DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Is it me or the lens or ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/16/2015 12:23:26 PM · #1
My entry in the recent Cars/Automobiles challenge

was shot at 1/1000 f/10 ISO 200

Of the comments, one said it needed to be focused, and one said it had high grain. I'm guessing the high grain was a result of me trying to improve the sharpness in pp.

I didn't hurry the shot, so 1/1000 should have been fast enough to stop blur due to camera shake, and ISO 200 should be adequate to keep grain to a minimum. I used my Canon D70 auto-focus (pattern, I think), I was standing still and the car was parked, so it should have been in focus. In addition, the lens has IS.

I use the Tamron 16-300mm zoom f/4.5-5.6, and (I'd tell you exactly, buy my home internet connection seems to be down again at the moment) probably towards the high end of the zoom - I'm guessing I was 75-100 yards from the car. For the curious, the background is one of four garage doors in the SweetCars car lot in Ft. Wayne. So, that's why the background has the Maserati symbol when the car is a Chevy Corvette. SweetCars is owned by the same guy as SweetwaterSound, and focuses on used specialty cars - Ferrari, Bentley, Maseratti, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, etc. as well as detailing on those types of cars.

I love the flexibility of the lens, but I'm beginning to suspect its sharpness - especially at the strong zoom end. Right now I'm thinking, if it doesn't work, you don't really have it.

Your Thoughts?

Recommendations for a mid to strong zoom (3x to 4x wide to tele in the 75-300mm ish range) that is not ridiculously expensive but is very sharp?
11/16/2015 12:49:54 PM · #2
Originally posted by dtremain:

one said it needed to be focused, and one said it had high grain.


Not knowing what your processing steps were or what the original looked like, here are a couple of things that could have caused the issues reported.,

Sharpness: many times when a image is reduced in size it becomes softer. One of the last steps I do on all of my entries is to sharpen with Unsharp Mask.

High Grain: If you try to push a lot of detail from a dark area of the photo, it can end up looking grainy/noisy. Sharpening can make this type of issue look worse if it is overdone.

Tim
11/16/2015 12:50:08 PM · #3
I think you may be correct to suspect the lens. To me it does not look like a focus problem, but it is generally quite soft, and that really detracts, IMO. What's your idea of "ridiculously expensive?" There are some good options, but most of them will be a lot more expensive than your current glass, especially if you want to get to 300mm and still have sharp results.

ETA: there is rather strong grain in the shadows. That may have to do with "pulling up" shadows in post. I'd have to see the out-of-camera original to know for sure.

Message edited by author 2015-11-16 12:52:31.
11/16/2015 12:58:31 PM · #4
Use your feet to zoom in... At 300mm without tripod. You cannot move at all, even the slightest shake will mess up your sharpness. If you really want sharp lenses for a cheap price. Just go to prime lenses. The 40mm f/2.8 (pancake) is ultra sharp AND amazingly cheap. The 85mm 1.8 is also very sharp and cheap. And that's the lens I used for the winning shot in this challenge. I was at about 25 meters distance. No processing on sharpening.
I see in your portfolio some great car pictures.

Message edited by author 2015-11-16 13:13:32.
11/16/2015 01:40:07 PM · #5
Originally posted by atupdate:

Originally posted by dtremain:

one said it needed to be focused, and one said it had high grain.


Not knowing what your processing steps were or what the original looked like, here are a couple of things that could have caused the issues reported.,

Sharpness: many times when a image is reduced in size it becomes softer. One of the last steps I do on all of my entries is to sharpen with Unsharp Mask.

High Grain: If you try to push a lot of detail from a dark area of the photo, it can end up looking grainy/noisy. Sharpening can make this type of issue look worse if it is overdone.

Tim


There definitely seems to be something fishy with the edit. There's just way too much grain for it to have been like that out of camera, IMO. Could we see the unedited original?
11/16/2015 01:46:50 PM · #6
The lack of any emotion whatsoever in this image means that whatever you do to it it, it won't be any good, a photo has to have something before the edit. Post processing isn't the answer here.
11/16/2015 01:52:09 PM · #7
For a cheap good tele-zoom lens i like the nifty-twofifty - the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS lens that can be found for around $100-$150. There are a couple of versions of this lens i presume the later ones would be better but i have the version II of it and am surprised by its sharpness. On your 70D it will give you the reach equivalent to 400mm which is quite sufficient.

Message edited by author 2015-11-16 14:01:30.
11/16/2015 02:31:58 PM · #8
What I'm seeing looks as if it was shot at the far end of the zoom and still cropped from that in order to get the framing you wanted. I didn't enter my one foliage shot because it was shot the same way and I just couldn't get it to look anything but badly processed.

Your sharpening only made matters worse as it appears as if it sharpened everything, including the artifacts from the lens. It also appears to have been added without any of the other artifacts dealt with. It would be good to know precisely how this was processed.

As Georges said, zoom with your legs whenever possible.
11/16/2015 05:27:32 PM · #9
Originally posted by dtremain:



Recommendations for a mid to strong zoom (3x to 4x wide to tele in the 75-300mm ish range) that is not ridiculously expensive but is very sharp?


Probably the lens.

The bad news is that for your desires only the 100-400L really fits, and it isn't crazy money, but it's damn sure not cheap.
11/16/2015 05:54:13 PM · #10
FWIW...I find third party lenses are often prone to something that you won't get as readily with brand-name lenses. For example, both my Sigmas are prone to chromatic aberration (I can see a little to the right rear part of the car), and the 10-20mm is much more prone to this than the 50mm f1.8.

Also, brand names or not, it seems best to not max out a telezoom. My Nikkor 18-200mm is 3.5-5.6 and at the full 200mm, things definitely get soft, no matter how close or far I am to my subject. If I shoot 175mm and down, I'm good for a sharp image at pretty much anything.

Message edited by author 2015-11-16 18:10:14.
11/16/2015 06:01:24 PM · #11
I didn't notice the grain in the shadows when voting, but I gave it a 5, mostly due to what I felt was an awkward composition with the car crammed uncomfortably in the corner. I would guess you were trying to keep the colorful background in the frame to offset the white car.

Looking at it more carefully now, it is not really out of focus, but it is not razor sharp, either. That probably is due to shooting at the long end of a mega zoom.
11/16/2015 06:04:13 PM · #12
Originally posted by dtremain:

Recommendations for a mid to strong zoom (3x to 4x wide to tele in the 75-300mm ish range) that is not ridiculously expensive but is very sharp?

It probably won't suit your needs at the long end, but the Canon 18-135 is my go-to lens and gives me sharp images through the whole range. Very affordable and can be found cheaply on the used market.
11/16/2015 07:57:43 PM · #13
I'd love to see the original. That would tell me a lot. As entered, the "technicals" on that shot are totally "bleccch"...
11/16/2015 11:07:05 PM · #14
I uploaded the original (JPG)

I started editing with the RAW image, but don't know how to upload that so you can see it.
Don't remember the editing steps, but I think I left it pretty much alone coming from RAW, then did levels, straighten (to tilt it a bit more), high pass sharpen, and Nik Color Efex 3.0 Pro (darken / lighten center). I use PaintShop Pro X8, rather than the Adobe Photoshop.
11/16/2015 11:15:51 PM · #15
Thanks everyone. Great feedback so far. Maybe the original will help clarify some issues (besides what is holding the camera, and I'm kind-of stuck with that).
11/16/2015 11:20:54 PM · #16
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by dtremain:

Recommendations for a mid to strong zoom (3x to 4x wide to tele in the 75-300mm ish range) that is not ridiculously expensive but is very sharp?

It probably won't suit your needs at the long end, but the Canon 18-135 is my go-to lens and gives me sharp images through the whole range. Very affordable and can be found cheaply on the used market.

Not on the long end, but it sounds like quite decent wide angle to mid-range, so that covers the bottom half of the current glass' range. Even though I hate changing lenses (besides being lazy, I think I'm afraid of getting dust in the camera or breaking something), a 100-300 would cover the longer end of the range, and I'm guessing that's a fairly decent dividing place - you'd probably be OK with running just one lens for a particular shoot, and have the other one along "just in case".
11/17/2015 12:29:41 AM · #17
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by dtremain:



Recommendations for a mid to strong zoom (3x to 4x wide to tele in the 75-300mm ish range) that is not ridiculously expensive but is very sharp?


Probably the lens.

The bad news is that for your desires only the 100-400L really fits, and it isn't crazy money, but it's damn sure not cheap.


Cory talked me into buying one. I was at the time looking for a macro (sic!). I love it with its pros and cons. I even ribboned after I bought it.



I got mine second hand but even like that was expensive...

Later I also got the macro 100 2.8L

11/17/2015 12:35:57 AM · #18
Originally posted by dtremain:

I uploaded the original (JPG)
I started editing with the RAW image, but don't know how to upload that so you can see it.
Don't remember the editing steps, but I think I left it pretty much alone coming from RAW, then did levels, straighten (to tilt it a bit more), high pass sharpen, and Nik Color Efex 3.0 Pro (darken / lighten center). I use PaintShop Pro X8, rather than the Adobe Photoshop.


That's quite a soft image, yeah the lens seems to be the culprit. I know there are faster and more expensive lenses that are better than the cheap kit-level EF-S 50-250 IS but it amazes me with its results. Its so low-cost that you can buy it to try it. Much cheaper in used market and there are many used ones in "new" condition from various kits. Here's one shot at 250mm, hand held, 1/250th second, wide open on a 70D from this lens - this is basically the worst image quality that you can expect from it:



And same scene from a much more expensive 70-200 F4L IS lens which is even stopped down to f/7.1 for maximum sharpness (my copy of this lens was not the best):



Message edited by author 2015-11-17 00:42:28.
11/17/2015 12:36:43 AM · #19
Yeah, the images is very soft. Are you using auto focus, or are you manually focusing. My sweetie had focus issues with his 7D. He found manually focused images were MUCH sharper than autofocused one.
11/17/2015 01:12:37 AM · #20
Just studying the image, i see circular highlights in the headlamps, and it makes me think that maybe the lens is front focusing.
Try a similar shot using manual focus, and be sure to check the diopter setting for the viewfinder first. If your camera has "live view" use that and zoom in with the LCD to get exact focus on a stationary subject.

If you shoot a target on level rough pavement from a distance using a low camera position, you can see in the pavement exactly where the auto focus is putting the focus by seeing where the rocks are sharpest in the image.
Should the lens be short focusing, the pavement test will show it clearly. You may be able to correct that with the camera's adjustments if that is the problem and the software feature is available in the camera's menus.

There are soft lenses out there, but at f10 most any lens should be sharper than the image you posted if the camera didn't move.

A bad filter can cause softness as well.
One last thing, check the lens carefully under a bright light for any smutz on the front and esp the rear elements
11/17/2015 02:25:06 AM · #21
if you use canon dpp software you can also select to have the focus point shown to you so you can check where the focus was

Message edited by author 2015-11-17 02:25:35.
11/17/2015 08:04:08 AM · #22
Originally posted by tanguera:

Yeah, the images is very soft. Are you using auto focus, or are you manually focusing. My sweetie had focus issues with his 7D. He found manually focused images were MUCH sharper than autofocused one.

I typically rely on autofocus...good thought.
So, what you're saying is that this lens is probably perfect for portrait at a distance shots... ;-p
11/17/2015 08:19:04 AM · #23
According to the EXIF, the lens was at 103mm, and not fully zoomed in.
11/17/2015 09:33:27 AM · #24
I looked at the full size image. To me, it just looks out of focus. Not even front focused, because that usually isn't by so much (and none of the ground in front of the camera is off. Plus at assuming you were about 20 feet away, you'd have around 4 feet of "good focus" around the focus point.

Subject distance 20 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 18.3 ft
Far limit 22.1 ft
Total 3.82 ft

In front of subject 1.73 ft (45%)
Behind subject 2.09 ft (55%)

I looked at your EXIF, and found your lens reported the in-focus range at your highest aperture to be 15.5m to 19.38m. That's at maximum (smallest) aperture.

The AF points in focus were 0. 5. 7. 15. 19, 22 and 23. Though I don't know were those fall on your picture (or even where they are, but you could find out). You could also use DPP as suggested and find the focus point. The focus set was flexzone multi.

11/17/2015 11:56:56 AM · #25
Just a thought. If the lens was telling the camera it was at 103mm, but was really at 250mm, would that confuse the autofocus? I guarantee I wasn't 20 ft. from the car - more like 60 - 80 or more. And I don't think 103mm would be that tight on the car from that distance - even with the crop sensor.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:16:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:16:03 AM EDT.