Blurry Pictures (Page 2): Another point to mention. Most focus mechanisms need contrast and color to acquire a sharp focus. Your flower has little of either.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Another point to mention. Most focus mechanisms need contrast and color to acquire a sharp focus. Your flower has little of either.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

frankraney wrote:

Are the other objects the same distance. Did you zoom to 120, and get to close. If you are minimum focus distance the camera will focus and if you move forward very slightly, no focus, or bad focus. Remember, long lens, shallower depth of field.

Try the app, hyper focal pro. Play with it to get the best focus with lens and aperture, and distance to subject.

Chg_canon has a great article, posted in his response.

I also have the same concern as Frank, you're possibly too close to the flower where the lens could not focus that close? It's hard to say from the edited version, but that might also be something to confirm.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

BruceT4891 wrote:

I am trying to take a picture of Queen Anne’s Lace and all the pictures are out of focus. This is on of the better pictures. It doesn’t look too bad until I enlarge it. The camera says it has the focus. I thought f8 would be enough depth of field. I am using a Nikon D750 with a Nikon 24-120 lens. Pictures of other objects are fine, so I don’t think it is a problem with the camera.

I think it's a problem because of the zillions of little details - and all not on the same plane: some a little more toward you, some where you want them, and some a little further back 🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀

tomc601 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

It's definitely subject movement. I put the original you posted through Topaz Sharpen and used the stabilize feature and it improved it dramatically. I also processed it to get a bit more contrast and I think it turned out good compared to the original. I don't think it would hold up to a large print but I think it's passable on screen. I wouldn't think of posting someone else's image without permission but if you would like to see what I did let me know and I will post it.

BruceT4891

tomc601 wrote:

It's definitely subject movement. I put the original you posted through Topaz Sharpen and used the stabilize feature and it improved it dramatically. I also processed it to get a bit more contrast and I think it turned out good compared to the original. I don't think it would hold up to a large print but I think it's passable on screen. I wouldn't think of posting someone else's image without permission but if you would like to see what I did let me know and I will post it.

Tomc601, I would love to see your results. Both to see the picture and to see what Topaz Sharpen can do.

tomc601 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Here you go.

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

tomc601 wrote:

Here you go.

That's impressive.

Alphabravo2020

I agree that lens calibration is most likely. There is plenty of DOF and contrast with the background and you say you tried stabilizing the subject.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

BruceT4891 wrote:

… I am using a Nikon D750 with a Nikon 24-120 lens. Pictures of other objects are fine, so I don’t think it is a problem with the camera…..

While I am a Canon user, I don’t think it is your camera or your lens.

First, step away about one or two feet. Set your shutter speed for 1/500 or faster especially if there is a breeze. Try an aperture of f5.6 or f8.

Instead of holding your camera in the conventional way, rotate it so the back is against your forehead. Set the camera for manual focus and bracket several shot by changing the shutter speed and the aperture with each photo.

In so doing, one flower will be tack sharp and the background won’t be a dark. This also depends on the daylight at the time.

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

Rick from NY wrote:

I never go out on flower shoots without this item. Invaluable and reasonably priced

https://www.tripodhead.com/products/plamp-main.cfm

What a neat idea..thanks for the post.

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

To the OP, there's been some good suggestions. I would add the suggestion to try a stabilized lens if you have one. I have a slight tremor in my hand and the stabilized lenses make all the difference in the world. Also, I would definitely up your shutter speed and lower your aperture to around F4 for more dof.

jonsailhob

Topaz Sharpening really impressive! Wow what a difference.

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

tomc601 wrote:

Here you go.

Much better. Now I have to buy Topaz, so thanks a lot! lol

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Alphabravo2020 wrote:

I agree that lens calibration is most likely. There is plenty of DOF and contrast with the background and you say you tried stabilizing the subject.

It's not lens calibration, other photos he took are fine. Only this one. Was bad.

Lens calibration would affect them all.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

SteveInConverse wrote:

To the OP, there's been some good suggestions. I would add the suggestion to try a stabilized lens if you have one. I have a slight tremor in my hand and the stabilized lenses make all the difference in the world. Also, I would definitely up your shutter speed and lower your aperture to around F4 for more dof.

His other photos were good, not a lens (vr) problem more than likely. More than likely he was to close(minimum focus distance, and moved slightly forward at shutter. This is a problem with zoom lenses at full zoom and getting to close. Backing up slightly would help, as a tripod would also.