vma Loc: Idaho

I took the family photo again. Hard getting everyone to stop and pose. I'm so excited & glad to have the opportunity to save a memory and boom. I download my photo's and they are blurry AGAIN.
I took a couple good photo's ahead of time in the same room inside my home keeping most of the same settings, using a tripod and a remote. Nikon d5300, Tamron 16-300mm 3.5-6.3 lens slow sync flash -.3, portrait picture control, VR off. AF-C, f/5, 1/100, ISO 1000, S mode, 18mm, WB auto, adh high, matrix meter, AE On, histogram looked good, ev 0,

Why is it Blurry?

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I don't want to be thought of as a smart ass, but this is about the worse picture I have seen in a long time. The camera you are using is a good camera and should take much better pictures than the one you posted. You need to borrow a different lens from someone and try again. First of all use something with less range. From the shadows on the right wall, your flash may have fired, but not at the right time. If the flash isn't at least a sb600 up grade your flash. Using a third party lens with a Nikon D5300 and a third party lens will give you problems. Try taking a trip to a local camera store and trying out one of their lenses and Nikon flash. By the way, Don't use a flash older than a SB600. I'd also shoot in aperatur priority. Lastly your ISO is too high. All this said the people are too far apart.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I believe your issue is: AF-C

Nothing appears to be in focus. You mention a remote. I'm unsure if the camera will focus the lens with a remote trigger in AF-C mode. Instead, if using Nikon's AF-S, you could have placed a single point on the boy in blue in the middle, focused, and then taken your spot in the family photo. But, f/5 is too shallow for this group. I would have gone with f/11 with a focus point set on the boy in the center or possibly the girl directly behind him. I'd change to aperture priority rather than shutter given this smaller aperture setting and let the camera decide the speed.

The suggestion to use a different lens may / may not lead to any improvements if the same setting described in the post are used. Compare that group of settings to my three changes and see of there's a difference.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Repost your image and click on the "store original" button when you do. What we are able to see is a very tiny 600x400 thumbnail, at 80% quality with no Exif data. It's useless. Make sure you post with at least a 2000 pixel wide image, with quality set to 85-90%, and with all of the original Exif data attached.

The parameters listed are not horrible, but they are not good either. Using AF-C with a static scene is not good. Using f/5 when you have a group that is 3 layers deep is not good. ADL and Matrix metering are not appropriate. ISO 2000 (but no higher) would have been better. Likewise setting the flash at -0.3 probably didn't help, as this appears to be a case where more light would be a real blessing.

In addition to posting this image again, you might also post one of the test shots too!

vma Loc: Idaho

Thank you, I photoshopped this picture and another better (sort of) photo. I saved them with 2000 pixel width not sure how to give you exif data. All I see is reply, quote reply and report issue for my choices. I use a mac and sent photo's to photoshop & saved them as a tiff file.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Wow, what a difference!

The Exif data is essentially all there, and we can see that the two group shots were using an aperture of f/3.5, while the shot of the couple used f/8. Shooting wide open with a consumer grade lens isn't a good idea if it can be avoided. Stopping to down f/5.6 or f/8 if possible is much better. In this case the flash compensation is set to -1.0, so it is likely that you could get more light from the flash. Also the D5300 will do just fine at an ISO of 2000. These were all shot at ISO 1000 so it would be at least possible to get 1 fstop lower on the aperture.

It appears that you edited the JPEG image from the camera, and then saved it as a TIFF image this time, while the original image you posted had been saved as a JPEG. One really big difference is that the JPEG has a parameter for "quality", and TIFF does not. Quality is the quality if compression, which with TIFF is essentially always at 100%. The original image had gross levels of JPEG compression artifacts. By going to a TIFF format you avoided that!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

A super zoom is not terribly sharp, especially at the extreme ends of its range. The small sensor also shares some of the blame.

Floyd is correct that stopping down will help greatly with the quality throughout the zoom range. Of course that will require adjusting your exposure and ISO settings but a couple of practice shots should get you close.

There is nothing wrong with this image as a memory of the gathering. Just don't print it large enough to let the sharpness annoy you. Maybe 5x7 would be about right.

vma Loc: Idaho

To Leon S
Thank you for your honest opinion. Dslr so far is not easy. I have several books I read, then when I get the chance to take the photo I am confidently running through my pile of notes thinking I can do this. I refuse to switch to auto & just hope & pray the picture will turn out before the little & the old family members have a melt down. I have a good respect for good photographers. Thanks again.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The image can clearly be printed at 20"x13.3" quite nicely. A good custom printer can make a decent, though not ideal print, at more than 30"x20".

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

when you do get your equipment and settings together, work on the posing. There is too much distance between the people in front and the people in back. Tighten up the horizontal spread of the group. Its hard to get everyone in focus when their spread out so far. By the way what is the strobe you were using. Leon

vma Loc: Idaho

Apafio
Thank you. I so appreciate your instructive advice. I am realizing how humbling photography can be. I guess I should have put my glasses back on after I focused through the viewfinder on the group. I mistakingly figured the settings for my group would have stayed the same as the couple photo. I used AE on to focus using AF/AE button. I thought back button focus was good to use. I focused on one of the kids. I don't know how the remote effects bbf. The f/3.5 I'm not sure why it stopped up from f/8. The on camera selector info (of the photo) said it was f/5. It sure reminds me to look at the screen another time. I was worried a ISO >1000 would make the picture all grainy. Will using a Tamron 16-300mm lens hurt my camera? I went to a camera store that had a Tamron rep give a 2 hour workshop. A lady advised me that this lens was a perfect walk around-travel lens at quite a bit less money than a Nikkor. I am taking it with me on a vacation soon. I hope I can regain some dignity with some amazing photo's. Yes I am hoping to get a large family group shot again.
Please criticize me all you want. I am eager to learn. I know old dogs can learn new tricks they are just a little more methodically slow. My next investment is getting a D7200 or a 70-200 2.8 lens (occasional soccer & indoor volleyball). Which would you advise is a better move. People photography is my objective. Should I just settle for a point & shoot or enjoy the learning curve of dslr. Can I print the tiff picture on my cheap epson printer or will it only print JPEG?
Thanks again for your instructive advice. Have a Happy New Year.

vma Loc: Idaho

Leon S
You make me laugh. When you said this is about the worst picture you have seen. Truth has humor. I was setting by my husband when I read your comment & kept it to myself. I know he would have giggled for hours & embelished the story for each family gathering hereafter. Your humor was funny & I needed it. I seem to learn better from mistakes. Plus you do have good suggestions.
Thanks again. Happy New Year

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You are basing that solely on the 4000x6000 resolution at 300 dpi.

My comment is based on the fact that the OP can already see shortcomings in quality, some of which will be remedied by using a smaller aperture.

Your standard for "quite nicely" apparently has a much lower threshold than the OP's or mine.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I have been doing commercial printing for some years now... My comment is from experience. (Every image is a bit different, and the only way to really know is by making a print to look at. I did in fact print one of the 2000x1333 posted images at 18x12. That would be the same as the original at 54x36. Rest assured a 24x16 would indeed be quit nice.)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

At 2000x1333 and 18x12 you would have been looking at 111 dpi. At 24x16 it would be 83 dpi.

That's only the physical resolution of the print itself. You can print a good or a bad 4000x6000 image at 13.333x20 with 300 dpi.

The OP is concerned about the quality of the image, not the mechanics of the printing process. Put your calculator down and look at the quality of the image, not the pixel count.

As I said, your standard for "quite nice" is clearly lower than everyone else's.