Frustrated - shots not as sharp as they should be

[Garbz]

Rather than dumming yourself down by reading Ken Rockwells website consider the source.

The f/2.8 image looks sharper than the rest. It has greater depth of field too, but it IS also sharper. The reason is simple:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...n-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review?start=1

If your f/2.8 image wasn't taken at ISO800 and the environment would have been bright enough to eliminate all camera shake then it would likely be close to tac sharp. Try it outside.

Sharpness of the 50mm f/1.4 reasonably good performance for a f/1.4 lens but do not expect a pristinely sharp image out of it when shooting wide open. (the top of the graph is the limit of the 350D sensor.

 

[compur]

Have you tried using a tripod?

 

[confucious]

I would have to agree with other posters on this - try some sharpness tests with more distance and a bit more light to see if you can get those shots right. If so, I think lack of light/depth of field issues would be the case (unless of course your autofocus is not working properly).

I have the exact same lens and LOVE it. Have had it only about 2 weeks, but already am learning that wide open and in close with your subject can cause problems. I got an absolutely beautiful candid protrait of my exgirlfriend out at breakfast the other day...I got her nose in PERFECT focus, but her eyes are a little soft. Sigh - we live, we learn.

 

[Emerana]

I think its a dof issue but I was having trouble with sharpness and after I started shooting in RAW, it got much much better

 

[JerryPH]

At work, I accessed the computer and saw the pics... looked ok to me. Getting home and seeing them on a 24" screen, its obvious.

You are getting DOF issues (and POSSIBLY some minor backfocus?), from what I see. At F/1.4 your DOF is razor thin. At F/2.8, its only marginally less so.

You had 2 options... either back the camera away from the subject 2-3 feet and crop in PP or get the aperture closed down to something like F/4 to F/5.6 or so.

Seriously Marcus, try it and post back a pick.

At the same time, test out your lens for front or rear focus issues. I am not sure, but it could be. Do a google on FOCUS TEST, download it, follow the instructions and post a pic of that. It looks something like this:

 

[JerryPH]

I think its a dof issue but I was having trouble with sharpness and after I started shooting in RAW, it got much much better

Emerana, for you I really think that about the time you went from JPG to RAW, your technique improved and you started seeing sharper pics. Take credit for that.

RAWs have no in-camera sharpness added as a general rule, where as the JPGs for the most part do.

 

[Emerana]

ok, I am super awesome!

 

[Mike_E]

Get a flash, bounce it off the ceiling and shoot at between f/4 and f/6.3.

 

[MarcusM]

Wow, thanks for all the replies everyone. There are a lot of differing opinions, but some stuff that makes sense.

I've had the same problem only with different lens... i was using the widest aperture that the lens supported, as i stopped down, for example from f/3.5 to f/7.1 -f/9 the images started to get very sharp. But my problem was with a zoom lens. Usually a prime should be sharp at the widest aperture.

Try photographing someone outside with good lighting. see if it get sharper. I think that you problem was that the photo was taken indoors and a shutter speed of 1/60 still can get you some blurry photos.

Don`t know, try experimenting a lot like take photos outside, see how it gets, use a tripod and shoot static objects, see if it get a little more sharper, step down you aperture size. and compare the results.

If you still get blurry i think that you should go back to the shop and explain to them your issue

Good luck dude

Yea, I'll really have to try outside. Part of the reason I bought this lens though, was because I like to do a lot of candids of my kids in my house, and the daylight is NOT good inside my house. We really don't get any light from the south since our neighbor's house is so close it blocks most of the light. I was hoping that the wider apertures would allow me to keep the ISO lower while shooting at faster shutter speeds. I did not realize the DOF was going to be soooo razor thin!

Regardless of the lens used focus at wide open and close to subject is a no no, if your close in stop down the lens to improve DOF/sharpness, at the low f numbers focus is critical, more so close up. H

Yea, I think I will try backing up just a bit. I like to get those close-ups though. Maybe I should try the 85mm f/1.8 for what I like to do.

it's not that it's a "no-no", it's just tricky. almost everyone that uses a 1.8 or faster lens seems to think that it doesn't focus properly. you breathe, your focus changes - dof is that shallow.
if you must shoot at 1.4, move back a little so your dof isn't so shallow. that or stop down like harry said.
also, you aren't likely to get "tack-sharp" results wide open. they should be a bit sharper than they are, but as you stop down, sharpness will increase until about f/9 or 11.

That all makes sense. Thanks.

Yes. Read this:

www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm

and this:

www.kenrockwell.com/tech/resolution-myth.htm

I read a little but haven't had time to read it all yet. Thanks.

Did you use a flash for the shots? If not then at 1/60th your shutter speeds are a bit on the slow side. The rule of thumb is 1/(focal length x 1.5) for a DX sensor to give the slowest shutter speed for hand holding but that is really for a more general view, landscapes etc. For close-up work you need shorter speeds to ensure sharpness. Also, at 1/60th subject movement could be a factor in reducing sharpness.

As noted above, most lenses are not at their best fully open and will look slightly soft. The depth of field at a range of 2 feet and f1.4 will be about 0.3 inch so it would be difficult to get both eyes in focus at the same time anyway. Even if you go to f11 the depth of field is still only 1 inch, hardly enough to get the tip of the nose and the eyes in focus at the same time.

No flash. I try not to use flash as much as possible, well, at least not until I really master my 430EX. And I agree, I think some of the blur is caused by subject movement. Daria (my baby) is so quick! Her movements are really fast and jerky, (like a normal baby's) and it's hard for me to find the right moment to shoot. Actually I think she moves more than my son ever did.

Thanks for the tips.

I have had the same problem as the OP with a 50mm f1.8. I found the problem to be me!

At f1.8 the DOF is super shallow. You compose and focus the shot, either you or your subject (or both) moves only slighty and you loose sharpness on the eyes and the shot looks like crap.

Get out side on a sunny day, stop it down a bit and try some more shots. I personally have found that using a 50mm lens at f2.8 gives me the wiggle room to ensure sharp portraits.

I agree, I think you're right and this is one of the problems, subject movement after I've locked the focus.

Check what settings your 300D is set to in camera - maybe the sharpness isn't set very high.

I had the same trouble when I first started using my 50mm f/1.8 on my 350D. It is soooo tricky to focus. You'll need to sharpen in PS too - just coz digital photos aren't as sharp as the should be straight out of the camera. Which is good coz otherwise it'd oversharpen and ruin everything!

These were all shot in RAW. Are you talking about the image size/quality settings? When I shoot JPEG I use the highest possible always, but these were RAW.

DOF will be still pretty shallow at f/2.8. And in the last image part of her right eye is very sharp!

Yep, I agree, thanks.

You do have a depth-of-field issue here. There is no problem with the sharpness of your lens you are just focusing on a different part of the face than you want to. With any lens when it is set at f/2 or lower you are going to have a very narrow depth-of-field. If you look closely at any of the pictures you will see there is critical focus at some point you just focused on a different point than you wanted to. Looking back at all of them I think the critical focus point is on the forehead so you really need to bump your aperture up to something like f/5.6 or 8 to get what you are looking for.

I think you're partly right. It's a DOF issue, but it's not me focusing on the wrong part. I focused dead-set on the eyes every time, but I think like some of the other posters said, with f/1.4 especially, if I lock the focus and then the subject moves just a little bit, then the part that moved in place of the focus-locked part will now be in focus instead.

Rather than dumming yourself down by reading Ken Rockwells website consider the source.

The f/2.8 image looks sharper than the rest. It has greater depth of field too, but it IS also sharper. The reason is simple:


http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...n-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review?start=1

If your f/2.8 image wasn't taken at ISO800 and the environment would have been bright enough to eliminate all camera shake then it would likely be close to tac sharp. Try it outside.

Sharpness of the 50mm f/1.4 reasonably good performance for a f/1.4 lens but do not expect a pristinely sharp image out of it when shooting wide open. (the top of the graph is the limit of the 350D sensor.

Good advice, I'll have to study these charts.

Have you tried using a tripod?

I do have a nice tripod, but it wouldn't work in this situation. I'm trying for quick, spontaneous candid moments, and like the other posters said, I think the main issue is due to extremely shallow DOF combined with subject movement.

I would have to agree with other posters on this - try some sharpness tests with more distance and a bit more light to see if you can get those shots right. If so, I think lack of light/depth of field issues would be the case (unless of course your autofocus is not working properly).

I have the exact same lens and LOVE it. Have had it only about 2 weeks, but already am learning that wide open and in close with your subject can cause problems. I got an absolutely beautiful candid protrait of my exgirlfriend out at breakfast the other day...I got her nose in PERFECT focus, but her eyes are a little soft. Sigh - we live, we learn.

Thanks, this seems to be the general consensus.

I think its a dof issue but I was having trouble with sharpness and after I started shooting in RAW, it got much much better

Thanks. Yep, these were in RAW.

At work, I accessed the computer and saw the pics... looked ok to me. Getting home and seeing them on a 24" screen, its obvious.

You are getting DOF issues (and POSSIBLY some minor backfocus?), from what I see. At F/1.4 your DOF is razor thin. At F/2.8, its only marginally less so.

You had 2 options... either back the camera away from the subject 2-3 feet and crop in PP or get the aperture closed down to something like F/4 to F/5.6 or so.

Seriously Marcus, try it and post back a pick.

At the same time, test out your lens for front or rear focus issues. I am not sure, but it could be. Do a google on FOCUS TEST, download it, follow the instructions and post a pic of that. It looks something like this:

Thanks Jerry! That chart looks like a great idea. I will try that this weekend, also I'll try your suggestion and post some shots this weekend. The problem is, shooting at f/4 or 5.6, I'm not getting enough light and have to bump the ISO waaaay up inside my house. ISO 800 on my 300D is pushing it, and 1600 is pretty much useless.

Get a flash, bounce it off the ceiling and shoot at between f/4 and f/6.3.

I do have a flash - the 430EX. I just got it recently and haven't really used it much. I have to finish reading the manual, but I will give it a shot. I kind of got turned off from flashes after using my built-in, but I have noticed a tremendous difference with my external flash. Thanks.

Thanks again, all the info here has really provided me w/insight and I think I know the main problem(s)

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Don't snub the flash. Some people, myself included, swear by "available light". Well, like i read somewhere, my flash is available to me, and it provides me with light...hence...you get the point.
Available light is great where it is abundant, or when it gives you a nice effect, like when you stand next to a window, or a ray of light coming down from the ceiling of a church. But in a dark house(such as you describe yours), available light means bland light - and that doesn't translate into a great picture.

Anyhow, you can do some nice things with a flash. Bounce it sideways, at 45 degrees, and you've got yourself a nice 3D portrait, with shadows, texture and nice skin color. Play with it. If you have white/gray/cream colored ceiling and walls, you'll get an umbrella-like lighting that looks natural and professional at the same time.

BTW, if you're bouncing your flash, zoom-in the beam to a maximum or just a notch wider. If you don't, you end up wasting a lot of the light, because the wall will diffuse a beam that comes out diffuse already, throwing it everywhere.

Good luck

 

[Warhawk]

Just for interest sake... I have noticed that my camera sometimes does struggle to get the focus on a face right, thats why i use higer f-stop when i have to take a photo of a face.

Also, Jerry pointed out the focus chart... that chart is AMAZING, it thanks to that chart that i had 3 EOS 30D bodies that back focused (i took them all back), when i got my 40D, i tested it and it was fine

So if i were you, just get a focus chart anyway and test your camera anyway, you can never be to sure

On the flash thing... my flash is always on my camera, even when i dont use it, its there just in case

Hope you get your problem fixed!

 

[Foxtrot]

I have a quick suggestion that maybe no one has thought of. I too have this lens, And I think your main problem may be that you are simply too close to your subject...Look at the manual if you still have it....or on canon.com and have a look at the MINIMUM focusing distance...it is typically just over 12'' Minimum distance....take a step back and try again...Might be a real simple solution....and you should be getting excellent results with that lens. another possible problem ( if that doesnt work) is that the lens is not properly calibrated....I know its rare..but I have read of instances of that happening.
cheers
hope this helps
fox