That tack-sharp-excellent-white-balance image..

[FoundMyCamera]

I know it's been asked before, so redirect me to a past thread if need be.

I am drooling over those images I see that are tack sharp, especially with people in the photos (not up close portraits) ...also the white balance and color has a certain clarity to it that I can not seem to come up with. I would post an example but have yet to figure that out...

I shoot with a Canon 50D and currently only have the kit lens 28-135mm...I realize it is at it's sharpest at the 9-11 ap. range...yet STILL I long for some really sharp images. I know part of it is lens quality. I also wonder if all those images I see are RAW? I shoot JPEG because its what I know...its easy and I'm just a hobbyist...but I wonder if this is something that will help and is worth figuring out and using space for?

Thanks!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

It's all about the lens, man.

Mostly it is about good glass, and proper exposure.
I've been told here before that all digital images need some sharpening in post.
I had the kit lenses 18-55mm and the 55-250mm, and was always disappointed with the lack of sharpness. Even with good glass most will lose sharpness at one point or another both with f/stop and focal length. If you want to see for yourself, get the inexpensive 50mm /1.8, and you will experience much better images (for $100). The 100mm/2.8 is also excellent, and after I purchased those two, I used the kit lenses less and less. Look for reviews of your lens, most will tell you the sweet spots.

I had the XSi, and almost always had to bump the saturation up to get colors to pop.
Shooting in RAW vs. jpeg, I don't think would effect the sharpness since you eventually have to compress to a jpeg anyway. It's either done in camera or out.

Hope that helps.

 

[Big]

get the inexpensive 50mm /1.8, and you will experience much better images (for $100). The 100mm/2.8 is also excellent, and after I purchased those two, I used the kit lenses less and less. Look for reviews of your lens, most will tell you the sweet spots.

I have the 100mm 2.8 Macro and it blows my mind if I can focus it correctly. It's not the lenses fault but mine trying to manual focus in low light, I can't tell if it's focused or not.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If it doesn't bother the subject, keep a small flash light handy to help focus before your long exposure.

 

[Josh66]

get the inexpensive 50mm /1.8, and you will experience much better images (for $100). The 100mm/2.8 is also excellent, and after I purchased those two, I used the kit lenses less and less. Look for reviews of your lens, most will tell you the sweet spots.

I have the 100mm 2.8 Macro and it blows my mind if I can focus it correctly. It's not the lenses fault but mine trying to manual focus in low light, I can't tell if it's focused or not.

The Canon 100mm Macro (and most other macro lenses) are very bad at auto-focusing in low light. Get a decent amount of light on the subject and it's lightning fast.

 

[gsgary]

What you need is a 300mmF2.8L
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/photos/562495991_b7QvX-L.jpg

 

[iolair]

It's all about the lens, man.

If you want to see for yourself, get the inexpensive 50mm /1.8, and you will experience much better images (for $100).

It's definitely worth it - as long as mine has enough light for the autofocus to behave, I get tack sharp images at /2.0

Also, if sharpness is your aim make sure you have enough light to keep the ISO at 200 or lower for the best results and the exposure 1/100 s or faster (unless you're shooting with a tripod). You can get perfectly crisp images without that all being true, but it won't be so easy.

 

[FoundMyCamera]

Thanks all...I know the lens quality and speed make a big difference...however funds are low at the moment to get what I really want. I've been interested in the prime lenses, especially the 50mm...I've seen great photos with it and it's quite the bang for the buck. However I feel so dependent on a range, and will use range to determine background focus, etc. I'm going on a big trip soon and like the ease of the range so I wanted to see how I could improve with that handicap (range vs prime)

Anyhow, I'm gathering that this means I may have to master my flash which I've been reluctant to do. I bought the 430 EX II Speedlite and just can't seem to get control of it (too much light, not enough, bad distance, not anywhere good to bounce, etc) I do have a tutorial dvd that I am half way though....I suppose I should finish...

Thanks all who repiled!

 

[KmH]

Everyone else covered most everything pretty well.

I know it's been asked before, so redirect me to a past thread if need be.


Thanks!

Oh wait, let me jump right on that and find it for you! :lmao: :thumbdown: NOT. :greenpbl:

 

[NateWagner]

Anyway, for white balance... much of that is doable in post and it will tend to happen as you learn how to make the changes, which often happens the more you teach your eye what you like.

For sharpness, much of it is lighting, if you have enough light it will help, sharpening in post will help, and getting focus right originally is a necessity. You can definitely get quite sharp (looking) images with your current lens, it just might take more work.

One other thing to consider is having a speedlight. One other thing to consider is having a speedlight. The IR autofocus assist can greatly help focusing in low light situations.

 

[FoundMyCamera]

No need to get snitty, Keith. There have been some other boards (different subjects or topics) where I ask a question only to find out the exact same subject has been addressed and for some unknown-to-me reason they know the thread and post a link. I think it's out of the we-really-don't-want-to-repeat-ourselves-AGAIN type of motivation that some do this. I appreciate info and advice whether someone responds or directs me to a link.