction-photography.htm

Cody21 wrote in post #5277371
looks to me that you had a very wide DOF. (f/1.8, f/2.8 ) -- if you wanted to get EVERYTHING sharp & in focus, maybe should have gone with something more centered: f/8 or f/11 ?? Of course you would have need a longer shutter speed with the less light at those apertures; but you were using a tripod anyway. Just a thought. Nice composition though.

Oops... I didn't make very clear above. the first line was which lens I used (wasn't sure if that would be relevant info?) and the second line, which I just bolded, are the shutter speed and aperture settings.

Hard to tell with such small pics. Post some 50% crops.

Mirror Lock up used? It could possibly be culprit.

sadatk wrote in post #5277404
cody: they were taken with small apertures. i think you're a bit confused heh.

I misread her aperture setting ... I stand corrected ..

Were they taken through glass?
Was it a hazy day (evening)?

They look pretty good to me actually.
Tom

Mirror lock-up not used - I will have to look up what that is, I'm not familiar with it. Not taken through glass. It didn't seem hazy to me.

This was also my first time shooting in RAW.

Links to larger versions:
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7361.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7462.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7433.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7412.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7401.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7372.jpg
http://www.pittsburghb​abywearers.com …/Pittsburgh-full-7368.jpg

I'm sort of relieved to hear that they look ok to some of you... perhaps I need glasses.

I've opened a few: Looks sharp enough IMO.

You could use some different (higher) sharpening settings in the Raw converter, but IMO it's not needed.

Cody21 wrote in post #5277371
looks to me that you had a very wide DOF. (f/1.8, f/2.8 ) -- if you wanted to get EVERYTHING sharp & in focus, maybe should have gone with something more centered: f/8 or f/11 ?? Of course you would have need a longer shutter speed with the less light at those apertures; but you were using a tripod anyway. Just a thought. Nice composition though.

Don't you mean the opposite - a shallow or narrow depth of field?

Roy Mathers wrote in post #5277946
Don't you mean the opposite - a shallow or narrow depth of field?

doi ... yea, that's what I meant ... (I always seem to get those terms backwards... must tatoo back of hand... lol )

I think i always refer to Wide Open as in a Wider Apertue (f/2.8 )--

Thanks

Christy, did you shoot these in RAW format? I think they are somewhat underexposed and could be brought out a little. Of course, if you do that, you will loose some of the detail in the sky. To correct for this, if you have shot these in RAW, you can layer an underexposed image for the sky, and a correctly exposed image for the cityscape and then methodically remove the sky from the correctly exposed image of the buildings to expose the layer beneath of the underexposed sky. By merging these two images you will get a city that is correctly exposed and a sky that has more drama. Of course, RAW format is important.

This is probably a typo, and meant to be 17-50mm - but he did write it twice for the first two shots. Otherwise, I would have commented about superzooms having worse image quality compared to normal zooms, and especially when compared to primes.

Cody21 wrote in post #5277992
doi ... yea, that's what I meant ... (I always seem to get those terms backwards... must tatoo back of hand... lol )

I think i always refer to Wide Open as in a Wider Apertue (f/2.8 )--

Thanks

Well, you're right there - wide open does mean the widest aperture