Need advice on getting "tack sharp" photos

H

hulagirl

Member
I have long been amazed by some of you who are able to get truly tack sharp photos and the ability is so far, eluding me. ; For me, it's like the difference between watching regular tv and watching in HD, or a regular movie as opposed to a Blue Ray version. ; I so want to get better at taking photographs that are in razor sharp focus and would love any pointers. ; Here are two photographs of my furry little friends taken last week that I really like, but don't quite make the grade in the focus department, in my opinion. ; Any thoughts? ; I have seen photographs of squirrels where it looked like I could reach out and actually feel the fur.

4360536951_9eb9d16b14.jpg


4360536815_cfa0256fe7.jpg
 
roni, there is a combination of equipment, technique, and know-how that goes into making a photo tack sharp. ; i do capture a share of images that are not tack sharp, but most of them do not see the light of day. ; here is a very general recipe...

1. ; you need good glass. ; period. ; cheap lenses will not be as sharp as good, quality lenses.
2. ; you need good technique and settings that will allow you to avoid camera shake and motion blur (HIGH shutter speeds help).
3. ; you need a bit of post production know-how (learning some basic unsharp mask settings in your post production software makes a HUGE difference).

a rule of thumb for shutter speed is 1/focal length in seconds... 200mm lens = 1/200 or faster shutter speed.
 
Unfortunately Tim is right, glass is the first consideration in sharpness. ; But your 55-250 is pretty good as far as entry-level lenses go, though it is definitely sharper at the wide end than the long end.

Here are my suggestions:

First and foremost, stop down the aperture. ; I see on flickr that they were taken at the max aperture for the focal length (f/5.6). ; There isn't a lens in existence, no matter how much you spend, that is at maximum sharpness at maximum aperture size. ; The 55-250 is best at f/8.

Second, post-processing does wonders, but if you're looking for sharpness straight out of camera you should dig into your camera's settings and turn up the sharpness filter, especially when you're shooting on the long end of that lens

Lastly, unrelated to sharpness, but these are underexposed. ; It looks like the camera exposed for the bright background, so the subject is too dark. ; Exposure compensation, or perhaps center weighted or spot metering, is needed in this situation.
 
good point, code. ; another general rule of thumb is that lenses are sharpest in their sweet spots, which generally speaking is 1-2 stops down from wide open through 1-2 stops up from the stopped down end. ; on a lens that ranges from f/4 - f/22, that would give you f/8 - f/13 as the sweet spot.
 
On at least one of my lenses I've stopped trying to close it down and normally shoot with it wide open. ; My admittedly limited testing with my 400 F5.6 (known to be quite sharp wide open) suggests that I can't see any different when I close it down. ; But I can't say my testing wasn't flawed, perhaps when I closed it down I lost whatever sharpness I gained to lens shake from having to use longer exposures. ; But I feel like I have seen sharpness gains from closing my 70-200F4 down to at least F5.6.

Even with my fairly good lenses I've still had inconsistent results, either I still don't "get it" or else sharpness isn't an exact science and there's an unavoidable element of unpredictability. ; It may be that the quality and direction of the light matters but I'm not yet taking that into account like I should.

It's been frustrating for me because I'm a sharpness fanatic, I've spent most of my shutter actuations on animals and I like getting extreme detail whether it be in feathers, fur or scales. ; But I still don't really know how well a picture will turn out until I look at it afterwards at home on the computer. ; Some times I think I'm taking fantastic pictures and they come out mediocre, other times a picture that I didn't think much of at all turns out to have potential.

I want to suggest you consider other areas of post processing too, not just sharpening. ; I remember you commented on the rubik's cube picture in another thread, about how it just jumps out at you. ; I think part of the impression of that was the intense colors, which I'm guessing were produced in post processing by boosting the saturation.


I've taken a whack at adjusting your first image, and I'm at least reasonably pleased with my result. ; With your permission I'll post it so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. ; I'm not familiar with Aperture but I think you have access to more or less the same tools that I've used, although Aperture may handle a few things slightly differently.
 
Oh my gosh this was a wealth of information..WONDERFUL and SO appreciated. ; Thank you all very much! :-*

Tim, you never fail to get at the heart of something for me in a simple, easy to understand, clear fashion. ; I think I knew quickly that better lenses would help. ; It was one of my first posts a few weeks ago and everyone had great suggestions then, too. ; I hope technique and post production know how, will come with time, practice, and plenty of guidance here.

Code, ; thank you thank you thank you, for your feedback! ; I think I wasn't at all understanding what "stopping down the aperture" meant and I certainly didn't know it would help in gaining sharpness. ; I can't wait to try doing that! ; Also, I didn't realize the photos were underexposed but now I totally see that. ; I do that alot, I think...I have such a thing for bokeh...I'm always paying attention to the background. ; Silly, huh? ; Looks like I need to learn more about center weight and spot metering and pay more attention to my subject. :D

Dan, your posts always impress me so much. ; You have a way of giving me alot of technical information that is SO helpful, without making me feel like an idiot. :) ; I love Jeff's rubix cube photo (and actually pretty much every one of his photos - wow. ; If I could favorite his whole library, I would ;)) and appreciated that you remembered and then addressed that. ; I would absolutely love it if you would post the photos you adjusted and I thank you for doing that. ; It was pretty thoughtful.

I am learning so much and feeling very grateful for you all. ; Thank you again.
 
Thanks for the kind words- ; I have to give a +1 for good glass- there really is no computer generated substitute. ; 200mm @ f2.8- 20% or so crop and no sharpening.

[expando]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2722/4360840973_b6e9d471da_o.jpg[/expando]
 
Ooooooo Jeff! ; How did you do that really cool thing so that when someone hovers over your photo it expands in size? ; That is so neat! ; Another gorgeous photo. ; And you're welcome. :)

Zeagle, I'm not sure..I just cropped it until it looked right to me. ; hee hee
 
"hulagirl" said:
Ooooooo Jeff! ; How did you do that really cool thing so that when someone hovers over your photo it expands in size?
Click to expand...

Expando- right next to the picture icon but with little arrows. ; Me like.

[expando]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4360847273_730af831d2_o.jpg[/expando]
 
I would be interested in seeing the original picture, so that we can compare it to the crop. Dan mentioned about editing the pic, could you share the RAW file? I like the shot, but I think some post processing magic could help you further :)

"hulagirl" said:
Zeagle, I'm not sure..I just cropped it until it looked right to me. ; hee hee
Click to expand...
 
my .02 worth
1. good glass cannot be beat, ever, that's why as a cannon shopoter i always recommend someone spend their dollars on L grade glass, even if used, in good condition it flat out beat the consumer lens at same focal length and aperure setting. you can make do for a few years with an entry level body while you collect great glass.
2. f/8 and be there, there's a reason that saying came about, i try mightily to stay in that f/8-13 sweet spot on all my lenses, i usually only come off that and open up if it's a low light/no tripod situation
3. your stance, it's harder to correct this over the net, at tim's talks he always stresses a little demo on proper triangulated, balanced stance. pistol shooters and martial arts practitioners come to this easier that others, feet shoulder width apart, slightly bent at the knees, and one hand holding the camera body, the other UNDER the lens barrel if the barrel is long enough. not on each side of the body, that just makes sure the camera shakes in the same pattern as you do, all people shake, it just varies how much.
4. yeah you need to experiment with some post process/ unsharp mask, etc, this is best learned through books and practice, i heartily endorse scott kelby's books, i have several of them and really learn from his teaching style
 
Okay here is the untouched original jpeg file. ; I hope I did this right. ; Jeff...WAY cool expando thing. ; Me like too. :-* ; (ps...why does it come through sideways like that? ; I just didn't want to touch it in case rotating it messed up the originalness of it. :)) ;

[expando]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4062/4363843218_d38b6b174b_o.jpg[/expando]

Thanks guys. ; This is so fun!

ps...if this doesn't work for you, you're welcome to go get it off my Flickr page.

Gary, thank you for your thoughts too! :)
 
Your sharpness isn't bad there at all...in fact, a small dose of USM (unsharp mask) in post processing would clean it up just right.

Agree with the others - lens is #1, aperture can be very important too...and post processing will get the very most out of the shot for the final touch.

I played with two versions of your shot - one enhanced with USM at 125/2/0, and another using microcontrast to adjust the detail and sharpness...both came out very crisp. ; (I don't want to upload them onto Tim's server as they're huge files).

Also remember that when folks resize photos to show on the web, they can look significantly sharper than the original...the same holds true depending on how you intend to use the photo. ; Considering the resolution of your original photo, to make a nice print at 300dpi, you can actually reduce the dimensions of the photo, then apply USM sharpening, and the end result will actually achieve better sharpness than the original full res shot would. ; If all you want to do is display the photos on the web, you can post them much much smaller, and apply sharpening to the resized versions...and they'll look sharp as a razor blade! ; That full res sharpness really only comes into play for extremely large prints, extremely large viewing monitors, extreme crops, or folks known as 'pixelpeepers' who just like to analyze shots blown up 100% and look for any possible flaw! ; ;)
 
Justin, would you mind emailing me the photos you cleaned up? ; I would love that. ; You can get my email address off my profile. ; I don't really understand how uploading large files affects Tim's site and I wouldn't want to do anything bad. ; Should I take that photo off and just have folks go to my Flickr page to view it?

Thank you so much for the encouraging words. ; I'm just having a ball. :)

Jeff... ;D ; You so funny...
 
I think you're OK on the photo you posted - you used the URL of your photo off your Flickr site, so you're not using up Tim's drive space. ; I could upload the edited versions of your photo to my own photo gallery, and link them, but then I'd probably delete them off in a few days and that would leave dead links in the thread...the other alternative is to upload them directly through the TMIP site, but they far exceed the size requirements. ; So easiest method would just be to send them to you to have a look at a few options and see if they achieve the goal.
 
Well now we've gotten into dealing with the original which is of course the best way to do it, but.. well, I did my fiddling with the downsampled version. ; I just wanted to try it out, to see what I could accomplish. ; Lest I seem too confident here I am NOT strong at post processing, this was a test to see if I could do it, not a plan to "show how it's done".

I'm giving two options of the same image, only the second uses any sharpening, just to try to make my point of focusing on things other than sharpness. ; This is actually fairly unlike me.. I'm a pixel peeper, and as Justin hinted that's often not considered a positive term. ; All I can say is us pixel peepers know it, but we are what we are. ; Also, actually, I'm none to sure of my sharpening approach, sharpening effectively can require a subtle touch and I don't do subtle. ; I drag sliders around until it looks good enough.

I'll try to give a play by play of what I did, but I don't know Aperture, the only thing I know about it is what I saw when I googled it last night and looked at a few screenshots that Apple had on their site. ; It looks like it presents a very similar interface to Adobe Lightroom, but.. I do most of my editing in Photoshop, which can handle things differently.

The first thing was tightening up the levels. ; A minor change, but the first step I usually take, it's the approach I learned in the photoshop class I took such a long time ago. ; For Aperture I think you fiddle with the exposure, black point, and brightness settings, the point is to try to stretch that histogram out, to make the brightest areas really bright and the darkest areas really dark. ; It can make a flat image look a lot more vibrant. ; Then I increased both the brightness and contrast.. um.. I don't know if that is the same thing as Aperture's brightness slider or not. ; Then I used the shadow/highlight adjustment to brighten up the squirrel and the platform it's standing on. ; I think I tend to overuse this feature, but it makes it so easy to do something that would otherwise be difficult for me and require a lot more finesse. ; Finally I boosted the saturation. ; Something I'm sure I'm prone to overdo, once you start increasing the color it's awfully hard to stop.

And for the second version I used a sharpening filter.

Once I was done I realized that I'd boosted the appearance of noise in the background. ; I only realized it after I was done and since it'd be a lot easier to deal with that by working on the original and shrinking it down as the second to last step and sharpening as the last (always sharpen last, one of the basic rules of post processing workflow) I'm just leaving it. ; But yeah, that's not good.

So, uh.. there it is, for better or for worse. ; To my eye it looks pretty good, but I have the hardest time judging these things. ; I may well have boosted the color to unrealistic levels, but without having seen the squirrel with my own eyes I was more shooting for a pleasing appearance than realism.

And one last thing, that whole expanding picture effect is darned cool. ; I've GOT to try that out. ; I think I have a flickr account.. ; I registered for it and never posted a single picture.

[attachments posted prior to 4/27/2010 have been deleted by admin. be sure to link images to make sure they don't get removed]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top