is this camera shake???

EOS_JD · May 3, 2007

Orgnoi1 said:
Your shutter may be too slow... but I think EVERYONE is overlooking that your cameras sharpening is set to SOFT... and Med/L...

I am not falling into the camera shake group with this because the fenceline links are sharp edged but soft and they are MUCH further away so anything that was happening to the shot of the boy would be worse on the fence...

Without looking at a D200 I cant tell you how to correct that... my gfs D200 is with her and I am at work... but I would read into the settings and see if thats correctable before I would buy a new lens or send out the camera...

*Edit: if you use IExif from Opanda to look at the EXIF it gives ALL the camera settings...

Even although it's set to soft, you'd still have a relatively easy image to sharpen post processing to give a nice sharp image. This image is not sharp at all, not because it's soft but because it was shot at far too slow a shutter speed to get a sharp image.

Jim

Orgnoi1 · May 3, 2007

Sorry gonna have to agree to disagree... all the defining edges are there... on everything... we do not know what was done in post processing whatsoever... the image... looks soft... not that I am an expert or anything... I will say too many people believe you cant shoot at less than 1/focal length... and it just isnt true... if 1/160" was too slow and caused enough shake to cause such a minor blur what would the kid moving his mouth do... and do you feel he stood still enough that 1/160" was fast enough to record no movement at all but slow enough to cause a softness?

bnkrecords · May 3, 2007

I appreciate everyones help and suggestions. I will definately look into that book before buying the lense, I tend to buy new things at random, thanks to my studio. Thank you very much

oh and Orgnoi1, i joined your page..

DSLR noob · May 3, 2007

His lens only goes up to 135mm, how was it at 300mm?

bnkrecords · May 3, 2007

DSLR noob said:
His lens only goes up to 135mm, how was it at 300mm?

i think he read that on my second pic which was at 300mm, i used another lense for that pic

DSLR noob · May 3, 2007

ahhh ok

xfloggingkylex · May 3, 2007

Orgnoi1 said:
Sorry gonna have to agree to disagree... all the defining edges are there... on everything... we do not know what was done in post processing whatsoever... the image... looks soft... not that I am an expert or anything... I will say too many people believe you cant shoot at less than 1/focal length... and it just isnt true... if 1/160" was too slow and caused enough shake to cause such a minor blur what would the kid moving his mouth do... and do you feel he stood still enough that 1/160" was fast enough to record no movement at all but slow enough to cause a softness?

1/160" is plenty quick enough to capture a person without blur, the only reason the photo is blurred is because of camera shake due to way to slow of a shutter speed.

I'll tell you want, if you want to prove your point get a 300mm lens on and take a shot at 1/160" and post it here, EXIF and all. Without some form of image stabilization or support, you're going to get blur.

Defining edges?!? um the whole picture is blurry. If there was no camera shake the kid would be sharp and the background would still be blurry.

Things that are further away are typically effected less by motion blur (whether from camera or subject).

bnkrecords · May 3, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
if you're shooting JPEG, just right click on the image, go to properties, and click on advanced.
.

I just got a mac, and for some reason, it doesnt let you look at properties.

edit" I found out how to now... thanks

Orgnoi1 · May 4, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
1/160" is plenty quick enough to capture a person without blur, the only reason the photo is blurred is because of camera shake due to way to slow of a shutter speed.

I'll tell you want, if you want to prove your point get a 300mm lens on and take a shot at 1/160" and post it here, EXIF and all. Without some form of image stabilization or support, you're going to get blur.

Believe me... you are asking the WRONG person for this... because I have already proven it...EXIF IS intact... sorry to rain on your parade... you can ask anyone on my forum... I handhold EVERYTHING...

Here: and this is 1/5" handheld....
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7194

And then someone taunted me to do 300mm handheld before so instead I did 500mm @ 5 meters inside handheld here:
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7197

fmw · May 4, 2007

Let me add my voice to that of Garbz. Don't take it personally but you aren't ready for the camera you already have. Throwing money at photography isn't going to make better images. Learning photographic techniques will do that. Time to step back and do some reading and learning. Spend your money on some books or a photography course, not on more equipment.

fmw · May 4, 2007

Orgnoi1 said:
Believe me... you are asking the WRONG person for this... because I have already proven it...EXIF IS intact... sorry to rain on your parade... you can ask anyone on my forum... I handhold EVERYTHING...

Here: and this is 1/5" handheld....
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7194

And then someone taunted me to do 300mm handheld before so instead I did 500mm @ 5 meters inside handheld here:
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7197

I'll admit I can't do that. However, I will say that the images would have been sharper with a tripod. I'm sure you realize that. They are very good for handheld shots but they aren't as sharp as they could be.

EOS_JD · May 4, 2007

Orgnoi1 said:
Believe me... you are asking the WRONG person for this... because I have already proven it...EXIF IS intact... sorry to rain on your parade... you can ask anyone on my forum... I handhold EVERYTHING...

Here: and this is 1/5" handheld....
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7194

And then someone taunted me to do 300mm handheld before so instead I did 500mm @ 5 meters inside handheld here:
http://www.northeastfoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7197

OK I see what you are doing....... i don't think we said it was impossible to shoot at slower speeds. We are saying the OPs image is camera shake.

an I ask how you shot? You obviously stood very still, you took your time over the shot, you probably held your breath etc etc......

The OP's image does not look like he took much time over the shot. He has fired a quick candid shot. 1/160th at 300mm is too slow for a normal shot. I've a 300f4L IS. When I swith off IS and don't take care, even 1/200th is a hit and miss....

IF you are VERY careful yes you will be able to get a sharper image but this I doubt was the case. It's just more lack of knowledge on the OPs part not realising that 1/160th was too slow a shutter speed to get a sharp image.

Taking toime over the shot will allow slower shutter speeds but when shooting candids like this you can't normally keep the camera in one position long enough.

I understand your point but disagree that it is anything other than camera shake.

Regards
Jim

Orgnoi1 · May 4, 2007

EOS_JD said:
OK I see what you are doing....... i don't think we said it was impossible to shoot at slower speeds.

Actually... LOL thats pretty much exactly what Kyle was trying to tell me... that I should man up and shoot at 300mm at 1/160" and post my results with EXIF intact... so thats what I did.. only with a much slower shutter and much longer lens... at a much shorter distance...

Rules are there in photography to get people going in the beginning... and then they are there to break when you get more practice... but they are just a guideline... nothing more... nothing less...

I agree FMW the shots would obviously be better on a pod with a release... and when I do longer timed exposures thats what I do... the waterfall shot was kinda just something I was doing while out shooting with my mom and her new camera... the second set of shots with the 500L was on purpose as on my forum we had been discussing it.

As per the OPs post... we do not have enough information to know if its camera shake, a backfocusing lens, a overly cropped image, an unprocessed image, or camera settings to make a rock solid determination. The "camera shake" bandwagon is full and sometimes you need to examine an image more then just what first meets the eye...

The_Traveler · May 4, 2007

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.
Start with the most likely diagnosis and eliminate that.
Retake typical shots with faster shutter speeds and see if the problem goes away - (it is irrelevant whether a more experienced someone else can hand hold a 300 mm at 1/4) - then try other things to isolate the problem.

EOS_JD · May 5, 2007

Orgnoi1 said:
Actually... LOL thats pretty much exactly what Kyle was trying to tell me... that I should man up and shoot at 300mm at 1/160" and post my results with EXIF intact... so thats what I did.. only with a much slower shutter and much longer lens... at a much shorter distance...

Rules are there in photography to get people going in the beginning... and then they are there to break when you get more practice... but they are just a guideline... nothing more... nothing less...

I agree FMW the shots would obviously be better on a pod with a release... and when I do longer timed exposures thats what I do... the waterfall shot was kinda just something I was doing while out shooting with my mom and her new camera... the second set of shots with the 500L was on purpose as on my forum we had been discussing it.

As per the OPs post... we do not have enough information to know if its camera shake, a backfocusing lens, a overly cropped image, an unprocessed image, or camera settings to make a rock solid determination. The "camera shake" bandwagon is full and sometimes you need to examine an image more then just what first meets the eye...

Must admit to having skimmed over Kyle's post

I agree regards the rules. All can be broken to an extent. I guess IS was switched on with the 500L though?

But my point regards camera shake I still can't see past. The subject movement would most likely be frozen with a 1/160th shutter speed and there are no sharp parts of the image whatsoever. Sure it could be a lens problem but I think the post would have gone down the road of "Why can't I get a sharp shot" or something like that. If it's overy cropped
then camera shake is still the most likely problem. An unprocessed image shouldn't look like this? There's nothing sharp in it.

This is a basic error that I made when I started out. I had the 70-200 f4L and shot many at 1/100th and faster and could not understand why I got blurred images - they looked very like the OPs. If it was just soft, sharpening in photoshop would make all the difference but it's not.

Again I know you can shoot at slower speeds but you need to take time and great care. I doubt that was done with this image and the slow shutter speed with long lens has induced camera shake.

Cheers
Jim