AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Everyone seems to be telling you to increase your shutter speed. But I think you need to increase your DOF. There is a very small section of your flower picture that is in focus. Compare the flower to your indoor fire alarm. In the fire alarm you have a VERY small area that needs to be in focus. In the flower, you would want more of the image in focus.

I would START with f8 and go up (down) from there. If there's a breeze, you'll need to watch your shutter speed and maybe increase your ISO to accommodate.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Your OUTSIDE shot is ISO 100, 1/100, f5.0....

Actually the plane of focus in that image is quite sharp. Depth of field is shallow due to large aperture and close distance when using a short telephoto lens.

In fact, one of the big selling points and most desirable features of that lens is it's ability to blur down backgrounds! On a D300 a 50mm lens is a short telephoto/ideal portrait lens.

1/100 was okay in that OUTSIDE image... but could be a little slow if there's a breeze moving subjects around, causing motion blur.



Yes, it is YOU, not the camera. Using the same setting all the time makes no sense. It sounds to me as if you have somewhat rudimentary understanding of how to set up your camera. You need to learn to use the RANGE of ISOs, shutter speeds and apertures that are available to you. There are times to use Aperture Priority, times when Shutter Priority or Program modes would be better, as well as circumstances where Manual mode is best.

There are entire books covering these subjects... far more info than we can post here in response to your questions.

I would highly recommend you buy a copy of Bryan Petersons "Understanding Exposure". Read it, study it, learn it. It might be the best $16-18 you ever spend on your photography.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Stopping down will not assure sharpness. Most lenses are at their sharpest at near wide open, not stopped down. Most lens do not have f/45 capability. The sigma 50 mm 1.4 has a minimum of f/16. The issue here I believe is simply focus settings.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is completely incorrect.

Most lenses are at their sharpest a couple stops down from wide open. Few are designed for peak sharpness wide open or even near it.

Stopping down further is fine until you reach a point where an effect called diffraction begins to occur. That would start to show up in an 8x10 print made from a D300 image at about f8, but is so minimal that f11 and probably f16 are usable without too much concern.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Near at wide open, f/5 to f/8 is where you will find most. Not Completely wrong, and not wrong at all. I just did not provide a range for you to understand, LOL ... He did not have to worry about diffraction. That was never an issue and not one with the lens he was using. And f/16 and up to f/20-22 is still quite usable ... depending if you have a magnifying glass or not.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Seems to me that your depth of field is a bit narrow --- try experimenting with Depth of Field at (1) a given focal length (2) different apertures, and (3) distance combination (closer or farther away).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The last of these is the best.

I've done depth of field and sweet spot tests on all my lenses. One of them, a 70 to 200 f/2.8, is sharpest at f/4, which sort of defies the rule of thumb. The rest are all sharpest between two and three stops down from wide-open.

On a Canon 60D or 7D, I like to avoid f/11 and smaller unless I need lots of DOF. My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is best around f/5.6 to f/8, in the 62mm range.

My old Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 is sharpest at f/6.3, but fine down to f/13 when I need DOF. NONE of my lenses is worth using at f/22 or smaller on an APS-C or DX body.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Yes, I find myself never above f/16 and usually have a focus point up close for landscape. But to defy all of this, Ansel Adams shot a f/64. Yes, f/64 did not have the issues with diffraction for which DSLR users have to contend but I certainly marvel his work and find him to be the king of sharpness (At least I think so...)

jaddottart Loc: Florida

TRI-POD,HI SHUTTER SPEED AND PROPER DISTANCE FROM SUBJECT.Are you using manual focus?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The issue is DOF. That translates to using whatever lens he can, but stopped down as far as it will go. He may well have better lenses than that Sigma 50mm.

Simply changing focus just means the vastly too narrow DOF will put sharp focus in a different place, with no change in the problem.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Ansel Adams and others of the same era (when they formed the F64 Group) were shooting with 8x10 or larger view cameras.

If you do the same today, it is perfectly reasonable to use apertures of f/64. Diffraction is equivalent as the square root of the sensor size changes. Hence:
It is obvious why photographers with 8x10 view cameras decided they'd get their sharpest images at f/64. That is enhanced somewhat by a 400mm "normal" lens focused at 11 meters having a DOF extending from 5 meters to infinity!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

He did not shoot down as far as he could go. He shot at f/5. What are you talking about?

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

One flower is sharp, the other is not. You could have issues with depth of focus, one flower moving in the wind, or other causes. Try using a good tripod, closing down the F-stop, and using panels as needed to block the wind. Also, I looked up federal law and there is no law forbidding the use of flash outdoors, even in nature photography.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The larger the film or sensor, the less magnification is required to make a print or display the image, so the less diffraction is magnified, and therefore visible. f/64 and even f/128 were fine to use with 8x10 sheet film! Ansel would have had to make wall-sized prints to see any evidence of diffraction in his work.

Every time you reduce image area you reduce the "diffraction limiting" aperture. Micro four-thirds starts diffraction limiting about f/6.3 (16MP sensor). APS-C starts diffraction limiting at around f/7.1 (16MP sensor). Full frame starts diffraction limiting around f/9 (16MP sensor). At those apertures, you have to blow the image up to 100% on a monitor to just barely see the diffraction. But by f/11 on m43, f/13 on APS-C, and f/16 on full frame, it shows its ugly head in a print. Use a higher resolution sensor, and you'll see it even sooner.

In the school portrait industry, where I used to work, large groups of graduating classes (150 – 750 seniors!) used to be photographed on 8x10 sheet film at f/32 to f/64. When some of our group photographers turned in their view cameras and started working with digital cameras, they instinctively (and ignorantly) stopped down to f/32. Everything was in focus, but looked like it was photographed through a layer of pantyhose and vaseline! At the distances they were working, they could have had enough depth of field at f/5.6, and still made tack sharp 20x30" prints. It took MONTHS to explain diffraction, and dozens of real-world tests, to prove to them that this was the truth. Old habits and prejudices die hard!

Part of the ultimate solution was to download depth-of-field calculators to their smartphones and computers. We also had to teach them not to use autofocus, since it usually found the ground in front of the camera and nothing else! Manually focusing 1/3 of the way through the calculated depth of field worked wonders.

Frankly, manual focus will work well for you in macro photography, too. Manual focus helps get the most out of the depth of field you have, by being intentional about the focus point and available depth of focus.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Shooting at f/5 is the problem!

All this talk about tripods, shutter speed, or in your case different focusing just confuses the issue by totally missing the point.

He lneeds a lens that can be stopped down to small aperture. A typical macro lens is an example, though there are several non-macro zoom lenses that will do that. The Nikkor 18-70mm lens, as an example, will stop down to f/29, which isn't as far as might be liked but it's vastly better than shooting at f/5!