Photo Blur

thanos · Jul 6, 2007

Low Light, Slow Shutter, no VR (yet) = Photo Blur = My Curse (and many others I would imagine). Now I dont think this is even possible, but I'm throwin it out here to see if anyone knows a ways to remove general handhleld blur (however partially).

Here's an example (Moreton island, the day before, late afternoon, handheld with nikon d80). That little bit of blur ruins the photo abit for me (hard to tell here, but blown up makes it a bit of an issue).

Now if anyone has an ideas as to how one can "photoshop" blur out of photos (even a little), it would be much appreciated.

Matt Keks

deanimator · Jul 6, 2007

Maybe it´s my eyes...but what do you mean by "blur"?

The movement of the water?
The image is out of focus?
A depth-of-field problem?
Camera shake?

hyakuhei · Jul 6, 2007

Camera Shake...
If only Photoshop had a "Add Tripod To Layer" filter....

Alex_B · Jul 6, 2007

To me one of the problems with this images is the tilted horizon, and you lost alot in the dark parts.

The strong point are the colours.

blur really comes last here, and does not bother me so much in this image... but is this really mainly motion blur from camera shake? looks like rather shalllow DOF to me, with one of the rock-shilouettes being well in focus. This would make sense since you probably used a large aperture to survive with the available light.

As for motion blur, if it is sort of directional, I think there are software solutions to it which can at least reduce it. Could it be that neatimage has such a feature, or Photoshop? not sure since I never used that feature...

thanos · Jul 6, 2007

hyakuhei said:
Camera Shake...
If only Photoshop had a "Add Tripod To Layer" filter....

Yeah sorry, should have said Camera Shake - old habbits die hard.... but it would be nice wouldn't it. I was simply wonderin if anyone knew of the equivalent of a "Add Tripod To Layer".

By the way, thanks Alex_B for the critique, I was propping the camera on my knee, and as I was camping I had to start dinner before I lost all light, so I would agree with you on the dodgy horizon and darkness (will fix alittle in photoshop). And the aperture was 10, with dof being not a real issue blown up. And as I said, blown up the picture becomes both better and worse, with the darkness becoming less of an issue and camera shake/motion blur more so.

deanimator · Jul 6, 2007

I think you could maybe have fixed several problems by using the first rock as your "tripod", thereby getting rid of what seems to be a bit too much unknown black foreground ---> simpler composition, and reducing the camera shake.

Maybe the issue with DOF was a result of using auto-focus...it seems to have focussed on the nearby rock, so even with f10 the horizon is out...ja?

Err...and bracket, or add a smidgeon of fill-flash if you have time.

Yes..the horizon tilt...I was hoping that wasn´t necessary to mention...

fmw · Jul 6, 2007

I'm not sure why digital photographers are averse to using tripods. It baffles me. Digital changes the recording medium, not the photography itself.

thanos · Jul 6, 2007

fmw, I would agree with your statement, however this wasnt a photography holiday, it was a 4 day camp around the island so space and weight were limited to one 60L rucksack, day pack and tent - my manfrotto art 190 is just too bulky. And in hindsight, autofocus may have been the oversight with this particular photo, I only took one with the time limited (and during the final overs of a game of beach cricket at that

). And fill flash is a fiddly thing at the moment for me, cant ever make it subtle quickly.

Nevertheless, removing blur, however slight the imporvement is - any ideas....?

Matt Keks

Alex_B · Jul 6, 2007

ok, then it is not DOF which is an issue ...

fmw said:
I'm not sure why digital photographers are averse to using tripods. It baffles me. Digital changes the recording medium, not the photography itself.

As far as I remember, also non-pro film photographers always thought twice before taking their tripod with them.
Just all those blurry images were never shown anywhere in public

Alex_B · Jul 6, 2007

thanos said:
fmw, I would agree with your statement, however this wasnt a photography holiday, it was a 4 day camp around the island so space and weight were limited to one 60L rucksack, day pack and tent - my manfrotto art 190 is just too bulky. And in hindsight, autofocus may have been the oversight with this particular photo, I only took one with the time limited (and during the final overs of a game of beach cricket at that ).

Nevertheless, removing blur, however slight the imporvement is - any ideas....?

I am just back from a similar hike in Lapland, with a 130L rucksack

So I had a wide angle, a standard zoom, a 300mm lens some filters, my tripod and my panomara head with me ... it works, believe me... just those 30 kg on your back can be a pain sometimes

table1349 · Jul 6, 2007

fmw said:
I'm not sure why digital photographers are averse to using tripods. It baffles me. Digital changes the recording medium, not the photography itself.

The mistaken belief that Image Shake Reduction or Photoshop will fix everything.

deanimator · Jul 6, 2007

Yep. Next time take the rock or use a tripod

Doh!...I mean, take a tripod or use the rock!

deanimator · Jul 6, 2007

Oh...for corrections...

There is a sharpening filter in Photoshop or Helicon Filter.

burtharrris · Jul 6, 2007

deanimator said:
I think you could maybe have fixed several problems by using the first rock as your "tripod", thereby getting rid of what seems to be a bit too much unknown black foreground ---> simpler composition, and reducing the camera shake.

Ah. I feel stupid. I thought they were seals or something.