Gear for sharpest images

exemplaria · Oct 2, 2012

Not sure where to post this. We've had our daughter photographed professionally several times. Despite my best efforts, I am never satisfied with the sharpness of my photos as compared to the pros. I have observed that our pro is using a D700, 50mm 1.4g, and does some unknown thing to them in photoshop (our photo CD arrives with that information on it). I can see from the EXIF data she's usually shooting between 1.8 and 2.5. I'm using a D3100, 35mm f1.8d, and I don't know all her photoshop tricks.

What element do you think is most responsible for the (at least perceived) disparity in sharpness? The first is one of her's, shot at f1.8, 1/320.

Here's one of mine, f2, 1/640. I sharpened it in photoshop using a high pass filter at 8, then blended that using "soft light" at 75%.

I can put highres versions of these on flickr if that will help. I do have the rights to her photos. My question is basically will buying that lens make up a decent part of the difference, or is there more to the camera/PS combo than I think? I'm under no illusions that buying the same gear will make me as good, but I should be able to at least replicate the technical aspects. Thanks.

480sparky · Oct 2, 2012

My first reaction is you're shooting with a crop sensor in a low-end DSLR, which tends to be aimed at the consumer market rather than an full-frame FX camera.

coastalconn · Oct 2, 2012

She looks a little young to be drinking champagne? Anyways my first reaction is lighting.. Just a thought?

Big Mike · Oct 2, 2012

Yes, there certainly is a difference between a lower end DSLR with a mid/lower end lens, and a pro camera with a pro level lens. It's not a huge difference, if the technique is solid, but it's there.

One thing to consider, is that the pro may be using studio strobe (flash), which freezes almost all motion blur, giving sharp photos. Your shutter speed of 1/640 is fast enough to freeze the motion, but overall, if you are shooting with natural light vs the pro shooting with strobes...there will be a difference in the sharpness.

Also, the pro using a full frame (FX) camera will produce photos with a shallower DOF than your camera (at a give focal length). The shallow DOF, combined with accurately focusing on the eyes, gives the impression of a sharper photo.

exemplaria · Oct 2, 2012

She shoots all natural light. If you enlarge the first photo you can see the reflection of the huge windows in her studio in the eyes. That said, the studio does have great light.

You guys really think it's mostly the camera? My camera's got more MP, and is over 2 years newer. Nikon has gotten really good at sensor technology, although the DxO ratings do favor the D700 by a decent margin. Not trying to say mine is better, I just wouldn't think it was the differentiating factor as much as other things. I was fairly certain it was her lens, as it's over twice as expensive, (although I suppose the cameras have more than a 2X price delta). Is it fair to say that f1.8 on that lens (with a max of 1.4) will be sharper than f2 on mine with a max of 1.8?

Big Mike · Oct 2, 2012

I think that it's really hard to nail down specific things, because there are just so many variables. Sure, a camera with a larger sensor (even a couple years older) will usually give more pleasing results...and you're probably right to assume that the lens makes a big (maybe bigger) difference.

Is it fair to say that f1.8 on that lens (with a max of 1.4) will be sharper than f2 on mine with a max of 1.8?

Really hard to say. You could look at the stats all day and not really have a definitive answer.

The post processing could also be an issue. Digital sharpening (increasing local contrast) is a fairly in-depth topic on it's own.

The_Traveler · Oct 2, 2012

Totally different environment, lighting and post-processing.

The_Traveler · Oct 2, 2012

Totally different environment, lighting and heavy, skilled post-processing.

exemplaria · Oct 2, 2012

Do you see evidence of post processing her photo, or techniques you can point to?

Vtec44 · Oct 2, 2012

It's technique in this case. IMHO, your photo looks like a missed focus because the table cloth is fairly sharp compare to your daughter's face.

exemplaria · Oct 2, 2012

Vtec44 said:
It's technique in this case. IMHO, your photo looks like a missed focus because the table cloth is fairly sharp compare to your daughter's face.

I'd like to respectfully disagree, I used spot focus on her face. Now the camera could have missed the focus but more importantly f/2 at about 2 ft means the DOF is only about 1 inch, so there's not much margin for error there. Would folks disagree that mine is still pretty damn sharp?

MLeeK · Oct 2, 2012

Partly quality of the sensor in the camera, partly raw processing/editing technique, partly user error, partly exposure problems. Your DOF doesn't include the full plane of the eyes. Notice how the baby is perfectly flat with the camera's plane of focus in her image? that's how she gets both eyes sharp.

Vtec44 · Oct 2, 2012

exemplaria said:
Vtec44 said:

It's technique in this case. IMHO, your photo looks like a missed focus because the table cloth is fairly sharp compare to your daughter's face.

Click to expand...

I'd like to respectfully disagree, I used spot focus on her face. Now the camera could have missed the focus but more importantly f/2 at about 2 ft means the DOF is only about 1 inch, so there's not much margin for error there. Would folks disagree that mine is still pretty damn sharp?

The shallower the DOF the more chances of errors. You can tell by the edge of her face (outer edge her eye browses and lashes) is sharp yet the front of her face toward her nose is not. The nose is a dead giveaway. In this case I'd close the aperture a bit or increase the distance to your subject.

greybeard · Oct 2, 2012

In her shot the eyes are in perfect focus and the face is very straight on making both eyes and for head the same distance and in focus. In your shot, the point of focus seems to be behind the eyes about .5 cm. The highlights in the eyes in the 1st shot are clear and symmetrical, in your shot the highlights are confusing and not really the same in both eyes. But, the biggest difference is in the sharpness of the eyes when comparing both shots.