Blur and Graininess issues, PLEASE HELP!!

picturegirl

A few weeks ago I did a senior portrait shoot, it was pretty overcast, so not to bright out. I shot this image with a 30d, 70-200 2.8is, at ISO 320, 2.8, 1/400. When enlarged I can see some blur. The original is actually a little brighter then what is shown, I darkened the photo just a little. Can't figure out why there is blur?



Link to gallery photos are in:
http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/6159435_RPK9S#388578694_xLhxL-A-LB


Last weekend, Engagements, very overcast with a little bit of rain. I was using ISO 320 and 400. The color, contrast, exposure looks perfect to me, BUT they are so grainy it's ridiculous. This was shot with 30d, 17-55 2.8is, at ISO 400, 2.8, 1/1600. I do have the custom function set to reduce noise turned on, on the camera for both these shoots. The Engagements are so grainy compared to the Senior Portraits with similiar ISO's, while the Senior Portraits are blurred and the Engagements aren't.




Link to gallery photos are in:
http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/1774692_7Rige#397626750_ezwey-A-LB

Seems I have one problem or another??? Also it seems at wide angle I don't get very good quality with the 17-55, the images seem to look fuzzy and not very sharp, if I zoom in (55mm) the images are so much more sharp, regardless of camera settings. Any advice?

ziggy53

Angie,

Just some observations and comments.

The first gallery you linked has the original sizes turned off. I cannot see the blur you describe.

The second gallery does have originals but I do not see the graininess to the degree you describe. How does the image look printed?

I notice that you use in-between ISOs. I do not recommend this practice. There is some evidence to indicate that only the full ISOs are calibrated and that in-between ISOs have additional noise. Fractional f stops and shutter speeds are OK so use them but I recommend full ISOs of 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600. ISO 3200 is also not calibrated so you should use it only when needed.

digismile

I was going to give a similar response as Ziggy regarding the noise. Doesn't seem as bad as I expected to see. I notice that you are shooting in manual. Was the engagement photo a bit under exposed? Did you have to increase the exposure in post? Maybe that's your noise difference.

As far as the blur is concerned, I can't see the blur. I use the same lens and although usually tac sharp, I can get the odd soft focus shot at f2.8 if I don't get the focus point perfect.

As Ziggy asked, how do they look printed?

picturegirl

ziggy53 wrote:

Angie,

Just some observations and comments.

The first gallery you linked has the original sizes turned off. I cannot see the blur you describe.

The second gallery does have originals but I do not see the graininess to the degree you describe. How does the image look printed?

I notice that you use in-between ISOs. I do not recommend this practice. There is some evidence to indicate that only the full ISOs are calibrated and that in-between ISOs have additional noise. Fractional f stops and shutter speeds are OK so use them but I recommend full ISOs of 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600. ISO 3200 is also not calibrated so you should use it only when needed.

Thanks so much for getting back to me!!

I enabled "originals" in the 1st gallery. I received my prints and yes I see the blur in some of the photos.

2nd gallery...The pics for example #0524, when enlarged it is unsharp, and very, very grainy, there just seems to be a fuzziness to the photos that I do not notice in other peoples shots. I tried a little sharpening in Photoshop and it looked even worse. I shot that one at ISO 400, not an in between number. Every picture from this shoot has that fuzzy, grainy look to them. I don't have them all uploaded yet, I just quickly put them in this hidden gallery so I could get some help.

picturegirl

digismile wrote:

I was going to give a similar response as Ziggy regarding the noise. Doesn't seem as bad as I expected to see. I notice that you are shooting in manual. Was the engagement photo a bit under exposed? Did you have to increase the exposure in post? Maybe that's your noise difference.

As far as the blur is concerned, I can't see the blur. I use the same lens and although usually tac sharp, I can get the odd soft focus shot at f2.8 if I don't get the focus point perfect.

As Ziggy asked, how do they look printed?

Thanks for getting back to me!!

The engagement shoot was a rainy overcast day, that's why I shot 2.8 at 320 and 400 ISO's. I have always understood you can shoot with those settings but now I wonder if it's not ok. The shots were not under exposed at all in fact I did almost no adjustments to them in Photoshop, just the white balance and maybe a little contrast or blacks. I have worked really hard at trying to get the exposure really, really close right out of the camera.

Cato

I wonder if the F/2.8 has something to do with the softness... that's an awfully narrow DOF, and also most lenses do not achieve maximum sharpness at the widest aperture, nor at the widest angle if a zoom.

I say this knowing nothing about the lenses you're using.

Also, jpg format does reduce quality. The more you compress the photo, the more the IQ suffers.

Finally, images from relatively small sensors often do not look as smooth and sharp when viewed at 100% as, say 50%.

picturegirl

Cato wrote:

I wonder if the F/2.8 has something to do with the softness... that's an awfully narrow DOF, and also most lenses do not achieve maximum sharpness at the widest aperture, nor at the widest angle if a zoom.

I say this knowing nothing about the lenses you're using.

Also, jpg format does reduce quality. The more you compress the photo, the more the IQ suffers.

Finally, images from relatively small sensors often do not look as smooth and sharp when viewed at 100% as, say 50%.

I have had this problem as long as I have had the lens it seems and regardless of the aperture. I shoot in Raw and save JPEG, but save the largest size JPEG. I see others work and it seems much sharper. I am beginning to think I might just need a 5d or to get rid of the 17-55? I may try a smaller aperture and closer zoom to see if that helps. Problem is I needed 2.8 during both those shoots due to it being very overcast.

Cato

picturegirl wrote:

I have had this problem as long as I have had the lens it seems and regardless of the aperture. I shoot in Raw and save JPEG, but save the largest size JPEG. I see others work and it seems much sharper. I am beginning to think I might just need a 5d or to get rid of the 17-55? I may try a smaller aperture and closer zoom to see if that helps. Problem is I needed 2.8 during both those shoots due to it being very overcast.

Could be the lens isn't focusing well...

I was looking at some of the photos on your gallery, and I see many of the shots have a shutter of 1/320s, 1/400s, and faster. You could definitely bump the aperture a stop or 2 and still get good sharpness. Basic rule of thumb for shutter speed is 1/focal length, so if you are shooting at 75mm you should have a shutter of 1/75s. And that's not even taking into account IS.

Have you tested your lens? Try pointing it at a high contrast scene in bright light, at f/8 or something like that. See if it gives you the sharp focus you are looking for. If not, then that would indicate the lens is not performing well.

ziggy53

picturegirl wrote:

Thanks so much for getting back to me!!

I enabled "originals" in the 1st gallery. I received my prints and yes I see the blur in some of the photos.

2nd gallery...The pics for example #0524, when enlarged it is unsharp, and very, very grainy, there just seems to be a fuzziness to the photos that I do not notice in other peoples shots. I tried a little sharpening in Photoshop and it looked even worse. I shot that one at ISO 400, not an in between number. Every picture from this shoot has that fuzzy, grainy look to them. I don't have them all uploaded yet, I just quickly put them in this hidden gallery so I could get some help.

In the second gallery that image is 6 MPix, which would seem to indicate some cropping was done, but the image file size is only 1.78MB which is small even for 6 MPix. Something in your workflow has either compressed the file more than you think or some other loss has occured.

Still I don't see that much of a problem with the image.

Can you elaborate more about how you processed the images, what software and settings?

Cato

I was looking thru your gallery again, and specifically at Daisy_067. The focus on her face is soft, but sharp on her chest. Because her face is a few inches further from the camera than her chest if, at f/2.8 it will be less sharp because the DOF is so shallow.

picturegirl

ziggy53 wrote:

In the second gallery that image is 6 MPix, which would seem to indicate some cropping was done, but the image file size is only 1.78MB which is small even for 6 MPix. Something in your workflow has either compressed the file more than you think or some other loss has occured.

Still I don't see that much of a problem with the image.

Can you elaborate more about how you processed the images, what software and settings?

Here is the that image saved without any adjustments or crops, I use Photoshop Elements 6.0, I saved the image JPEG, Quality 12, Baseline (Standard). I think I saved the 1st copy quality 10 (with minor white balance, contrast, and brightness/expousre adjustements).

picturegirl

Cato wrote:

I was looking thru your gallery again, and specifically at Daisy_067. The focus on her face is soft, but sharp on her chest. Because her face is a few inches further from the camera than her chest if, at f/2.8 it will be less sharp because the DOF is so shallow.

I see what you are saying! I do always focus on the face and then move the camera, I set my AF mode to One Shot so that I can do that, I wonder if I could be doing something to unfocus??? I will have to pay tons of attention next time. I have a shoot tomorrow, I may try a smaller aperature and see if that helps. Thanks again for your opinions and advice, I am pretty desperate right now to figure this out, I am so close to having the images the exact way I want them.

Cato

picturegirl wrote:

I see what you are saying! I do always focus on the face and then move the camera, I set my AF mode to One Shot so that I can do that, I wonder if I could be doing something to unfocus??? I will have to pay tons of attention next time. I have a shoot tomorrow, I may try a smaller aperature and see if that helps. Thanks again for your opinions and advice, I am pretty desperate right now to figure this out, I am so close to having the images the exact way I want them.

It's tough to focus and then move the camera. The "focus and recompose" method works much better with point-n-shoot cameras, because the DOF is so much wider. I got used to doing that with my digicams, and found out that doesn't work as well with a DSLR when you have a wide aperture.

Can you select the focus point from within your camera's menu system?

picturegirl

Cato wrote:

It's tough to focus and then move the camera. The "focus and recompose" method works much better with point-n-shoot cameras, because the DOF is so much wider. I got used to doing that with my digicams, and found out that doesn't work as well with a DSLR when you have a wide aperture.

Can you select the focus point from within your camera's menu system?

Yeah I always have it set to the middle square. I think we might be onto something with the shallow DOF, I will try a few different apertures tomorrow and see if I can notice any differences? I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this.

Cato

picturegirl wrote:

Yeah I always have it set to the middle square. I think we might be onto something with the shallow DOF, I will try a few different apertures tomorrow and see if I can notice any differences? I really appreciate you taking the time to look at this.

OK, try setting your focus point to the area where the face will be in your portrait. If the face will be in the upper left hand corner, for instance, set the focus point there. I know, it's a real pain to have to constantly adjust. :cry

Or, like you said, try a smaller aperature. F/4 or 5.6 might give you enough leeway. Let us know how it works out!

picturegirl

Cato wrote:

OK, try setting your focus point to the area where the face will be in your portrait. If the face will be in the upper left hand corner, for instance, set the focus point there. I know, it's a real pain to have to constantly adjust. :cry

Or, like you said, try a smaller aperature. F/4 or 5.6 might give you enough leeway. Let us know how it works out!

I will! Thanks again!

pathfinder

If you desire to shoot at f2.8 at distances less than 12-15 feet, you must be critically careful with your focusing, as there is no margin for error.

You must use a single AF point ( not a cluster of AF points ), on the precise area desired to be in focus, and not move the camera after focusing on that point. Using the center point and the recomposing induces inherent errors as seen in this link - http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

Focus -Recompose was done years ago, but with modern cameras it is an inferior way of focusing that causes images to be less than perfectly crisp.

Using a solitary AF point, I call "riding herd on the AF system", as one must actively CHOOSE a single AF point for each image, in Single Shot mode. The camera will not usually choose the correct AF point - trust me on this. The photographer MUST know and actively choose which AF point is the desired AF point to utilize. I find AI servo and AI focus not nearly as critically focused as Single Shot is capable of with a properly chosen single AF point.

Now, if you are shooting a football game, from 100 feet away, focus and recompose will work fairly well. But not up close within 20 feet.

In low light, in many cameras. the central AF point is MORE sensitive ( works better in dimmer light ) but in good lighting, avoid focus - recompose for critically sharp images.

Elaine

pathfinder wrote:

If you desire to shoot at f2.8 at distances less than 12-15 feet, you must be critically careful with your focusing, as there is no margin for error.

You must use a single AF point ( not a cluster of AF points ), on the precise area desired to be in focus, and not move the camera after focusing on that point. Using the center point and the recomposing induces inherent errors as seen in this link - http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

Focus -Recompose was done years ago, but with modern cameras it is an inferior way of focusing that causes images to be less than perfectly crisp.

Using a solitary AF point, I call "riding herd on the AF system", as one must actively CHOOSE a single AF point for each image, in Single Shot mode. The camera will not usually choose the correct AF point - trust me on this. The photographer MUST know and actively choose which AF point is the desired AF point to utilize. I find AI servo and AI focus not nearly as critically focused as Single Shot is capable of with a properly chosen single AF point.

Now, if you are shooting a football game, from 100 feet away, focus and recompose will work fairly well. But not up close within 20 feet.

In low light, in many cameras. the central AF point is MORE sensitive ( works better in dimmer light ) but in good lighting, avoid focus - recompose for critically sharp images.

I've been using the single point AF you discussed here for a few years (and sometimes it IS a pain to quickly adjust the focus point). This seems to work for me, so the inconvenience is worth it. I've been surprised to read that some very high-end wedding photogs use the center point-recompose method, even while using a 50 1.2 wide open! Are they relying on a 6th sense of knowing where to place their focus before recomposing? That would seem more difficult than just adjusting the AF to the correct spot. I truly don't understand how they can rely on that method and produce amazingly clear shots, but it does appear that some have it figured out. I wish I could, as my thumb-on-wheel just can't adjust fast enough sometimes.

picturegirl

pathfinder wrote:

If you desire to shoot at f2.8 at distances less than 12-15 feet, you must be critically careful with your focusing, as there is no margin for error.

You must use a single AF point ( not a cluster of AF points ), on the precise area desired to be in focus, and not move the camera after focusing on that point. Using the center point and the recomposing induces inherent errors as seen in this link - http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

Focus -Recompose was done years ago, but with modern cameras it is an inferior way of focusing that causes images to be less than perfectly crisp.

Using a solitary AF point, I call "riding herd on the AF system", as one must actively CHOOSE a single AF point for each image, in Single Shot mode. The camera will not usually choose the correct AF point - trust me on this. The photographer MUST know and actively choose which AF point is the desired AF point to utilize. I find AI servo and AI focus not nearly as critically focused as Single Shot is capable of with a properly chosen single AF point.

Now, if you are shooting a football game, from 100 feet away, focus and recompose will work fairly well. But not up close within 20 feet.

In low light, in many cameras. the central AF point is MORE sensitive ( works better in dimmer light ) but in good lighting, avoid focus - recompose for critically sharp images.

Thanks for this article, I understand what they are saying but confused because it is really backwards from how I shoot, probably why I am getting non sharp images

So basically, if I am using 2.8 aperture I need to choose an AF for each shot and not rely on the middle square to focus where I want it to. It seems hard and time consuming, not moving the camera after focus and it seems it will take longer to compose each shot, but, it will be worth learning a whole new way to shoot if my images come out better!

Did I understand this right? Any opinions on the graininess and fuzziness or is that also part of the focus problem?

pathfinder

Angie, do you shoot in Raw or baked in the camera jpgs?

Rather than try to evaluate your images, I have included links to a few of my images, shot with my 40D - ISO 400 - handheld at at f11 (for some strange reason - f8 is probably sharper), processed from Raw in Lightroom 2, corrected for chromatic aberration in LR2, and then labelled with text in Photoshop. These images are available in their full size ( I may have cropped an edge just a bit on the first two shots ). The lens used was my Tamron 28-300 Di - a fair walk around lens, but not a great piece of L glass, but used properly, can capture nicely sharp images. The grain and sharpness is what I expect from a 40D at ISO 400. These have not been run through a denoiser like Noiseware, which would decrease the noise quite a bit.

Compare these to your images and you will have your answer I believe.

http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/1789718_YdTAs#402206371_ubFWQ-O-LB


http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/1789718_YdTAs#402205705_SZUje-O-LB ( the background for this may have been treated for noise)


http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/gallery/1789718_YdTAs#402207136_B7jr5-O-LB - This shot is full frame straight from the RAW processor - there is a bit of noise in the blue tones of the water

picturegirl

Thanks everyone for the help and advice, I understand much better now! I think ISO 400 with 2.8 is not a good combination, of coarse I will be doing some playing around with that in different light and situations. I got so used to shooting that way, probably because it's easy, that using a smaller aperture and smaller ISO had me thrown off a little yesterday.

Pathfinder-I think what you wanted me to see is that what I am seeing is normal, hopefully I am understanding right?!

Here are the rest of the photos from the engagement shoot.
http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/6367250_bJrk7//402393279_U4KYM

Here is a photo from yesterdays shoot, shot with my "newly" learned techniques, not as hard as I thought to switch AF points during the shoot, just hard to compose with an AF point where I want focus. That will come with time and practice though. The image is much sharper and the "graininess" is not there. I was even able to do a lot more Photoshop adjusting with this image. Shot with 30d, 17-55 2.8is, ISO 100, 4.5 apt, 1/160.



http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/6370569_XmTDJ//402710724_WkHU3

jeffreaux2

What I see...
My comments are in bold

picturegirl wrote:

A few weeks ago I did a senior portrait shoot, it was pretty overcast, so not to bright out. I shot this image with a 30d, 70-200 2.8is, at ISO 320, 2.8, 1/400. When enlarged I can see some blur. The original is actually a little brighter then what is shown, I darkened the photo just a little. Can't figure out why there is blur?


First....everything Pathfinder has said is absolutely going to lead you in the right direction. In this shot, I see that her left hand appears to be sharper than the rest of the photo which would lead me to believe that the camera was not focused exactly where it should have been(face). I actually just purchased a 70-200 F2.8IS and have only shot a few frames with it. From the few I have shot, I can say that if you hold the beast reasonaby still it will eliminate blur due to camera shake at 1/80. I would reccomend using a monopod though....it is a tough lens to REALLY hold still.



Link to gallery photos are in:
http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/6159435_RPK9S#388578694_xLhxL-A-LB


Last weekend, Engagements, very overcast with a little bit of rain. I was using ISO 320 and 400. The color, contrast, exposure looks perfect to me, BUT they are so grainy it's ridiculous. This was shot with 30d, 17-55 2.8is, at ISO 400, 2.8, 1/1600. I do have the custom function set to reduce noise turned on, on the camera for both these shoots. The Engagements are so grainy compared to the Senior Portraits with similiar ISO's, while the Senior Portraits are blurred and the Engagements aren't.

I know nothing about using in between ISO's. My camera doesn't let me do that. I would say though that when shooting formally posed portraits, I aim to (first) get a reasonable shutter speed...ie at least 2 times the focal length, but preferable no slower than 1/160 even at short focal lengths. This insures(usually) that motion blur from the subject will be a non-issue. Secondly, I want to use the absolute lowest ISO possible to keep the shutter speed in that range. Your shot here....was shot at much too high an ISO. Your shutter speed was 1/1600. AT that same aperture, ISO100 should have given you 1/200 of a second shutter speed. Plenty fast enough.....and no chance of a noise issue.



Link to gallery photos are in:
http://picturegirl.smugmug.com/gallery/1774692_7Rige#397626750_ezwey-A-LB

Seems I have one problem or another??? Also it seems at wide angle I don't get very good quality with the 17-55, the images seem to look fuzzy and not very sharp, if I zoom in (55mm) the images are so much more sharp, regardless of camera settings. Any advice?

If you can prove this, I would send it to Canon for a calibration check. This is the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used. Freaky sharp. Remember though, that at wider angles....if you are focusing, then recomposing....you are moving the camera farther to recompose. Add that to an F2.8 aperture and you are begging for a soft photo. It is VERY rare that I will attempt a shot of couples or groups at larger than F4. Subtle differences in distance with two people standing shoulder to shoulder can cause one or the other to be out of focus.

jeffreaux2

Oh...and one more thing....

I predict that if you throw in the towel and go get yourself a full frame camera AND continue to use wide open apertures with a focus/recompose focus method your softness issues will be worse....not better.

pathfinder

Modern lenses are pretty good, but a good rule of thumb ( used by old photographers years ago and still true - Marc Muench and Dave Porter hammered this in firmly in Arches a few weeks ago ) is that a len's sharpest aperture is about two stops down from wide open. Thus, an f2.8 lens is going to be significantly sharper at f5.6, or maybe f8. Wider or smaller apertures will not be as good optically. Wider will be softer, and smaller - f11-f16 etc - will begin to suffer from diffraction.

I own a number of f2.8 lenses, but I almost always shoot them at f56, f8, or maybe f11. I find that I cannot get adequate depth of field when shooting people with less than f5.6 ( Usually ). I get eyes but not ears in focus. Sometimes that works for drama, but sometimes it just looks like poor craftmanship.

Jeffreaux is correct, as the sensor gets larger ( going from P&S to APS to full frame to medium format 2 1/4 sq) the depth of field gets significantly more shallow. This is neither good not bad, as you can decide if you want more DOF or less. But you do need to be aware of it and expect it.

picturegirl

Thank you so much Jeffreaux2 and Pathfinder!!!