Blurred Photos as well, Focus or camera shake (Page 2): No matter how I plug in the numbers (not knowing exact distance from photographer to subject), I cannot come up a result that...

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

CHG_CANON wrote:

...As mentioned in another comment, this aperture setting is too wide resulting in too narrow of a depth of field (of sharp focus)...

No matter how I plug in the numbers (not knowing exact distance from photographer to subject), I cannot come up a result that supports your conclusion. Please help, Paul!

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

And if you have time, please talk more about "plane of focus." Many thanks!

SqBear Loc: Kansas, (South Central)

CHG_CANON wrote:

The fill flash worked fine and the camera selected... (show quote)

Thanks again CHG_CANON.
All good information as usual and I really appreciate this too!
In a case like this, the camera is definitely smarter than I!

Did you have a chance to look at the NEF file I sent or is this information from that file?

Dave

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Linda From Maine wrote:

No matter how I plug in the numbers (not knowing exact distance from photographer to subject), I cannot come up a result that supports your conclusion. Please help, Paul!

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

And if you have time, please talk more about "plane of focus." Many thanks!

Linda - I agree with your analysis using a DOF calculator. However, as a composition, "acceptable" focus as applied to landscape images is not the same as "acceptable" for a group photo. Using f/5 didn't blur the background, see the wooden fence and trees behind the group. And the subjects are not in focus either. The calculator may say acceptable focus. In practice, for this composition, I don't think that's the case.

Given the arched arrangement, the focus point should be set to the people in the center, such as the seated boy in the blue Nike t-shirt. I still don't think f/5 from this shooting distance and equipment would capture the entire group in sharp focus even if the Nike boy was the point of focus and was captured in sharp focus. Of course we can't go back in time and test in this situation at different apertures and different points of focus.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

SqBear wrote:

Thanks again CHG_CANON.
All good information as usual and I really appreciate this too!
In a case like this, the camera is definitely smarter than I!

Did you have a chance to look at the NEF file I sent or is this information from that file?

Dave

NEF file? Sent to who? How?

mrpentaxk5ii

The ladder in the second and third photo should have been removed before the shot was taken.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

Nothing appears in sharp focus... anywhere. Close examination of highlights does not suggest camera movement. It is possible the subjects moved, uniformly and all at once, but unlikely. In any event the furniture is also soft and it didn't move. Thus, "softness" appears uniform in degree, front to back, of scene. Either the lens is simply soft OR, most likely, UV filter (if used) or the lens is smudged. I once had a circumstance where a series of shots were not sharp. The culprit was the back side of the UV filter.... I hadn't taken the filter off in several years (how could it get dirty?) but, yes, indeed, it was filthy- the lens was OK but not the filter. The filter didn't get dirty overnight- but became unacceptable when used in a backlit situation. Backlit is not the circumstance seen here but, the subjects (and some background) are in mottled sunlight and do provide areas of glare which can simulate a backlit, sharpness degrading, effect.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

SqBear wrote:

Thanks again CHG_CANON.
All good information as usual and I really appreciate this too!
In a case like this, the camera is definitely smarter than I!

Did you have a chance to look at the NEF file I sent or is this information from that file?

Dave

The single image sent has much larger pixel dimensions than the same image in the set of three. Yet the larger image has pixelation from JPEG compression and the smaller image does not. The smaller image is much less sharp suggesting the resampling blurred it slightly to get rid of the JPEG artifacts.

This highly suggests that aperture, shutter speed and focus are not what is limiting sharpness. Rather the "quality" at which the JPEG is saved must be fairly low. Unfortunately I can only check this with a simple Exif program, which does not list a value for "quality".

If this is a JPEG from the camera, that is where an adjustment should be made. If you have an NEF file the change should be made in the output quality of the RAW converter.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

SqBear wrote:

All, I too have many photos that were taken a wee... (show quote)

It certainly is not camera shake, the focus is off a bit and a smaller aperture, I think would have proved beneficial!

IDguy Loc: Idaho

fuminous wrote:

Nothing appears in sharp focus... anywhere. Close... (show quote)

OP: did you have a piece of glass on the lens (UV or clear)? This is the type of result I have seen with cheap ones.

Linda: I can help on the plane of focus. A lens focuses at only one distance. That distance from the camera is what is refered to as the plane of focus. I suspect it should better be called the radius of focus, though, as a fixed distance from the camera is actually a sphere. Modern lens designs seek to correct for that and deliver an effective flat plane at which all is at best focus.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

SqBear wrote:

All, I too have many photos that were taken a wee... (show quote)

Have you tried post processing?
It is fun and will improve save many pics you thought were "bad"
This is the result of about a minute using ON-1. Several other programs will do the same.
ON-1 has a 30 day trial if you want to try.

Oh, and I don't blame the girl for not wanting to get in the pic :)

(Download)

SqBear Loc: Kansas, (South Central)

IDguy wrote:

OP: did you have a piece of glass on the lens (UV ... (show quote)

IDguy,

No, I had nothing on the front of the lens nor did I have anything in front of the lens for any "fun" photo(s).

Thanks
Dave

SqBear Loc: Kansas, (South Central)

Hamltnblue wrote:

Have you tried post processing?
It is fun and will improve save many pics you thought were "bad"
This is the result of about a minute using ON-1. Several other programs will do the same.
ON-1 has a 30 day trial if you want to try.

Oh, and I don't blame the girl for not wanting to get in the pic :)

Hamltnblue, That's funny! However, the girls did not get in any of the photos!
I thought about just taking her photo and photoshop her in the photos somewhere, but with the tension, I left it alone and I was not familiar with the girl either.
Might have just made it worse.

I will look into the ON-1 Trial offer.
Wonder, without looking at the trial offer, could I save any photos that I processed in the program since it is a trial?

Thanks for the help and suggestion.

Dave

SqBear Loc: Kansas, (South Central)

Hamltnblue wrote:

Have you tried post processing?
It is fun and will improve save many pics you thought were "bad"
This is the result of about a minute using ON-1. Several other programs will do the same.
ON-1 has a 30 day trial if you want to try.

Oh, and I don't blame the girl for not wanting to get in the pic :)

Hamltnblue: This photo appears to have been processed somewhat....I like it too!
Was it completed in ON-1???

Dave

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

SqBear wrote:

Hamltnblue, That's funny! However, the girls did ... (show quote)

Hi Dave
We were typing the same time so I'm editing this post.
Yes it was done with ON-1. Other software packages you see people mention do the same thing. Some easier than others.
Jim

SqBear Loc: Kansas, (South Central)

Hamltnblue wrote:

Hi Dave
I wasn't talking about adding the girls in, but sharpening and cleaning up the photos.
Click on download under the pic in my last post, then compare it to your original.
Jim

Hamltnblue, yes, I like it very much too!
Check my previous post about the processing....

Thanks

Dave