Something wrong with this photo, can't fix it

[fazhar]

Hello everyone! My first post here.

I've been shooting for a while but often I can't figure out basic problems in my photos.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/76726645@N06/12202123704/


I've taken this shot for I think 10 seconds on TV mode using my Canon 600D camera on a tripod, using 18-55mm kit lens.

My problem is that picture appears to be smudgy and bit blurry even though on tripod. I'm not sure whether its blurry or dusty. But it sure ain't cripsy. I've tried many times on different places with different settings but pictures always appear like this. Is it because of camera's limitations? or lens' limitations? or is the lens dirty? How could I have made this more crispy.

Regards
Faraz

 

[fokker]

It doesn't look bad to me from what I can see. But if you feel it could be sharper, the usual list of things to look for:
-Low quality tripods will still vibrate, especially in wind or from road vibrations
-You may have left the IS on, when on a tripod this actually creates vibration
-Mirror lockup?
-Shoot at the sharpest aperture for your lens, probably around f/8 generally

 

[fazhar]

It doesn't look bad to me from what I can see. But if you feel it could be sharper, the usual list of things to look for:
-Low quality tripods will still vibrate, especially in wind or from road vibrations
-You may have left the IS on, when on a tripod this actually creates vibration
-Mirror lockup?
-Shoot at the sharpest aperture for your lens, probably around f/8 generally

Few things you've pointed out right. I was using a low quality tripod and the road I'm standing on has fast and heavy traffic, which was passing just few inches behind me.
I didn't know about turning off IS when on tripod. I've never done that before, my IS is always on. I'll try again with IS off.
I'll try the mirror lockup as well. Tried mirror lockup only once using remote shooting from my computer, but never figured out the best use for it. This photo is taken from wireless remote so that the buttons dont shake the camera.

The thing which I really wanted to know was that would a better lens improve the picture quality? Or picture quality is entirely dependent on the camera. I'm looking to grab the 24-105mm lens which is expensive, but need to know if is it better to get a better camera first.

Thanks.

 

[ann]

You have gotten some good tips, better glass equals better quality. The sensor is important but high end glass is usually better than any kit lens.

I say usually because every maker makes a dude at sometime.

Mirror lock up is always a favorite tool for myself.

As an aside, don't you just love the bus stations in Dubai!

 

[Braineack]

looks out of focus, even with f/18 used. Doesn't appear to have camera shake from the tripod, but having IS turned off will help, it's not designed to work on a tripod, and it actually induces blur.

I think some local sharpening, leveling out the horizon, and an exposure-gradient on the right frame would improve this image.

 

[bratkinson]

and the road I'm standing on has fast and heavy traffic, which was passing just few inches behind me.

I'll put my money on the road. Being so close to the traffic, it's almost a sure thing the ground will vibrate 'just a little'. Just enough to move the camera 'just a little' as well. Even though you may not feel the vibrations of a truck passing by, it still shakes the ground. At times when I've been set up on a highway bridge, the vibration from a car is somewhat noticeable, but from a truck, hang on!

 

[KmH]

The type of vibrations that a busy elevated section of roadway would generate and a less than stable tripod is a situation IS can help correct because it is very much like using a monopod.
See page ENG - 6 of the instruction manual for your 18-55 mm lens - http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300004937/01/ef-s18-55f35-56isii-en.pdf

I suspect part of the sharpness issue is cause by the small lens aperture you used.
When a lens aperture gets small an optical effect known as diffraction begins to occur.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Canon and Nikon use very similar image stabilization systems, so you can gain some IS insight by reading this - Nikon VR explained
In particular #3 relates to when something, like a busy elevated roadway, is moving the camera, though your lens does not have an Active option..

 

[runnah]

Also turn off all those little "helpers" in the menu. Things like "long exposure noise reduction" etc..

 

[fazhar]

You have gotten some good tips, better glass equals better quality. The sensor is important but high end glass is usually better than any kit lens.

I say usually because every maker makes a dude at sometime.

Mirror lock up is always a favorite tool for myself.

As an aside, don't you just love the bus stations in Dubai!

Those are metro train stations
Yes Dubai has some really good photography spots.

 

[fazhar]

I think some local sharpening, leveling out the horizon, and an exposure-gradient on the right frame would improve this image.

Ive no idea what all this means.

 

[fazhar]

The type of vibrations that a busy elevated section of roadway would generate and a less than stable tripod is a situation IS can help correct because it is very much like using a monopod.
See page ENG - 6 of the instruction manual for your 18-55 mm lens - http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/7/0300004937/01/ef-s18-55f35-56isii-en.pdf

I suspect part of the sharpness issue is cause by the small lens aperture you used.
When a lens aperture gets small an optical effect known as diffraction begins to occur.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

Canon and Nikon use very similar image stabilization systems, so you can gain some IS insight by reading this - Nikon VR explained
In particular #3 relates to when something, like a busy elevated roadway, is moving the camera, though your lens does not have an Active option..

Thanks, ill read through them to find out how I can improve sharpness.

 

[Derrel]

I think the roadway or bridge you were set up on might very well be vibrating...roadways and bridges DO vibrate. But, I looked at the picture large on Flickr...I think the "smudginess" you are referring to is in large part, diffraction caused by shooting at that tiny,tiny lens opening, combined with a LOT of flare from all the light sources. f/18 will cause diffraction, which makes an in-focus image look un-sharp, and there is a LOT of light coming in and kind of flaring into the shadows, with so many light sources, the shadowed places are being "flared into" by the highlight light.

At the edges of the frame, I also see what I think is some chromatic aberration, and some lens distortion too. Most visible on that one building with the unique "lighted boards" or whatever it is on the outside of the facade.

Overall, it's not "all that horrible", but yes, it is not the 100% crisp,perfect image you wanted to get. But it is a good example of a really challenging shooting situation where each and every shooting parameter comes into possible play: tripod steadiness; mirror vibration; IS or no IS?; possible roadbed vibration to to automobile traffic; lens cleanliness on rear and front element;flare of lens when shooting into bright light sources against a dark field; diffraction from small lens aperture like f/18.

 

[thereyougo!]

If you are stopping down to f/18 to get the 'starbursts', try only stopping down as far as f/11. You will still get decent bursts but will have a sharper shot.

 

[fazhar]

I think the roadway or bridge you were set up on might very well be vibrating...roadways and bridges DO vibrate. But, I looked at the picture large on Flickr...I think the "smudginess" you are referring to is in large part, diffraction caused by shooting at that tiny,tiny lens opening, combined with a LOT of flare from all the light sources. f/18 will cause diffraction, which makes an in-focus image look un-sharp, and there is a LOT of light coming in and kind of flaring into the shadows, with so many light sources, the shadowed places are being "flared into" by the highlight light.

At the edges of the frame, I also see what I think is some chromatic aberration, and some lens distortion too. Most visible on that one building with the unique "lighted boards" or whatever it is on the outside of the facade.

Overall, it's not "all that horrible", but yes, it is not the 100% crisp,perfect image you wanted to get. But it is a good example of a really challenging shooting situation where each and every shooting parameter comes into possible play: tripod steadiness; mirror vibration; IS or no IS?; possible roadbed vibration to to automobile traffic; lens cleanliness on rear and front element;flare of lens when shooting into bright light sources against a dark field; diffraction from small lens aperture like f/18.

I realize that my F/18 wasn't a good choice for this photo. But then again I didn't make that choice. I had set my camera at TV mode with (i remember) 10 second shot and manually set the ISO down to 200. So the camera auto-adjusted the F-stop to keep everything balanced, that's why it went up to F/18. I think I'll go manual mode this time to bring the F-stop down, keeping the ISO constant at 200 and adjust the shutter speed instead.

I've been insisted by a colleague that I need to trim down my shutter speed in order to reduce that bright flare of the street lights. I think if I do that it'll darken my overall picture. What do you guys think?

I'll go to this spot and try again over this weekend. Thanks for all the great tips, I've been given a warm welcome on my first post.

 

[KmH]

There are 8 combinations of shutter speed, lens aperture and ISO settings that all deliver the same exposure.

You can change the settings based on what is known as a stop of exposure. A stop of exposure is a doubling or a halving of the amount of light.

For now we will ignore the ISO setting.

If you change the shutter speed from 10 seconds to 5 seconds, that is 1 stop of shutter speed change and reduces the shutter time such that it will let in 1/2 as much light.
To keep the exposure constant we can double the area of the lens aperture making it bigger so the lens aperture lets in 2 times more light. Opening the aperture from f/18 to f/13 doubles the area of the lens aperture.
Since the shutter speed was adjusted to let in 1/2 as much light each change balances the other so there is no change in the exposure.

F/13 will likely still degrade sharpness from diffraction so we need to open the lens aperture 1 more stop, from f/13 to f/9 to maintain the exposure.
We also need to speed up the shutter another stop by changing it from 5 seconds to 2.5 seconds.

Using f/9 diffraction should no longer be an issue.

But, by changing the shutter speed from 10 seconds to 2.5 seconds the car light trails in the photo will be 4x shorter

So now lets again consider the ISO setting.

If we change the ISO setting by 2 stops from say ISO 400 to ISO 200 for 1 stop of change, and then from TSO 200 to ISO 100 for the 2nd stop, you can then return the shutter speed to 10 seconds and still have the same exposure you started out with and have no change in car light trails.

Of course you could have just left the shutter speed set to 10 seconds and just Changed the ISO setting, if the ISO you started out at allowed doing so.

I see the settings you used were 10 seconds, f/18. and ISO 200. The 600D (T3i here in the US) has a base ISO setting of ISO 100 so you could only change the ISO by 1 stop.

10 seconds, f/13. ISO 100 is the same exposure as the 10 seconds, f/18, ISO 200 that you used.

Changing from f/18 to f/13 lets in 2 times more light, while changing from ISO 200 to ISO 100 makes the image sensor 2 times less sensitive to light. A net change of 0.