Trying to get better; sharper pictures.

Edgley

Hi,

I have a problem, well more than one, but I will only bother you this one :0
I know example pictures need to be posted, and I will but I just want to outline the problem first.

I shoot with a Nikon D300 and normally the 80-400mm, with a tripod / mono pod.

i like to take pictures of animals, but seem to have a problem getting them sharp. When I look at the picture normally, they look okay; however, when I zoom into 100% it seems quite rare for me to get good sharpness / focus.

My first problem, I worked out, was that I was shooting with too larger an aperture. I love the DOF effect of blurred backgrounds, but when I checked my numbers I could see the range wasn't enough to get the subject in total focus, so I have changed and now try to use 8-11.

Then I worked on shutter speed. I always try to shoot with at least 400, as I seem to always have the lens set to max. I have got over my issue of using higher ISO and now will let the camera go up to 800 if it needs to. VR doesn't seem to let me lower the shutter speed than much and get the shot.

True, I now have pictures that are better than before, but still not right.
One thing I am wondering is if I am expecting too much from my lens? Especially considering the poor light levels I seem to end up shooting in. I look at all the wonderful animal shots, here and else where, and I can never get that level of sharpness/ focus / impact.

Guess you need some images next, please be kind....

Thanks,
Simon.

colourbox

It sounds like you are doing what you need to do with respect to depth of field, VR, and shutter speed. Assuming you are focusing accurately, maybe the answer is in your post processing?

Are you shooting Raw or JPEG? With a JPEG the sharpness processing is a setting in the menu, and you can add a bit more afterwards. With Raw, you should expect sharpening to be very low coming out of the camera because shooting raw skips the in-camera processing, so you usually have to apply much more sharpening in post than if shooting JPEG.

How about your sharpening technique? I'm guessing most of the really stunning wildlife on the forum has been carefully sharpened in post. Some on this forum really know how to sharpen without overdoing it. Here is a tutorial by Rutt.

BBstringer

Edgley wrote:

Hi,

I have a problem, well more than one, but I will only bother you this one :0
I know example pictures need to be posted, and I will but I just want to outline the problem first.

I shoot with a Nikon D300 and normally the 80-400mm, with a tripod / mono pod.

i like to take pictures of animals, but seem to have a problem getting them sharp. When I look at the picture normally, they look okay; however, when I zoom into 100% it seems quite rare for me to get good sharpness / focus.

My first problem, I worked out, was that I was shooting with too larger an aperture. I love the DOF effect of blurred backgrounds, but when I checked my numbers I could see the range wasn't enough to get the subject in total focus, so I have changed and now try to use 8-11.

Then I worked on shutter speed. I always try to shoot with at least 400, as I seem to always have the lens set to max. I have got over my issue of using higher ISO and now will let the camera go up to 800 if it needs to. VR doesn't seem to let me lower the shutter speed than much and get the shot.

True, I now have pictures that are better than before, but still not right.
One thing I am wondering is if I am expecting too much from my lens? Especially considering the poor light levels I seem to end up shooting in. I look at all the wonderful animal shots, here and else where, and I can never get that level of sharpness/ focus / impact.

Guess you need some images next, please be kind....

Thanks,
Simon.

Hi Simon. I shoot with the same setup...just to be sure...do you have the VR (assuming that's the lens) turned off when you have it on the tripod?
I've found the VR in the on position makes my shots less sharp when the camera is on a stationary platform. Hope this helps.


BB

Edgley

I shoot JPG, with RAW, as I prefer the colour of JPGs. I do keep the RAW in case I don't get it right and need to make changes. I have been using LR for ever, and have never been happy with the colour that I could get out of a RAW. However, I have been spending a lot more time playing with it and now my RAWs look much better, so I think I am switching back towards RAW.

I don't do any sharpening, I do use the clarity tool in LR, whilst not the same thing does give a similar effect. Now its time to go play again

I do turn VR off when on a tripod, unless its very windy, but I have also played with it on incase my hand pushing the shutter wasn't helping at slower speeds.

Thanks for the points, there might be hope yet!

adbsgicom

Edgley wrote:

I shoot JPG, with RAW, as I prefer the colour of JPGs. I do keep the RAW in case I don't get it right and need to make changes. I have been using LR for ever, and have never been happy with the colour that I could get out of a RAW. However, I have been spending a lot more time playing with it and now my RAWs look much better, so I think I am switching back towards RAW.

You should be able to get exactly what you have in the camera with the camera calibration profile. If I select that menu, the profile list include the 5D standard profiles; from what I understand, the profile list is linked to the camera type defined in the EXIF from the image.

Qarik

Edgley wrote:

I shoot JPG, with RAW, as I prefer the colour of JPGs. I do keep the RAW in case I don't get it right and need to make changes. I have been using LR for ever, and have never been happy with the colour that I could get out of a RAW. However, I have been spending a lot more time playing with it and now my RAWs look much better, so I think I am switching back towards RAW.

I don't do any sharpening, I do use the clarity tool in LR, whilst not the same thing does give a similar effect. Now its time to go play again

I do turn VR off when on a tripod, unless its very windy, but I have also played with it on incase my hand pushing the shutter wasn't helping at slower speeds.

Thanks for the points, there might be hope yet!

The clarity tool plays with local contrast. It is not a "similar tool" to sharpening. If you are not sharpening at all then that maybe a potential issue. The LR sharpening tool is quite powerful but you do have to know what you are doing.

Miguel Delinquento

How are you evaluating the sharpness of your images? What is the proportion of screen-based vs. printed judgements? If you are printing images for evaluation, what are the dimensions?

Saying that RAW produces less favored color than jpeg communicates to me that you should better learn your tools. Color decisions for jpeg files are pretty much made for you by the camera's software; RAW allow you to be much more in control. A compleat photographer, in my opinion, chooses the latter path (when the assignment allows of course).

M

Edgley

I do understand the raw/jpg thing and do shoot both incase the jpg doesn't cut it. It is mainly a time thing, I find that 80% of my shots work as jpg so I have to do nothing. As I mentioned, now that I have been spanking LR much harder I am moving back towards raw. As a Nikon user we don't get quite as good raw with LR as Canon do; its got better with the extra profiles it now comes with.

To someone of my skill the look I get with turning up the clarity seems to improve the definition of the image, hence my reference to it being like sharpness. No, I haven't been using sharpness, hadn't even thought of it, but have been playing this evening and am ready to upload some images.

All of my stuff is for the Web, perhaps I should have mentioned non-pro here, just another fool hardy amateur. I completely agree I don't know my tools well enough. It has taken me 2 years of using a DSLR to produce images I like, now I am beginning to get a hand on that I am working on improving other skills.

I do like bright, rich saturated colours (dare I mention it, al la Rockwell) and that is what I love about the JPGS from the Nikon, they scream colour like I am just starting to get from RAW now I understand LR better.

angevin1

All of this discussion on the merits of sharpness is valid.

But I will say I did not buy this lens for one important reason: I didn't feel it would give me the sharpness that I desire.

Techv

It sounds like you're really working hard at nailing down the sharpness of your images. As angevin1 points out, there comes a point where you have to face the probably that the issue is the 80-400 lens itself ... not as a defect, but simply a trait of an "all inclusive" zoom. There are quite a few reviews and references around the net noting that this lens tends to be softer than typically expected for Nikon.

Given everything you've been putting into this, I would recommend treating yourself to renting a high quality, less-utility lens for a week ... just to see the difference. A google search for "nikon lens rentals" will turn up a number of rental houses that ship to your door and allow you to ship back, with the shipping transit time not counting as part of your rental period. (I personally use lensrentals.com)

A Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR is under $100 for a week. Or even a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 IF. It may sound like a lot to put into a lens that you'll need to return, but the experience could very well change your outlook on your process and skill set.

Also, once you know how good one of these lenses perform for you, you can start saving for one or even keep in mind that you can rent as needed for those special shoots.

Bottom line, with all the sweat you're putting into this, you really owe it to yourself, your craft and your sanity to give a good lens a real workout.

Good luck.

Edgley

I find it hard to believe that I am better than a Nikon lens, I just cannt help but think that the weak link is me

I have already been looking for place to rent lenses from, but as I am in the UK its much harder. All my pro mates shoot Canon so they're of no help. I have been drooling over the proper teles, and searching hard for any 2nd hand ones, but to no avail. I never mind spending the money on kit if it is was I need, rather than would like.

I have worked on some images last night, and am ready to post em up, so I will get to it.

Thanks for all the advice, looks like I was right to try here; some forums I found seemed very scary places for a newbie to post at!

Edgley

So I have experimented with Sharpness and Clarity in LR to try and improve my shots.
What is first notable, as mentioned in the excellent link at the start of this thread, is that even though it looks right at one point, a resize later and it all goes pear shaped.

I know some of these images have way too high settings, but when I was working on the RAW in LR they all looked okay. I first cropped them down, and to resize them I lowered the DPI from 240 to 100, and havled the height in CS4.


Shot just as RAW


Max Sharpness


Max Clarity


Max Clarity and Sharpness


75% Clarity and Sharpness

Techv

At web resolution, the "Max Sharpness" version looks pretty good in terms of crisp focus. Can you post a 100% crop of a small area of each version for comparison?
(crop a 600x600 pixel area of the photo so there's no "zoom", just crop, from the original)

BTW .... don't think of it as being "better" than a Nikon lens. It is possible though to have reached the limit that a particular lens can deliver. It's just state of the art, especially with a wide rage zoom lens.

Really ... try a rental, ideally a high-quality prime lens. You'll be very happy you did ... at least until the day you have to ship it back.

Edgley

Is there a certain area that is best to zoom into?

I do own the 50mm 1.4 prime, and love it; it ends up being on the camera most of the time. I am also looking to get more primes, 35 and 85mm.

I shall do some looking for a UK rental place.

Gulp; £160 ($270) for the 400mm. And then I would have to give it back and go back to my lens.