Board index Photography Artistic Questions why are my pictures so NOT sharp?

Artistic Questions

why are my pictures so NOT sharp?

Discuss style and artistic aspects of photography
khanhnahk
 
Posts: 7

why are my pictures so NOT sharp?

Post Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:36 am


I desperately need some help in this.

I used to have a 300d and shot mainly with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Pictures did not turn out very sharp. The 300D's shutter broke twice and costed me a bundle so I decided to give it away before it breaks again. I now have a brand new 30D, shooting mainly with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM again. I've noticed that the pictures are still not sharp. For the ones I took in RAW using the 30D, when I edit it RAW, I have to turn the 'sharp' slider all the way to the max to get the sharpness. Even then it's not very sharp.

What am I doing wrong??
My Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/khanhnahk/galleries

If you compare my pictures with the ones here: http://www.pbase.com/reymyster/naomi_vu
which uses the same lense (with the 20D instead of 30D), you can tell that the difference in sharpness between his pictures and mines are quite noticeable.

Any leads would be really appreciated,
Thanks,
Khanh Bui

cmit
 
Posts: 16


Post Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:10 am


Not only are many of the photos not sharp, some are overexposed and others have a 'milky' film all over them.

The common factor would seem to be the 85mm lens - you should get it professionally checked.

gemmf
 
Posts: 903


Post Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:56 am


I think the difference looks like the other photographer has put a lot of thought in his images, e.g. lighting, focusing, post-processing, etc. Using the same camera/lens doesn't mean you are able to get the same quality images. Technically you should be able to but there's a lot more to it. Some of your shots look nice and sharp, but I'm sure you can achieve a lot more if you put more into every single shots rather than just snapping away (sorry if I was wrong about this, but this is the impression I got from your images). Having said that, Rey's images are taken in controlled environment, so it does make a difference. They also look technically perfect but yours just don't, especially exposure and focusing. Hope this helps.

anthony_macken
 
Posts: 7


Post Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:20 am


I've got to agree in part with the previous replies.
For me, the main differences between your photographs and this other person's who you have linked to are composition and lighting.
The photos of yours which I looked through appear to me to be purely documentary photographs (i.e. main purpose to document an event).
Having said that, you achieved your goal with these photographs if that was your aim. Like it was mentioned above, the other set of images were taken in a controlled environment. You need to know what you are looking for before you start taking photographs if you want to have a chance to chieve similar results. I suggest that you also do some research on controlled lighting - it's something that I want to introduce to my photographs - severely lacking at the moment!
Best of luck,
Anthony

pstubley
 
Posts: 217


Post Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:42 pm


Violent agreement from me as well. A few things you might consider:

1. What shutter speed are you using? 85mm is a telephoto lens, so it will tend to exaggerate any shake, which will come out as a lack of sharpness.
2. What happens if you stop down? Most of your images seem to be taken wide open (you may have to bump up the ISO if you are using natural light).
3. Does using a tripod help?
4. I am guessing the milky film comes from underexposed images being corrected a little too much (but that is just a guess). Were they dark as shot?
5. The other place to gain sharpening, etc is in the post-processing. Rey has done very nice work with his, with a nice subtle touch, but I would be surprised if he has not done some. Great images do take some post-processing -- all of mine that I show in public have some. There are other alternatives to sharpening (best used selectively on the subject and not on the background) (google "photoshop hardlight sharpen" for one way: for example, http://www.photoshopessentials.com/phot ... page-3.php.

Best bet is to get the image as sharp as possible at time of capture, so I would recommend eliminating as many technical reasons as you can first (checking the lens as was already suggested, eliminating any possibility of motion or shake, etc).

Good luck. Let us know how you make out.

khanhnahk
 
Posts: 7


Post Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:54 am


Thanks everyone so much for taking the time. I've decided to send my lense to canon. They should be getting it today. I'll be sure and update at a later time.

Best!
Khanh Bui

gilp
 
Posts: 180


Post Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:57 pm


Sorry to say this.... but it ain't no lens problem.

khanhnahk
 
Posts: 7


Post Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:59 am


Quick update:
I've just received my lense back from Canon. Here's what they wrote:
We have examined the product according to your request, and, it was found that the adjustment of the pcb assembly was incorrect the auto focus did not operate properly. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the pcb assembly. Other electrical adjustments, inspection and cleaning, mechanical adjustments and parts replacements were carried out

I'm not sure what pcb means, but after receiving the lense I decided to take a test shot. Here's a picture of the test shot:
http://www.pbase.com/khanhnahk/image/92377419&exif=Y

It seems like the milkiness is gone. Kudos to Canon for calibrating the lense free of charge within a short amount of time.

I think when in doubt, send it to Canon :wink:

I've just received a new copy of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. This should give me more opportunities to compare lenses.

I'm officially broke :cry:

khanhnahk
 
Posts: 7


Post Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:29 am


It seems like I'm replying to my own thread here, but I just want to quickly update that the brand new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lense I've just received from B&H is quite disappointing.

Here's the image I took with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lense:
http://www.pbase.com/khanhnahk/image/92515384/original

Here's the image taken at almost identical conditions 30 seconds later using the Canon EFS 18-55mm, the cheap lense that came with the camera:
http://www.pbase.com/khanhnahk/image/92515427

The image taken with the Canon EFS 18-55mm looks decidedly sharper than the $1000 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. How can this be???? I've also tried at different apertures and ISO, the Canon EFS 18-55mm looks sharper than the $1000 24-70mm L lense everytime. This is not what I had anticipated.

I have decided to return the lense and get my money back

pstubley
 
Posts: 217


Post Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:16 pm


I've taken a quick look at your two images. I'm not sure I am ready to blame the new lens. Besides the obvious exposure differences (did both use the aperture?), they seem to have focused in different places, or have different depths of field. To see this, I looked at the blue car and the wheel on the pick-up in the background. In the 24-70 image, the wheel on the pick-up is more in focus than the wheel on the blue car, while in the 18-55 image, the wheel on the blue car is in focus (and the wheel on the pick-up is within the depth of field).

For evaluating lens sharpness, I prefer simpler subjects, like a newspaper taped to the wall. I also strongly suggest using a tripod to make sure everything is as consistent as possible.

Good luck.

louann108
 
Posts: 11


Post Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:58 am


You're overexposing somehow. I would suggest keeping a light meter handy until you get a handle on what aperature and/or exposure value you need in situations.
Start with the sunny=16 idea-that in sunny or brightly lit conditions, you start at f16 and adjust up or down.
I don't know anything about Canon as I'm a Minolta fan, but if there's an exposure value, in sunny situations, it should be at -1 to prevent washouts.
Finally, use the white balance and set it to your needs. Many people leave it on auto, but it does make a huge difference. in natural light as much as in artificial.
To test both your camera and its lenses, try hanging a shirt or two, one white, another a nice color, outdoors and shoot them in different settings, then see how close to the real thing you get. Remember those settings for future use.
And always shoot things more than once, making minute adjustments as you are shooting. Taking the same shot with the same set up will just get you the same (undesirable) results.

sheila
 
Posts: 1303


Post Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:42 pm


I agree with Louanne. You just can't take a couple of images and think you have a dud copy! Go out and take a hundred or so. Spend time with the lens, check its abilities and foibles! Shoot at various apertures, at various speeds. There are many complaints from new photographers regarding the Canon 17-40 f/4 but its a gem..if you know how to use it! The 24-70 is also an excellent lens..if used in the right hands! Please don't shoot at brick walls or measuring tapes.

Sheila
Sheila Smart
Canon 5D Mark III; 17-40L; 24-70 f/2.8L; 70-300 f.4-5.6 L USM; 135 f/2L; 100 f/2.8 macro; 8-15 f/4 L fisheye

Blog: http://sheilasmartphotography.blogspot.com/

khanhnahk
 
Posts: 7


Post Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:32 pm


OK, everyone,
I was a able to exchange for a second copy from B&H. So naturally I took it outside and did some tests. I tried to duplicate the same settings as the one I used last time for the tests...i.e with the same sharpness and aperture, same point of focus...etc. This time, I took the picture using the 30D instead of the 300d, so the picture is a bit bigger. Shots after shots, the 24-70mm f/2.0L looks consistently sharper than the previous copy...and I would venture to say that it might even be sharper than the 18-55mm that came with the 300D (gasp!)

For my first copy, I took about 400 pictures with it. They're all useless. Blurred everywhere. It was a shame just to look at them. Now with this second copy I have taken about 200 pictures with it, and I gotta say, I'm impressed.

You can find a sample below:
http://www.pbase.com/khanhnahk/image/93916244

akjack
 
Posts: 66

Just let it be !

Post Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:08 pm


Newbies are always concerned about SHARP...it's cool and trendy to be out of focus...after all most photographers are too !

louann108
 
Posts: 11

Re: why are my pictures so NOT sharp?

Post Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:13 am


The grass and the corner of the building are almost white (completely blown out)and the bricks look dull-which means you're not practicing settings. White balance should have been on sunny, shutter speed should have been pretty fast. If you're relying on auto settings, quit that! And yes, shoot something besides a brick wall.
The best equipment in the world won't guarantee great results if you don't know what to do with what the camera offers.

Next

Board index Photography Artistic Questions why are my pictures so NOT sharp?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests