User, settings or technical issue (focus)

Passed_Pawn · Oct 10, 2016

Hi all. I'm a novice photographer. I just like to take pics of my kids and that's really it. I've noticed that a lot of pics don't seem as sharp as I feel they should be. An example is available in the link below. This is typical of the results of my snapshots, but not always. I'm trying to get sharper images more consistently.

The pic at the link below was shot as follows:
Canon 60D
Iso 800
f5
1/125th
47mm
Exposure comp -0.33
Shutter priority mode
AF single
Focus point was placed on the subjects ear. Subject wasn't moving much at time of shutter release.

Focus point seems to be the area with least focus. Overall image is fuzzy Imo. Does it seem from the example to be user error, or is my autofocus malfunctioning? Am I expecting too much? Perhaps it's acceptably sharp given the settings? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

https://flic.kr/p/MUhQNE

SuzukiGS750EZ · Oct 10, 2016

It looks acceptable to me. Why don't you try using it in AV (aperture value) and allow it to set the shutter for you. I would think you could even safely bump the ISO up to 1280 or so with that camera and not have much noise which would allow a bit faster shutter speed depending on what aperture you choose. Looks like f5 was a good choice for that setting. Keep the exposure comp at 0. What metering mode are you using? And what focus point type are you using? The picture honestly doesn't look that bad.

KmH · Oct 10, 2016

Part of the issue you're having with the photo is the flat lighting, such that the boy does not stand out very well from the background.

The ISO setting also isn't helping because there is subtle image noise that is making the photo feel less than sharp.
The negative exposure compensation didn't help with the ISO issue, and unless you have quite good camera holding technique the shutter speed was a bit to slow to control camera shake.

Using some flash would have helped a lot - in several ways.
The flash of light has a very short duration, even more as the power of the flash unit is reduced and in that setting a flash power setting of 1/16 power or so would have been fast enough to help 'stop' camera shake.
Flash would also have allowed using a lower ISO setting while ensuring the boy was still well exposed while also making the background a bit darker so the boy 'pops' from the background better.

To 'stop' a person just walking takes about 1/250 in shutter speed, so you don't often want the shutter speed slower than that when making photos of people that aren't motionless.

weepete · Oct 10, 2016

Looks to me like a slight front focusing issue too. Though a larger depth of field would have helped, I'd have probably picked f11 or f16 for this as there is quite a lot of close foreground.

astroNikon · Oct 11, 2016

Do you have any filter on your lens ?

Subject is walking/moving around, need a faster shutter speed.
1/125 is good for a still subject such as taking a studio portrait.

Passed_Pawn · Oct 11, 2016

Thanks everyone for all the feedback!

KmH the flash is a great idea that I hadnt considered because of the distance. Having just read thru my speed light manual I realize now that it has more than enough power to adequately light dozens of feet away while outdoors. I can't wait to get out this weekend and give it a try. Particularly I'm excited about the lower iso ans faster shutter speeds I'll be able to use!

AstroNikon: I have a good quality uv filter on it.

Weepete: I'm gonna run a focus accuracy test per some instructions that I found on Google and see how pronounced any front focus is. Thanks for the feedback here.

Suzuki: Evaluative metering, and I select the focus point based on how I want to frame the images. In this case I chose the upper right focus point. I usually prefer av mode but here I stayed away because it was giving me really slow shutter speeds even at ISO 800. I'm gonna try AV again in this type of lighting and use the speed light with a lower iso and smaller aperture plus configure the camera to use faster shutter speeds with the speed light activated.

Thanks again everyone.

astroNikon · Oct 11, 2016

Passed_Pawn said:
AstroNikon: I have a good quality uv filter on it.

And what brand / model UV Filter are you using ?

The reason I asked is I looked at the rocks in the same focus plane and they didn't look that sharp either, and I'm pretty sure they weren't moving. So I asked about a filter.

Passed_Pawn · Oct 11, 2016

astroNikon said:
Passed_Pawn said:

AstroNikon: I have a good quality uv filter on it.

Click to expand...

And what brand / model UV Filter are you using ?

The reason I asked is I looked at the rocks in the same focus plane and they didn't look that sharp either, and I'm pretty sure they weren't moving. So I asked about a filter.

It's a Hoya UV Haze NXT HMC Filter, same as below:
Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/900281-REG/Hoya_anxt67uv_67mm_NXT_UV_Haze.html

table1349 · Oct 11, 2016

The is a good quality UV Haze Filter: Formatt Hitech 67mm Firecrest UltraSlim UV IR Cut FC67UMUVIR B&H

Neither of which are needed on a DSLR. Take off the filter and recheck the results.

Passed_Pawn · Oct 11, 2016

gryphonslair99 said:
The is a good quality UV Haze Filter: Formatt Hitech 67mm Firecrest UltraSlim UV IR Cut FC67UMUVIR B&H

Neither of which are needed on a DSLR. Take of the filter and recheck the results.

I use mine only to protect the lens itself from dust, water droplets, abrasions etc. I'll try removing it. Thanks for the suggestion.

table1349 · Oct 11, 2016

That is why the lens should have come with a lens hood. Hood on all the time.

Dust can easily be blown away. Shoot many rain storms pointing the camera straight up to the sky do you? :allteeth:

Take a look at this. Dirty lens article

Passed_Pawn · Oct 11, 2016

gryphonslair99 said:
That is why the lens should have come with a lens hood. Hood on all the time.

Dust can easily be blown away. Shoot many rain storms pointing the camera straight up to the sky do you?

Take a look at this. Dirty lens article

Lol no. I'm usually out on the hiking trail with the kids. We see a lot of water falls which can send up a lot of mist and when in close it gets on the glass.

Thanks for the link. That's very informative. I'm definitely going to remove it.

table1349 · Oct 11, 2016

It's surprising to lots of people how much damage a front element can take and show little to no image degradation. I shoot College sports from the field come sunshine, rain or snow. Every lens has a hood on it. In bad weather I do protect the camera lens body with camera rain gear, but the only time I put a filter over my lens is when I need the effect of the filter, either a polarizer or ND filter.

weepete · Oct 11, 2016

Yup, me too. Front elements on lenses are pretty tough, adding a much more fragile bit of glass on the front for protection is kinda like tying a pillow to the front of a truck to protect it.

table1349 · Oct 11, 2016

weepete said:
Yup, me too. Front elements on lenses are pretty tough, adding a much more fragile bit of glass on the front for protection is kinda like tying a pillow to the front of a truck to protect it.

Wait......What...... you mean I bought that "My Pillow" for NOTHING????? Now you tell me.