Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Just not tack sharp
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
Jun 19, 2017 10:26:11   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
Charles 46277 wrote:
I can't see the photo clearly enough to see what is unsharp about it. I don't know the context of Ken Rockwell's comment that some people fret too much over sharpness, but he may be right in some respects. I would rather see a picture by Ansel Adams taken with a Brownie than a tack sharp picture by someone else that has other problems. (But Adams certainly considered sharpness--it is just that when he stopped down to f-64 he knew he was sacrificing something in sharpness to diffraction, while gaining sharpness in depth.) Sharpness itself is a somewhat fuzzy term, as it includes many factors (some of them subjective). I have seen portrait photographers in the past who took a bit of sandpaper to the center of a lens to make it softer. Smearing some grease on it was also tried, and of course soft-focus filters are still sold. When digital first came into use, I did not like it because all the pictures looked like Wizard of Oz--too sharp and too colorful. I think now people are used to it--maybe even expect it. But I prefer to go for a natural look as a general rule. A pleasing background is fine with me and it need not be radically out of focus. So if Ken Rockwell was saying we can get carried away with technical issues or equipment perfection, I would agree. Some of the greatest lenses ever made were not the sharpest in terms of resolution (Dagors, Artars, Heliars, Ronars, etc.) And by the way, no lens is sharpest wide open, though process lenses come close--they are not meant to need much depth of field.
I can't see the photo clearly enough to see what i... (show quote)


Let's not forget Adams would spend days if not weeks to compensate. If he was alive today, I'd bet he would use every PPing tool on the planet.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 10:29:01   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
I see from the EXIF data that the shot was taken at 1/800, f4, ISO 800. I also note that your image is 2172 x 1448 pixels (just over 3 MPixels), so a pretty substantial crop. I would think that 1/800 would be adequate to prevent blur from camera movement with this lens. One thought - you might consider stopping down 1 stop, and of course getting closer if possible so less cropping would be necessary. Finally, as has been suggested, try shooting a test target from a tripod under controlled conditions (with both manual and autofocus) and see if it still looks soft - if so, you may need to correct your Autofocus.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 10:32:33   #
ddub
 
Thanks everyone for all of the input. Yes this was shot in Raw and considerably cropped. I couldn't get any closer without disturbing the Owl. I use continuous auto focus. I use just one focus point on a stationary bird. ISO was 800 and there is some noise.

Thanks again

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 10:33:57   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
HeyYou wrote:
Question 1: Is this always true ?
Or does the basic processing of RAW images in a modern dSLR include some degree of sharpening ?

Question 2: If the camera does not have a low pass filter, does this still apply?

Trust that user burkphoto made a very astute observation!

All RAW images need some sharpening... if they are made with a sensor that encodes color information using a Bayer Color Filter Array. That is most, but not all, modern digital cameras.

RAW conversion software does not necessarily include sharpening. Indeed the sharpening should be the last step in editing an image, after it is sized appropriately, and that is most often done long after the RAW converter is used and would be in a pixel editor.

Your second question is also a good one. The AA filter does not change the need for sharpening, but will change the exact type.and/or amount of sharpening.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 10:34:49   #
pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
 
ddub wrote:
I feel I am continually not getting tack sharp photos with this lens. The attached photo was taken with a tripod and wlimberly head. This was taken with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon prime 300mm lens. Shot at F4 at 1/800 sec

In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated.


Wouldn't it be a lot easier to stage something that will/can not move and repeat your test? As long as you are on a tripod(and remote release) you can set your ISO to 100. See what it looks like by controlling all your variables. if is tac sharp you know you answer concerning gear.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 10:42:40   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Maybe try with mirror locked up?

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 11:35:53   #
PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA
 
TriX wrote:
I see from the EXIF data that the shot was taken at 1/800, f4, ISO 800. I also note that your image is 2172 x 1448 pixels (just over 3 MPixels), so a pretty substantial crop. I would think that 1/800 would be adequate to prevent blur from camera movement with this lens. One thought - you might consider stopping down 1 stop, and of course getting closer if possible so less cropping would be necessary. Finally, as has been suggested, try shooting a test target from a tripod under controlled conditions (with both manual and autofocus) and see if it still looks soft - if so, you may need to correct your Autofocus.
I see from the EXIF data that the shot was taken a... (show quote)


Interesting - I got 3084 X 2056 or 4.5 MBYTES. Apparently a cropped image.

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 12:14:17   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
sirlensalot wrote:
Maybe try with mirror locked up?
A shutter speed of 1/800 should be adequate to deal with any camera-induced motion.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 12:27:57   #
bigwolf40 Loc: Effort, Pa.
 
ddub wrote:
Here is the picture again I have checked the store original box.


Here is one done in about 10 seconds in PSE 14 with just one click....Rich


(Download)

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 12:37:32   #
CarlB7413
 
Fixed focus cameras usually are set to the hyperfocal distance and not infinity.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 12:41:21   #
Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana
 
billnikon wrote:
Ken makes a remark in a lot of his posts about folks being over concerned with sharpness and not concerned enough about shooting technique. Which, has some truth. I love the guys and gals who return their COPY of a lens because there's was not sharp. It is a lot like two people with a new set of ping golf clubs, one is a pro and the other an armature , the armature continues to golf badly, blames the clubs (they got a bad copy) and returns them, the pro goes on to win the US Open. Case closed.


Well, not exactly. The Ping analogy of the "amateur" and pro reflect not only ability but fine tuning for the pro by Ping, opposed to the amateur who buys off the shelf models with no professional fine tuning and plays with models produced for the mass market. I can recall reading an article years ago by a National Geographic photographer who stated that he took thousands of shots of his subject (Macaws in the Peruvian Amazon) and hoped to have 4-5 publishable slides for his editor. If perfection is as elusive as described, we all need to "gear up" or lower our expectations. Just my thoughts.

Reply
 
 
Jun 19, 2017 13:03:19   #
Dan De Lion Loc: Montana
 
ddub wrote:
I feel I am continually not getting tack sharp photos with this lens. The attached photo was taken with a tripod and wlimberly head. This was taken with a Nikon D500 and a Nikon prime 300mm lens. Shot at F4 at 1/800 sec

In my opinion it should be sharper. Any advice would be appreciated.


-----

Compared to other Nikon bodies, the D500 is not the sharpest. Try shooting with a D7200 or D750 or D810. All of those bodies are sharper than the D500.

-----

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 13:08:43   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
I don’t recall having heard much about focusing problems before autofocus, mostly due to an improper eyepiece diopter.

Reply
Jun 19, 2017 13:18:53   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
PHRubin wrote:
Interesting - I got 3084 X 2056 or 4.5 MBYTES. Apparently a cropped image.


Apparently our EXIF viewers are showing different info. Here's a screen shot of mine...



Reply
Jun 19, 2017 13:37:39   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
katastrofa wrote:
You can't fix out of focus photos in PP.


Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how bad the OOF is and why

http://www.focusmagic.com/

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.