How to get clean, crisp photos?

nmarie · Aug 11, 2014

Here is a photo I took recently with my 18-200mm lens. A lot of my photos don't have that clear crisp look to them. Do I suck at focus or how can I edit it to look more crisp? I prefer using lightroom when possible. This photo was 1/320 sec at f/4.0, 24mm, iso 200.

Any other feedback would be great!

tirediron · Aug 11, 2014

Welcome to the forum! For some reason, the image isn't showing up, but I think that's just my connection. There are a number of possible causes, not the least of which is the lens itself. "Super-zooms" such as the 18-200 are like Swiss Army knives; they do a lot, but they don't do any one thing really, really well. They tend to be subject to distortion at larger apertures and at each end of the range, and their build-quality is less than optimal. That said, given the information you've posted, it should be reasonably sharp. Were you shooting toward the sun by any chance?

nmarie · Aug 11, 2014

yes! too bad you can't see the picture because the sun is directly behind them during golden hour.

I was wondering if perhaps I need a 50mm lens so get crisper pictures.

Derrel · Aug 11, 2014

24mm is a somewhat tricky lens length to design and manufacture for HIGH-resolution; it's always been that way. Shorter lenses like 35mm and shorter are best with high-tech, aspherical element designs and fancy coatings and new, digitally-optimized lens designs. And best as single focal length lenses. And best at smaller f/stops like f/5.6 or f/8. Superzoom lenses shot wide-open are not going to give the best possible images; one can see that the image shown is in-focus. But you are shooting toward strong sunlight, wide-open at f/4, and with a superzoom. I think the image looks about as good as that lens might be able to do wide-open toward bright light. It's going to take a different lens to get significantly sharper results at 24mm. The Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR-G would be an example of a REALLY sharp zoom lens that has 24mm within its range.

ronlane · Aug 11, 2014

Derrel said:
24mm is a somewhat tricky lens length to design and manufacture for HIGH-resolution; it's always been that way. Shorter lenses like 35mm and shorter are best with high-tech, aspherical element designs and fancy coatings and new, digitally-optimized lens designs. And best as single focal length lenses. And best at smaller f/stops like f/5.6 or f/8. Superzoom lenses shot wide-open are not going to give the best possible images; one can see that the image shown is in-focus. But you are shooting toward strong sunlight, wide-open at f/4, and with a superzoom. I think the image looks about as good as that lens might be able to do wide-open toward bright light. It's going to take a different lens to get significantly sharper results at 24mm. The Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR-G would be an example of a REALLY sharp zoom lens that has 24mm within its range.

I agree with Derrel. Question what was the focus point you were using? In the image above I would still put a single focus point on the eyelid, even though you can't see the eyes.

Braineack · Aug 11, 2014

doesn't look horrible, ive seen worse here.

some local sharpening could be applied, looks like noise reduction was used on the photo. The groom's hair looks very melted plastic.