Is it just me or does this look soft?

happysmileylady

I was looking through some shots from the past week and some of them looked a little soft. So, I snapped some test shots with different lenses and now I can't tell what might be looking soft and what might just be my eyes

So, do these look soft to you?


Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/125
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8

ISO Speed
1600
Lens
17.0 - 50.0mm
Focal Length
50.0mm



Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/125
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8

ISO Speed
1600
Lens
17.0 - 50.0mm
Focal Length
50.0mm




Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
2.8
ISO Speed
1600
Lens
50.0mm
Focal Length
50.0mm

I just started playing around with the lenses and shutter speeds and stuff to see what I ended up with.

So my question is, do these look soft to you or is it just my eyes? And if they do look soft, why?

ETA: I think the top one looks the sharpest, but the middle one used the same settings and lense.

ETA2: The top two used my tamron 17-50mm 2.8, the last was my canon 50mm 1.8

Just0a0guy

First let me say you have a beautiful baby and congrats.
Second how are you focusing? If you are using AF make sure you control the focal point or zone. You may also want to try a simple test with a ruler and pen to check for front or back focusing. Two lenses will have two different offsets for front or back focusing and can also vary between two camera bodies. looking at the last picture it looks like your ether front focusing or focused on your child's forehead. On the second picture it looks like the focus is best at the shoulder. you may want to step down one fstop for increased DOF but I have to say i enjoy the blurred background from the wide open aperture.

As a side note the lesson my 2 year old has taught me make sure there is plenty of light in the house because he won't sit still and sometimes you have to shoot wide open and have a fast shutter.

one other thing I just noticed you are shooting at 1600 ISO if you are using anything to reduce noise on the image that can also soften the image

bandgeekndb

1) Totally agree on the cute baby! He's a ham for the camera!

2) I totally agree that these look soft, but not something I'd consider atypical for ISO 1600. If this is a newer camera with supposedly better high ISO performance, then I'd question the quality some more.

3) You definitely need to test this at something besides ISO 1600. My D40 will take some great shots, but ISO 1600 makes it look like I used the crappiest P&S I know of. I like the idea of the ruler, pen, etc. Pick something you know will be easy to shoot, and well lit, and use a slightly smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/4.

I've heard things about lenses being soft wide open and not really being their sharpest until you're a few stops in, but that depends on the lens I believe.

Repost with some sort of well lit test shot, and try it wide open, and with smaller apertures and let us see what's going on. Also, double check ALL camera settings (as one who just did half of an outdoor shoot in nice sunny light at ISO 1600, I can say a lot of us fall victim to it) and make sure they're kosher.

If some of us (relative) newbies can't help, I'm sure the more experienced members will chime in and offer their advice.

Hope we can help!
~Nick

Photoskipper

It seems the picture reach the upper limit of exposure. ISO 1600 is not for every camera, it will have very loose image and a lot of noise for many camera sensor.
F2.8 cause very narrow Depth of focus, means only thin slide of image is clear.
Not sure whether the image is cropped or original. It may be just too close to the object. Short distance with large aperture made the DOF even narrower.
Autofocus track the highest contrast point for focus, if the lighting is dim, many AF act very slowly and some cameras may not give accurate focus. If the object is too close, it may have difficult to focus.

Understand that take baby's photo is very challenging. Use portrait lens (effective focal lenght of 75 to 150 mm), so that you can keep a reasonable distance from the object, with good lighting can get better result.

happysmileylady

Just0a0guy wrote:

First let me say you have a beautiful baby and congrats.
Second how are you focusing? If you are using AF make sure you control the focal point or zone. You may also want to try a simple test with a ruler and pen to check for front or back focusing. Two lenses will have two different offsets for front or back focusing and can also vary between two camera bodies. looking at the last picture it looks like your ether front focusing or focused on your child's forehead. On the second picture it looks like the focus is best at the shoulder. you may want to step down one fstop for increased DOF but I have to say i enjoy the blurred background from the wide open aperture.

As a side note the lesson my 2 year old has taught me make sure there is plenty of light in the house because he won't sit still and sometimes you have to shoot wide open and have a fast shutter.

one other thing I just noticed you are shooting at 1600 ISO if you are using anything to reduce noise on the image that can also soften the image

Thanks. My older daughter won't pose as much for the camera any more, so it's nice to have a more captive subject again

I will test the pen trick some time in the next few days, I am watching my nephew tomorrow and Friday, my older dd has soccer this weekend, I have some shots to post process lol. Stay at Home Mom is a misnomer.

I didn't do anything to remove noise, these are straight out of the camera. I probably could have opened up the blinds on the windows.

happysmileylady

bandgeekndb wrote:

1) Totally agree on the cute baby! He's a ham for the camera!

2) I totally agree that these look soft, but not something I'd consider atypical for ISO 1600. If this is a newer camera with supposedly better high ISO performance, then I'd question the quality some more.

3) You definitely need to test this at something besides ISO 1600. My D40 will take some great shots, but ISO 1600 makes it look like I used the crappiest P&S I know of. I like the idea of the ruler, pen, etc. Pick something you know will be easy to shoot, and well lit, and use a slightly smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/4.

I've heard things about lenses being soft wide open and not really being their sharpest until you're a few stops in, but that depends on the lens I believe.

Repost with some sort of well lit test shot, and try it wide open, and with smaller apertures and let us see what's going on. Also, double check ALL camera settings (as one who just did half of an outdoor shoot in nice sunny light at ISO 1600, I can say a lot of us fall victim to it) and make sure they're kosher.

If some of us (relative) newbies can't help, I'm sure the more experienced members will chime in and offer their advice.

Hope we can help!
~Nick

Thanks, baby's a she, but she could be my DH's twin, so I can see thinking she's a he:D Her name is Raeanna

I was afraid it might have something to do with the ISO and the noise...it's an XSI

I will try it at a lower ISO with better lighting. I do think though that at the larger aperture, they should be sharper. Both lenses are ones that I purchased because they were rumored to be pretty sharp. And I have seen other shots bear this out as being sharp at the higher aperatures.

And yeah, I did half an outdoor shoot at 1600 myself recently lol

happysmileylady

Photoskipper wrote:

It seems the picture reach the upper limit of exposure. ISO 1600 is not for every camera, it will have very loose image and a lot of noise for many camera sensor.
F2.8 cause very narrow Depth of focus, means only thin slide of image is clear.
Not sure whether the image is cropped or original. It may be just too close to the object. Short distance with large aperture made the DOF even narrower.
Autofocus track the highest contrast point for focus, if the lighting is dim, many AF act very slowly and some cameras may not give accurate focus. If the object is too close, it may have difficult to focus.

Understand that take baby's photo is very challenging. Use portrait lens (effective focal lenght of 75 to 150 mm), so that you can keep a reasonable distance from the object, with good lighting can get better result.

The image is the original. These are straight out of the camera. I was at the limit of the exposure and wondered if tha tmight have something to do with it. I will try some more test shots with them this weekend and post some more.

happysmileylady

You know what, here's another...



Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/200
Av( Aperture Value )
11
ISO Speed
400
Lens
17.0 - 50.0mm
Focal Length
28.0mm

It's a little hot because I was actually shooting someone else and then just tossed her in there. I don't know why I was on ISO 400 though. But the lense is the same as the first two. I just don't think it should be this soft at all.

Photoskipper

happysmileylady wrote:

You know what, here's another...



Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/200
Av( Aperture Value )
11
ISO Speed
400
Lens
17.0 - 50.0mm
Focal Length
28.0mm

It's a little hot because I was actually shooting someone else and then just tossed her in there. I don't know why I was on ISO 400 though. But the lense is the same as the first two. I just don't think it should be this soft at all.

Try a bit more distance and have your baby wear a more colorful and contrast clothes. Off camera flash can make some difference.

I tried this photo with F 5.0, 1/30 sec, ISO 400, effective focal lenght at 84 mm.

sterry

out of focus XSi
Hiya, I had the same problem when i bought my canon 450 D, ( xsi ), I thought i had been given a dodgy lens, after 2 days of poor photos I found that if i turned the selector to AV,I could change the AF point to centre Spot metering, where as before it was set automatically to all 9 points of the viewfinder. the photos are now crisp and clear.. this may be a starting point for your tests..good luck..sterry

ziggy53

sterry wrote:

Hiya, I had the same problem when i bought my canon 450 D, ( xsi ), I thought i had been given a dodgy lens, after 2 days of poor photos I found that if i turned the selector to AV,I could change the AF point to centre Spot metering, where as before it was set automatically to all 9 points of the viewfinder. the photos are now crisp and clear.. this may be a starting point for your tests..good luck..sterry

Sterry, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the comments and suggestion.

troybal

sterry wrote:

Hiya, I had the same problem when i bought my canon 450 D, ( xsi ), I thought i had been given a dodgy lens, after 2 days of poor photos I found that if i turned the selector to AV,I could change the AF point to centre Spot metering, where as before it was set automatically to all 9 points of the viewfinder. the photos are now crisp and clear.. this may be a starting point for your tests..good luck..sterry

I am not a professional but I do see a little softness in the pics and agree with Sterry here. I use Center Focus point as well and I try to put the center point on one of the eyes. Try that and share a pic.

happysmileylady

troybal wrote:

I am not a professional but I do see a little softness in the pics and agree with Sterry here. I use Center Focus point as well and I try to put the center point on one of the eyes. Try that and share a pic.

This is how I have always shot portraits. Use the center focal point, focus on the eyes, then recompose and shoot.

happysmileylady

Ok, so shot these tonight







The first two used that tamron 17-50, at 50mm 1/125 2.8, the last was same ap and ss but on my canon 50mm 1.8

They were in my kitchen with better lighting that the first two and both were at ISO 100. These look like they are sharper...lemme try them at 1600 and see if it really is my ISO

happysmileylady

Ok, here we are at 1600...top is 50mm, bottom two are my 17-50. They are at the same ss and ap, just the ISO changed.

happysmileylady

Ok, so again, it's late....

but it looks like the high ISO might be my biggest culprit...is that what you all are seeing?

DsrtVW

The low ISO definitely look a bit sharper. I replied to another post of yours and went looking to see what you were shooting and found this thread. The focus seems to be accurate but the more noise the softer it will look

Tee Why

The shots all look soft to me and they look out of focus to me. At shutter speed of 1/125, it should be fast enough with the 17-50 and the 50mm to prevent shake.

Higher ISO may reduce the resolution a touch but not that much as I'm seeing in your photos.

The AF test on the rulers look like the camera is focusing ok to me.

If you are using center AF point only and recomposing, it should work. Only thing I'd recommend is to confirm that the AF has locked on. One way to test is to use the same technique on a doll so that you can go through it methodically with a steady consistent subject. If the subject is moving very fast, then you can get motion blur but it looks like the baby is relatively still, in which case about 1/125 sec should be fast enough. To confirm AF for Canon's, in one shot/AI focus mode, the green dot must be on. Remember if you are recomposing to keep the shutter release half pressed as if you release pressure while recomposing, then it will focus again as you take the shot after recomposing. You can use the custom function 4-1, where the "*" button is used to AF. Simply use the center AF point, focus on the eye via the "*" button with the thumb, let go of the button, recompose and release the shutter with the shutter release button. In this mode, the AF is not activated by the shutter release button in anyway.

Other than that, I'm not sure why the images are so soft.

happysmileylady

Tee Why wrote:

The shots all look soft to me and they look out of focus to me. At shutter speed of 1/125, it should be fast enough with the 17-50 and the 50mm to prevent shake.

Higher ISO may reduce the resolution a touch but not that much as I'm seeing in your photos.

The AF test on the rulers look like the camera is focusing ok to me.

If you are using center AF point only and recomposing, it should work. Only thing I'd recommend is to confirm that the AF has locked on. One way to test is to use the same technique on a doll so that you can go through it methodically with a steady consistent subject. If the subject is moving very fast, then you can get motion blur but it looks like the baby is relatively still, in which case about 1/125 sec should be fast enough. To confirm AF for Canon's, in one shot/AI focus mode, the green dot must be on. Remember if you are recomposing to keep the shutter release half pressed as if you release pressure while recomposing, then it will focus again as you take the shot after recomposing. You can use the custom function 4-1, where the "*" button is used to AF. Simply use the center AF point, focus on the eye via the "*" button with the thumb, let go of the button, recompose and release the shutter with the shutter release button. In this mode, the AF is not activated by the shutter release button in anyway.

Other than that, I'm not sure why the images are so soft.

Ok, so at least I am not crazy. As it is right now, I have to sharpen almost everything I am shooting in post and I just don't want to have to do that.

NeilL

Yes, the baby shots are unusably soft.

Do I understand you correctly, that you shot them in bedroom lighting only?

The pen and tape shots don't reveal anything too much out of order, but here too the light seems to be insufficient for really crisp results.

If the light is too low your own eyes won't see detail clearly (though you think you can). A certain level of light is needed for contrast to happen at all - there is no contrast in the dark, even if you are a foot from a zebra.

It looks to me like the camera-lens/es at the settings you used are not able to cope with the level of light in which you are shooting. Fast shutter speed, small aperture and low ISO produce the best sharpness, and all that requires light the equivalent of sunshine!

I'm not an expert, mind, and stand to be corrected/informed.thumb

NeilL

Another possibility - do you have a protective filter on the lenses. Apparently under the wrong circumstances a filter can throw AF off.

And a third - if you shot in RAW, the converter you used can produce more or less successful IQ.

So, maybe understanding the problem you had is complex -

so close to the subject that even tv120th was not fast enough to avoid camera shake-motion blurring,

too low light level to get sufficient image detail and achieve sufficient contrast for accurate focusing (notice how the baby's pupils are maximum dilated?),

extrinsic factors like software and filters.

Hope we will hear a happy ending, and see your little one in all her finest sharpness!

Robbug

Tee Why wrote:

The shots all look soft to me and they look out of focus to me. At shutter speed of 1/125, it should be fast enough with the 17-50 and the 50mm to prevent shake.

Higher ISO may reduce the resolution a touch but not that much as I'm seeing in your photos.

The AF test on the rulers look like the camera is focusing ok to me.

If you are using center AF point only and recomposing, it should work. ...

I would not recommending recomposing. Here is a good thread (reply by Pathfinder) that explains why that may not be a good idea. I used to focus using center point and then recompose the shot and I had a high chance of getting soft shots. I sat down and figured out a method to rapidly choose my focus points using the little joystick on the back of my 20D. I am not sure how your camera is laid out but if you can utilize choosing your focus points you should get a better shot under optimum lighting. For fast/rapidly developing shots I set all AF points on and "spray and pray". It may be that your camera is not picking up the perfect focus all the time due to lighting. I have found that under dim lighting my camera sometimes picks the wrong focus.

Sorry for the long post.

TL;DR: focusing and recomposing may not be the optimum method to get the sharpest photos. Especially for relatively low pressure situations.

happysmileylady

So, I have a couple other shots with the tamron 17-50







And these look better to me. I discovered a ginormous smudge on the inside glass of the lens Removed it...and these look better.

I didn't see any smudges on my 50mm...but maybe that one is just softer the wider it gets?

ziggy53

What is the minimum focus distance for these lenses and how close were you to the subject?