Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Digital and Video Cameras

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-16-2012, 09:27 AM   #1
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default Why do almost ALL my pictures come out soft??

why do all my pictures come out 'soft'. Well not all of them, but roughly 99.8 of them will. If I take 1000 pictures on a trip, I'll get 2 that are tack sharp and about 998 that are soft. I've been shooting with SLRs for 3 years now, and seen no improvement. I've gone from an XTi to a T2i, and from a kit lense, to a 55-250, to a 400mm 5.6L. I always shoot off a tripod. Good lighting & fast shutter speeds don't do a THING to diminish it. Good lighting, poor lighting, distance of subject, none of it makes a difference. I went from AI Focus on my AF Mode, to AI Servo, since the AF Mode seems to default to one-shot constantly. Barely made a difference. Switched to back-button focusing, nada. I've tried using multiple focus points, to just the center focus point, and aiming for the eye of the bird/animal I'm shooting. The eye still comes out soft.

If you look at the examples below, the wren & the towhee came out pretty close to how I want them. Two very different lighting conditions & shutter speeds. Look how slow it is on the picture of the Towhee (black & rusty bird with the red eye), yet I still get a nice shot. That baffles me, since most of the time I'm taking pictures in well lit areas of stationary birds, at shutter speeds 10x what I did there, and they come out soft. Now the third picture look at the eye & bill of the duck. Soft. Look at the shutter speed, 1/1000th, off a tripod. Then the mallard head, aiming for the eye, off a tripod, with slightly higher depth of field, still comes out soft. I have probably 13,000 pictures like this. I just picked this one for example. I picked these 3 pictures because the subjects were all about 12'-15' away from me, so at least that's accounted for. I understand that I'm not going to get crystal clear shots of something 100' away, but the fact that EVERYTHING I'm taking comes out soft is enfuriating me. What am I doing wrong? I can post more 'soft' ones if needbe.

Wren:


Towhee:


CanvasBack...soft


Mallard-Head..soft
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:34 AM   #2
randomrogue
Diamond Member
 
randomrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,414
Default

Glass makes a pretty huge difference. I admittedly am not that familiar with those lenses but that 400mm is probably your best lens and it's not that fast. It should be able to get a sharp shot though.

I would do one quick test and that is go to a store and put a 50mm/35mm/85mm prime on it and see if you can get a sharp shot.

Also, if you're comparing to shots you've seen in magazines keep in mind that post-processing really makes a big difference.
randomrogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:41 AM   #3
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

Those images don't look soft to me. They appear to be about what you'd expect to get from that camera and lens at that distance.

I could be mistaken, but you may be falling for the expectation that everything is going to be tack sharp at 100% on an 18 MP APS-C camera using a prosumer telephoto. It's just not going to happen.

Randomrogue gives good advice -- try taking a picture using a sharp normal prime.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:50 AM   #4
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
Those images don't look soft to me. They appear to be about what you'd expect to get from that camera and lens at that distance.

I could be mistaken, but you may be falling for the expectation that everything is going to be tack sharp at 100% on an 18 MP APS-C camera using a prosumer telephoto. It's just not going to happen.

Randomrogue gives good advice -- try taking a picture using a sharp normal prime.
So with a better camera would they come out sharper? What I don't get though is why are the first two much sharper...



Quote:
Originally Posted by randomrogue View Post
Glass makes a pretty huge difference. I admittedly am not that familiar with those lenses but that 400mm is probably your best lens and it's not that fast. It should be able to get a sharp shot though.

I would do one quick test and that is go to a store and put a 50mm/35mm/85mm prime on it and see if you can get a sharp shot.

Also, if you're comparing to shots you've seen in magazines keep in mind that post-processing really makes a big difference.
I'll give that a shot; I have a 50mm 1.8 coming in the mail.

The 400mm 5.6L is my best lens, it's from canon's (semi-)professional line. How would post-processing sharpen up the duck pictures though, like what should I do?
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:03 AM   #5
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

question 2: If I were to print these, would they come out fuzzy??
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:13 AM   #6
Smoove910
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 993
Default

what F-stop are you using when taking your pics? I know all of my lenses have a 'sweet spot' depending on what F-stop I'm using... example, my DA 16-45mm has a sweet spot around F8. If you are shooting F5.6 all the time with your 400mm, I would suspect your shots to not come out as sharp as perhaps at F10. Maybe something to experiment with... try upping your ISO a little and using a higher F-stop.
__________________
Mobo: Biostar TA880GU3+ uATX
Proc: AMD Phenom II 960T unlocked/6 cores @ 3.5ghz
Ram: (4) 4gb GSkill 1600mhz (16gb total)
HDDs: (2) 640GB WD AAKS, (1) 750GB Seagate Ext
Vid: Sapphire 6870 1gb DDR5 1000mhz core, 1100 mhz mem
Camera: Pentax K5, I'm not a Canikon fanboy.
Smoove910 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:15 AM   #7
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterjug View Post
So with a better camera would they come out sharper? What I don't get though is why are the first two much sharper...
I'm not sure they really are. They just seem to have more fine-grained detail.

It would be interesting to see the RAWs of these images.

Will they come out fuzzy if printed? Not at a reasonable size.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:23 AM   #8
ElFenix
Super Moderator
Off Topic
 
ElFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 93,418
Default

what are you doing as far as post processing? your camera has an anti-moire filter placed right in front of the sensor which makes images soft by scattering the light just before it hits the sensor. images will need sharpening. how much sharpening depends on how you're going to view the image.
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.

AnandTech Mean Moderator
ElFenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:48 AM   #9
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElFenix View Post
what are you doing as far as post processing? your camera has an anti-moire filter placed right in front of the sensor which makes images soft by scattering the light just before it hits the sensor. images will need sharpening. how much sharpening depends on how you're going to view the image.
Those are all with 0 post-processing. I shoot in JPGs. I know people say to shoot in raw, but I have no idea what to do with the raw files.
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:49 AM   #10
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
I'm not sure they really are. They just seem to have more fine-grained detail.

It would be interesting to see the RAWs of these images.

Will they come out fuzzy if printed? Not at a reasonable size.
the fine-grained detail is what I'm after
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:09 AM   #11
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,565
Default

Test your lens with an unextended center-column on a tripod with all optical stabilization turned off, and using a self-timer or remote. Test it at various focal lengths and f/stops and ISOs. Without a control, your experimental variables are hard to decipher.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 CF + Crucial 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS

NAS and HTPC/workstation: Supermicro MBD-X9SCM + G530 + 16GB ECC; ASUS P8B WS + i3-3220; 1.1TB of Intel/Crucial/Samsung SSDs + 26TB of WD/Hitachi HDDs
blastingcap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:14 AM   #12
ElFenix
Super Moderator
Off Topic
 
ElFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 93,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterjug View Post
Those are all with 0 post-processing. I shoot in JPGs. I know people say to shoot in raw, but I have no idea what to do with the raw files.
read the manual to learn what the settings do, there's sharpening settings and other things in the camera for jpgs.
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.

AnandTech Mean Moderator
ElFenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:25 AM   #13
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterjug View Post
the fine-grained detail is what I'm after
What I meant was the subjects vary in terms of fine-grained detail.

If you are shooting in JPG, that's one thing you should change immediately. Always shoot in RAW. Especially given how cheap storage is now.

It doesn't make your images automatically sharper, but it gives you more control over the process, and the ability to retrieve detail that can be lost if you shoot JPG.

Use Adobe Camera RAW, built into Photoshop, to convert the RAWs to JPGs before editing, or if you like it better, a dedicated conversion program like Lightroom.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:44 AM   #14
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElFenix View Post
read the manual to learn what the settings do, there's sharpening settings and other things in the camera for jpgs.
I've been shooting with it at 3 (out of 7) going to try 5 and see what happens.
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:52 AM   #15
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
What I meant was the subjects vary in terms of fine-grained detail.

If you are shooting in JPG, that's one thing you should change immediately. Always shoot in RAW. Especially given how cheap storage is now.

It doesn't make your images automatically sharper, but it gives you more control over the process, and the ability to retrieve detail that can be lost if you shoot JPG.

Use Adobe Camera RAW, built into Photoshop, to convert the RAWs to JPGs before editing, or if you like it better, a dedicated conversion program like Lightroom.
holy moly, just looked up some quick tutorials on how to sharpen JPGs...makes a huge difference. May have to whip up a macro to run in batches.

Last edited by waterjug; 11-16-2012 at 11:54 AM.
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:12 PM   #16
finbarqs
Diamond Member
 
finbarqs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Covina, CA
Posts: 3,530
Default

Looking at the last 2 images, it doesn't appear to have a perfect focal point, thus I believe it looks motion oof to me. Granted its on tripod, it could be the bird is moving a bit too fast for you. But the. Again, I would send the camera+lens to canon for repairs.
finbarqs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:32 PM   #17
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finbarqs View Post
Looking at the last 2 images, it doesn't appear to have a perfect focal point, thus I believe it looks motion oof to me. Granted its on tripod, it could be the bird is moving a bit too fast for you. But the. Again, I would send the camera+lens to canon for repairs.
I've had similar results across cameras/lenses. Is there any test for what you were saying?
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:41 PM   #18
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesKozierok View Post
What I meant was the subjects vary in terms of fine-grained detail.

If you are shooting in JPG, that's one thing you should change immediately. Always shoot in RAW. Especially given how cheap storage is now.

It doesn't make your images automatically sharper, but it gives you more control over the process, and the ability to retrieve detail that can be lost if you shoot JPG.

Use Adobe Camera RAW, built into Photoshop, to convert the RAWs to JPGs before editing, or if you like it better, a dedicated conversion program like Lightroom.

So I'd shoot in raw, then convert to JPG, then sharpen them in photoshop or whatever? Or I'd shoot in raw, sharpen them in photoshop, then convert to JPG? Just want to get it right!
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:07 PM   #19
slashbinslashbash
Golden Member
 
slashbinslashbash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,672
Default

Shoot RAW, process RAW, convert to JPEG only when you're done.

Something to consider is that some subjects are, well, soft. Bird feathers are like this. You can see the individual barbs on the feathers in most of those shots. But the barbs have tiny barbules coming out. They are fuzzy and soft and hard to see. Sometimes they catch light in a funny way.

I would also do some tests. People make fun of test charts but if you're seriously having this issue (and it sounds like you are) then it would be good to print up some test charts and tape them to the wall and take some photos from the tripod, indoors, using mirror-lock-up and self-timer to avoid all possibility of vibration.
__________________
MacBook Pro|2.2GHz Quad-Core i7|Radeon 6750 1GB|16GB|750GB|Parallels|Win7HP
Mac Pro|2xXeon 5150|12GB|128GB 840 + 2x1.5TB|Radeon 5770|Dell 2407WFP+2007FP
ASUS P5B|E6550|2GB|1.5TB|Radeon 280X|Win7HP
Canon 5D|40D|17-40L|24-105L|70-200L|50/1.4|85/1.8|100/2.8 Macro|580EX|430EX|AlienBees

The Left is not merely gauche; it is downright sinister.
slashbinslashbash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:13 PM   #20
Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterjug View Post
So I'd shoot in raw, then convert to JPG, then sharpen them in photoshop or whatever? Or I'd shoot in raw, sharpen them in photoshop, then convert to JPG? Just want to get it right!
Everyone has different opinions on workflow.

I shoot in RAW, use ACR and process in Photoshop, and only sharpen at the end when ready to save a final file. Some people like to do a small amount of sharpening at the beginning and then more later.
__________________
"Of those who say nothing, few are silent." -- Thomas Neill
Charles Kozierok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:14 PM   #21
CuriousMike
Golden Member
 
CuriousMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bay Area,Ca
Posts: 1,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoove910 View Post
what F-stop are you using when taking your pics? I know all of my lenses have a 'sweet spot' depending on what F-stop I'm using. try upping your ISO a little and using a higher F-stop.
My Sigma 17-70 is very soft at it's max aperture. I have to really clamp it down to get a sharp(ish) photo.

F4 compared to F11 on a tripod
__________________
Acer C720 Chromebook

CuriousMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:16 PM   #22
finbarqs
Diamond Member
 
finbarqs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Covina, CA
Posts: 3,530
Default

now that I'm on a computer, all the bird pics are soft... It seems to be similar in terms of focus. It still looks like everything is motion OOF. try shooting a still subject at the same distance, and the same focal point. Shoot something that has a lot of detail, a lot of lines, or just something that has detail in it. Then post it here again.
finbarqs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:19 PM   #23
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finbarqs View Post
now that I'm on a computer, all the bird pics are soft... It seems to be similar in terms of focus. It still looks like everything is motion OOF. try shooting a still subject at the same distance, and the same focal point. Shoot something that has a lot of detail, a lot of lines, or just something that has detail in it. Then post it here again.
I'll get on that this evening; the first 2 birds were actually just sitting still, so maybe it's something with the lens.
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:27 PM   #24
waterjug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousMike View Post
My Sigma 17-70 is very soft at it's max aperture. I have to really clamp it down to get a sharp(ish) photo.

F4 compared to F11 on a tripod
I'm wondering if the lens is defective the more I read; everything I've seen from reviews/testing states that it should be sharp as a tack wide open
waterjug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:46 PM   #25
twistedlogic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterjug View Post
I'll get on that this evening; the first 2 birds were actually just sitting still, so maybe it's something with the lens.
Try the battery test. Set up a set of 5 AA batteries, having them offset from one another by a couple millimeters, this would assure that it's not a back/front focusing issue.

Also try shooting with Live View mode, as this will give you direct feedback of what your lens is seeing VS what's in the optical viewfinder.
twistedlogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.