Why is this photo not super sharp?

[Lodovico]

I'm getting frustrated with my lack of sharpness. I just got a decent lens, Nikon 35mm 1.8 and I feel like I understand the basics of photography. Some of my images have come out tack sharp, but others like this one, I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. Help.

Nikon D3100
Nikor 35mm 1.8
ISO 200
f/2.2
1/4000

 

[480sparky]

Post a link to a full-size, unedited original image. That will give us shooting data, and even focus points, to work from. The little image you posted here isn't much help.

 

[tirediron]

Where are you seeing a lack of sharpness? Looking carefully at this, it seems decently sharp too me; I'm guessing your point of focus was the lips of the child in the red shirt; estimating your camera to subject distance as 4', your DoF was only about 2 1/2 inches, so fall off is going to occur rapidly; consider stopping down to say, f5.6 - f8 and see how it looks.

 

[tecboy]

I noticed there is an aliasing on the frame of a little boy's glasses.

 

[KmH]

f/2.2 is a big part of the issue. That lens doesn't start getting it's sharpest until it's stopped down to between f/3.5 and f/11.

If you used one of the eyes of the boy camera right as your point of focus, the under exposed, dark eye sockets from the poor angle and quality of light may have hindered auto focus.

 

[Lodovico]

Post a link to a full-size, unedited original image. That will give us shooting data, and even focus points, to work from. The little image you posted here isn't much help.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to post a full size version I guess, but as far as original and unedited, this photo hasn't been touched. Just uploaded it from my camera to Flickr.

 

[KmH]

I noticed there is an aliasing on the frame of a little boy's glasses.

If you zoom in far enough, you'll see aliasing on every edge in the image.

Also note the posted image is very low resolution - only 640x427 pixels

 

[Lodovico]

f/2.2 is a big part of the issue. That lens doesn't start getting it's sharpest until it's stopped down to between f/3.5 and f/11.

If you used one of the eyes of the boy camera right as your point of focus, the under exposed, dark eye sockets from the poor angle and quality of light may have hindered auto focus.

Ok. I realize that f/2.2 isn't going to be sharpest point, but I still thought this would be sharper. Thanks for the advice though. I guess I'll really have to experiment with the stops and see what comes out best. thanks

 

[Lodovico]

I noticed there is an aliasing on the frame of a little boy's glasses.

I get what aliasing means, but I guess I'll have to look this up because I'm not sure what your comment is suggesting as far as how I correct that. Thanks for feedback though.

 

[tecboy]

I noticed there is an aliasing on the frame of a little boy's glasses.

I get what aliasing means, but I guess I'll have to look this up because I'm not sure what your comment is suggesting as far as how I correct that. Thanks for feedback though.

Sorry, I was looking my iPad. I guess that was a bad idea.

 

[Edsport]

With a little sharpening in photoshop it looks sharp to me...

 

[Braineack]

Post a link to a full-size, unedited original image. That will give us shooting data, and even focus points, to work from. The little image you posted here isn't much help.

I'm having trouble figuring out how to post a full size version I guess, but as far as original and unedited, this photo hasn't been touched. Just uploaded it from my camera to Flickr.

give us the Flickr link then.

But honestly, it looks pretty sharp as is, at least at this size. But then again Flickr adds sharpening to its resizes.

 

[manaheim]

1. Looks sharp enough- just underexposed.
2. As pointed out, F2.2 may not be optimal on your lens.
3. F2.2 is also going to make it sharp in a VERY narrow plane of focus. Like... the tip of someone's nose may be in focus, and their eyes may not. THAT narrow.
4. Almost all cameras have AA filters over the sensor that naturally soften an image slightly. You have to do a little sharpening in post-production to clean that up.

 

[PaulWog]

If you continue to have this issue, view the focus point in ViewNX 2 (it's Nikon's RAW viewing software). You can view where the focus point was this way. You can view a larger sample size of your pictures, and determine if the focus is slightly backfocused, or frontfocused, or just generally off. If you have issues, take the lens in for warranty servicing.

However, at f2.2, the picture seems decently sharp. As it has been said above, without a full sized image, it's impossible to say where your issue is stemming from.

My hunch is one of the two:
1) You need to stop down a bit to get the sharpness you want (simply a limitation from your aperture, not the lens). Possibly you need to pick a slightly better point of focus at f2.2.
or
2) Your lens is defective in some way. Either the focus is off, or it's not as sharp as it should be. At f2.2, my 35mm 1.8G (which is a defective one) is tack sharp when it does get the focus on. There is a shallow depth of field, however most of the two boys should be in proper focus if your focus point was the left eye of the boy on the right from my point-of-view (or his anatomical right eye).

edit -- One other thing: Did you do any edits before posting? You are shooting at ISO 200 and getting 1/4000 of a second shutter speed. You might want to drop that down to ISO 100, since you're maxing your shutter speed in that lighting at ISO 200 (assuming you didn't bump any exposure in software after).

 

[JTPhotography]

I think the only thing askew here are your expectations. Not an insult at all. There is nothing wrong with this photo. Though I do have two comments. First, your lens will be plenty sharp shooting wide open, but you should only expect sharpness in the plane of focus, so focus carefully. In this case, focus on the eyes and set your aperture according to how much depth you want in front of and behind the focal plane. Second, the lighting is somewhat flat and subdued. If you had some golden sunlight the faces would seem much more "tack" sharp.