What are the secrets for clear and sharp photos?

[DigitalDave]

Maybe it's just me, but I think one point hasn't been mentioned surprisingly...

As in 'what shutter speed are you using'?

The faster the shutter speed due to a decent amount of light (if on automatic, faster is what your camera will likely choose due to too much light if you're shooting into the sky) will also increase the amount of noise (potentially). It's not only the ISO you should be caring about.

Put it on manual, set it up and try 1/60. If your metering doesn't like it then play with the aperture.

slower shutter speed = More light = less noise, and something must be affecting the light adversely in your shots, and I can only guess it's the shutter speed.

 

[greybeard35 7]

I haven't read all the posts yet so forgive me if this has been already written. I use both LightRoom and PS together so sharpening is often a 2 step process with me. In most if not all cases, the sky doesn't need any sharpening so I use the MASKING slider when I sharpen in LR. 1st I add sharpening and then I hold down the ALT key and move the masking slider to the right. The farther I move the slider, the lesser amount of the image will be sharpened. It starts out sharpening the entire image and as you move the slider to the right it starts leaving out blank smooth sections and only sharpens the lines. This will leave your sky alone and only concentrate on intricate objects in your image. When using PS, I select the portions I want sharpened and then use the "Smart Sharpen" filter. This works for me.

 

[Terenas1986]

Hello Msaha!

To answer your original question: I agree with a few things people said before me and also would like to add some things for folks who read this for the first time.

I'm not sure if you have your terminology right.. you say "sharp" and "crisp" image... but the sky is not really sharp, is it? It's creamy or gradient blue, only clouds that look like "ice-cream" are really "sharp" (that e.g. a lens can focus on). Plain blue sky !might! actually give some hard time for your lens to autofocus. So I think what you're looking for is more like the other term you used: "clear".

The noise at ISO100 when photographing a well-lit sky should be around 0. You probably did a lot of sharpening (?) to achieve this much noise. If you do get noise in the original image without touching it still, you need Noise reduction - as other have said it before so well.
I have the 1000D's little older brother, the 'EOS 350D' and have absolutely no noise in such photos. Check your !Parameter! settings if the sharpening is turned up or not. All gauges there should be in middle at all times.

However: Your lens does not really determine the amount of noise you have in your image... how could it? It's not made of pixels... it's just smooth glass! Only the speed (lowest f-number) determines what ISO can your camera use with that lens, thus determining noise in the image! E.g.: With your 50mm 1.8 (set to f/2) at a certain situation, you can use ISO100, but if you put on a lens that's lowest setting is f/4... that's gonna need to be (for the same exposure, keeping in mind that maybe you need to keep your shutter speed) at ISO200. (Double f/number means half as much light, thus you need double ISO speed for the same exposure time. And double ISO means more noise. [Not neccesarily double noise!])

One more thing, for situations where you really need "sharpness": stopping down your lens (increasing f/number to f/11, f/16 or more) does not give you absolute sharpness, especially with cheaper lenses, so don't expect that. It just gives you "in focus". Don't ask me why, it just works like that. If you look at a tree that's 400meters away and the branches are not in high contrast with the blue sky - don't be surprised! Also all lenses have an optimum-area of sharpness: which is in most cases the middle... and sharpness decreases as you move to the edges and corners of the image, especially for the 18-55mm Kit lens. (I have that, and the 50mm prime.)

About dust on sensor: they do not appear as you would think.. this is definitely not dust. You can check for dust on your sensor using this simple test:
- go to Av mode and stop down your lens fully, but ~f/22 would do the job quite fine
- set ISO100
- set manual focus and focus to infinity (e.g: the 50mm 1.8 prime if focused to infinity at its longest state, but its usually when you turn the focus ring to the left - from photographer point of view)
- set White Balance to Auto.. that should be quite ok.
- set exposure compensation to 2/3 or 1/2 stop (maybe +1 is okay too)
- open notepad on your computer, maximize it - make sure you have pure white on your monitor
- fill the frame with the white on your monitor (make sure nothing else is in the view, but the whiteness)
- shake your camera a little bit, so when you start your (usually 1-3second) exposure, you won't have monitor pixels on it!
- view your image in the PC, not your LCD! - check for ugly parts where you see big black dots and maybe bubbles that come from water or whatever... maybe even cleaning fluids!

IF your sensor is dirty: turn it in to a professional photo-store! NEVER ever attempt to clean your sensor at home... don't blow on it, don't use any stuff that's at home.. it's never good.

So... there you have it: keep ISO at 100, shutter speed at high (to avoid motion blur... but not TOO high [higher shutter speed means less color vibrance]... maybe around 500), and keep your aperture as wide open as possible with that shutter.. (but never fully open... 1-2 stops down worked best for me), and check your parameter settings in your camera. Turn off (put them to the middle) sharpening and contrasting and all that built-in stuff. You can have all those in post-production!
This way you should get your results quite nice.

One additional bonus tip: Color space. I'm not sure from these 2 images, but for first view it looks like your camera is set to sRGB. (The sky is a bit greyish.) I suggest you put your camera to Adobe RGB. (I hope you're using Adobe Lightroom to edit your images... that's the ultimate resource a non-pro needs. Believe me. ) You can set Lightroom also to work in Adobe RGB, and when/if you're exporting JPG files it also stores them that way, keeping the richness it provides.
Why use AdobeRGB, you ask? Simple: colors are much brighter, saturated, vibrant and realistic, than those produced in sRGB mode. I simply cannot switch back to sRGB anymore, after seeing what AdobeRGB is capable of.

I hope I didn't confuse you too much, if there are any questions, please ask!

Happy shooting!

 

[The_Traveler]

Three points where Terenas and I differ

IF your sensor is dirty: turn it in to a professional photo-store! NEVER ever attempt to clean your sensor at home... don't blow on it, don't use any stuff that's at home.. it's never good.

Millions of people clean their own sensor. First using a rocket blower and then, if needed, one of the sensor cleaning kits that are readily available.
It is not difficult and, if you can tie your own shoes, you are dextrous enough.

Sensor cleaning supplies and instructions

for first view it looks like your camera is set to sRGB. (The sky is a bit greyish.)
Why use AdobeRGB, you ask? Simple: colors are much brighter, saturated, vibrant and realistic, than those produced in sRGB mode. I simply cannot switch back to sRGB anymore, after seeing what AdobeRGB is capable of.

One can't tell the color space from a single color. Colors in an image in RGB displayed on the web will be more muted and muddy than sRGB because most monitors can't reproduce all the colors in RGB and most browsers aren't color managed and thus different tones will be mixed.

One additional bonus tip: Color space. I'm not sure from these 2 images, but for first view it looks like your camera is set to sRGB. (The sky is a bit greyish.) I suggest you put your camera to Adobe RGB. (I hope you're using Adobe Lightroom to edit your images... that's the ultimate resource a non-pro needs. Believe me. ) You can set Lightroom also to work in Adobe RGB, and when/if you're exporting JPG files it also stores them that way, keeping the richness it provides.
Why use AdobeRGB, you ask? Simple: colors are much brighter, saturated, vibrant and realistic, than those produced in sRGB mode. I simply cannot switch back to sRGB anymore, after seeing what AdobeRGB is capable of.

AdobeRGB and Prophoto are much better color spaces to edit in and to send to a high end printer shop.
But, most mass-market printers (such as mPix, Costco and WhiteHouse, etc.) will only use sRGB)

And, most important, you must convert to sRGB before posting on the web because the default color space for viewing on the web is sRGB.

all of these references agree
SmugMug | sRGB vs Adobe 98 Colorspace
sRGB vs. Adobe RGB
Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998
The Great sRGB Versus Adobe RGB Debate - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

 

[chuasam]

If there comes a point where the grain/noise is really an issue, perhaps you should think about taking more interesting pictures

 

[Steve5D]

I've never understood the hangup with viewing things at a 100% crop. It means little, simply because no one is ever going to pull out a loupe and inspect your photos.

You provided a 100% crop, and then that crop with some contrast, clarity and sharpening. How about posting the entire original image?

 

[unpopular]

^^ you should see some of my images at 100%. They look like garbage.

I agree that what things look like at 100% not only doesn't much matter, but often is not representative of the image. We often use tricks to imply detail and local contrast which is only apparent at smaller magnifications.

 

[unpopular]

IF your sensor is dirty: turn it in to a professional photo-store! NEVER ever attempt to clean your sensor at home... don't blow on it, don't use any stuff that's at home.. it's never good.

Lord all mighty! If'd I had to have my sensor professionally cleaned every time a speck of dust fell of the sensor, I'd go broke! Not sure where you live, but in this neck of the woods dust is a continuous issue.

 

[cgipson1]

Did anyone notice that the exposure time on that sky shot was 1.3 seconds... long enough for some sensors to heat up and produce noise. Not familiar with her bodies... but I know that is an older small sensor body....

18mm
F11
ISO 100

 

[unpopular]

^^ especially at 104° F

Why would someone need a 1.3sec exposure at f/11 on what appears to be mid-afternoon?

 

[cgipson1]

Totally!

Here is the exif.. for anyone that is Exif challenged!

 

[unpopular]

This must have been shot in the evening. 1.3 sec would be blown at the time of day that I initially thought.

But yeah. High ambient temperature, entry-level, older DSLR, long exposure: some noise, especially in the sky, is prob to be expected, even at ISO 100.

 

[cgipson1]

This must have been shot in the evening. 1.3 sec would be blown at the time of day that I initially thought.

But yeah. High ambient temperature, entry-level, older DSLR, long exposure: some noise, especially in the sky, is prob to be expected, even at ISO 100.

Definitely! I was surprised no one caught that! Gotta remember to check the Exif when you can.. it don't lie! lol!