Beginner w/ 40D

grapejape

I've had my new 40d for around a month now, and I'm slowly but surely getting better with it. I only have the 28-135mm kit lens for now, so I'm getting a lot of practice with it. I have been having some focusing issues and I'm not sure if it is my technique or my equipment. Today, I was attempting to take some photos of my 2 month old daughter outside in a shady area with my wife holding her up so that I could get a nice head shot (she can hold her head up fairly well) against a distant wooded background. Out of 10 or so pics, only one was in really sharp focus. I was using the center AF point, ISO100, and the lowest F stop allowed at varying zoom lengths in Av mode. Most of the pics were at F/6.3 and 1/25s. This has not been an infrequent experience with the camera. Sometimes I'll shoot a series of photos and think "those are ok" until I scroll to the one out of many that is really sharp.

Perhaps I need to be using a tripod for these types of pics. Most of them are of my kids, and they do tend to move around a bit (I have heard that is normal). I usually use the one-shot AF mode, having no experience with the AI-Servo or AI-Focus modes. I did notice that on a number of the OOF shots today, part of her dress in the front of the picture was in better focus than her face. I did not think that F/6.3 would produce a shallow enough DOF make focusing that tricky, but I am brand new to "real" photography so perhaps it is my ignorance causing the problem.

Here are the photos in question. Only the last one was in focus. I didn't include all of the OOF ones, just a few. I have applied no post-processing or sharpening to any of these - just the default camera settings in RAW mode and converted to JPEG quality 7 with Canon DPP.

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/5289754_Q3GUY#322420470_gMkTr


- Jason

evoryware

grapejape wrote:

I've had my new 40d for around a month now, and I'm slowly but surely getting better with it. I only have the 28-135mm kit lens for now, so I'm getting a lot of practice with it. I have been having some focusing issues and I'm not sure if it is my technique or my equipment. Today, I was attempting to take some photos of my 2 month old daughter outside in a shady area with my wife holding her up so that I could get a nice head shot (she can hold her head up fairly well) against a distant wooded background. Out of 10 or so pics, only one was in really sharp focus. I was using the center AF point, ISO100, and the lowest F stop allowed at varying zoom lengths in Av mode. Most of the pics were at F/6.3 and 1/25s. This has not been an infrequent experience with the camera. Sometimes I'll shoot a series of photos and think "those are ok" until I scroll to the one out of many that is really sharp.

Perhaps I need to be using a tripod for these types of pics. Most of them are of my kids, and they do tend to move around a bit (I have heard that is normal). I usually use the one-shot AF mode, having no experience with the AI-Servo or AI-Focus modes. I did notice that on a number of the OOF shots today, part of her dress in the front of the picture was in better focus than her face. I did not think that F/6.3 would produce a shallow enough DOF make focusing that tricky, but I am brand new to "real" photography so perhaps it is my ignorance causing the problem.


- Jason

Would be nice to see what you mean, but 1/25 shutter speed is pretty slow even if you shot at a focal length of 28mm. The 40D can shoot great images all the way up to ISO 3200 or you could have went to f/3.5-5.6 to increase that shutter speed. f/6.3 is not is not the lowest f-stop on that lens.
For example you could raise the ISO to 800 and shoot f/5.6 @ 1/125 but it's just a guess without seeing the actual results and exif.
If memory serves the rule for avoiding blur is shutter speed of
1/focal length.
So even at 28mm you are pushing it at 1/25.
If I were shooting at 28mm, I would go for a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster personally.
hth.

darkdragon

hi jason,

i was having the same issues when i started using my 40d with that lens. from what you said, i think that your shutter speed is too slow to stop motion blur with the baby. you also might want to try a lower f-stop like f8 or f11 to get more of the subject in focus. the lens is a great, sharp lens but it requires a lot of light. i got excellent images out of mine but i needed to shoot outdoors in the sun with fill flash.

theinlawjosie

Hi Jason, I'm definitely no expert, I myself just got my 40D about four months ago with the same lens and I got a 430ex speedlight about a week ago.
The sutter speed is way too slow for a shot of a moving baby. Don't be afraid to boost that iso.....like evoryware said, your 40D can most certainly handle it. Try shooting in Tv or M for better control over the shutter.....You can't make blurry images sharp in photoshop, but you can blur a backround....Also, if you aren't shooting in RAW I would suggest it....you can use Canon's Digital Photo Professional or photoshop if you have CS3 (CS2 doesn't support the 40D Raw files). It's amazing the amount of information you have to work with.
Have fun with your 40D!!!!!!!!

grapejape

See edited post for a gallery link with examples


- Jason

pathfinder

The 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS is a fine lens when used correctly. It will not be at its sharpest when shot wide open. Shooting a moving baby will require a shutter speed of 1/250th or better for the very best images with this lens when shooting at 135mm. One way to deal with movement with children is to use flash - that really helps avoid subject movement which is what some of these images display in my opinion.

You might post a few images with the associated exif data - ISO, shutter speed, aperture - for a more detailed answer.

And yes, at 135mm, even at f6.3, for critical sharpness, focus does need to be very precise. The AF point needs to be precisely on the eye you wish to be sharp.

Since you shot in RAW, sharpening properly in the RAW converter can really help in focus images look tack sharp also.

SaloSV

theinlawjosie wrote:

you can use Canon's Digital Photo Professional or photoshop if you have CS3 (CS2 doesn't support the 40D Raw files). It's amazing the amount of information you have to work with.
Have fun with your 40D!!!!!!!!

Soooo, for a guy with CS (Version 8.0), how does the 40D fair with RAW format compatibility?

I certainly don't want to run into a snag here. Sorry if I'm thread jacking, this is the only comment I could find on the forum about this.

jd1585

I am with everyone else in the forum, your shutter speed may have been a bit too low. However I have that lens too and it seems way soft at the wide end for my taste. If you shoot mid range up to 135 it is ok.

pathfinder

SaloSV wrote:

Soooo, for a guy with CS (Version 8.0), how does the 40D fair with RAW format compatibility?

I certainly don't want to run into a snag here. Sorry if I'm thread jacking, this is the only comment I could find on the forum about this.

CS does not support the 40D in its RAW converter, nor does CS2 I believe.

You will need to use EOS Digital Photo Pro ( it came with the 40D ) to get from RAW to a 16 tif which CS will edit.

grapejape

I think that the shutter speed is what is getting me here. I was trying for the best possible quality, which is why I had ISO100 set. I'm also still used to my ELPH and S2, where anything over ISO200 pretty much stinks. Using a higher ISO would help me get the shutter speed up.

With regards to fill flash (I think someone commented on that) - I tried a bunch of photos with flash but her dress kept getting blown out so I had to delete most of them. I do not have an external flash, just the popup. I am thinking of getting a Vivitar 285 HV and Canon F/1.8 50mm as my next two purchases.


- Jason

grapejape

Pathfinder,

Using the Canon DPP software, there are two field for sharpening the RAW images. The RAW sharpening tool doesnt' do a whole lot, and it seems I can almost set it to max without doing much damage to the images at all. On that one in focus headshot, I took it to level 9 and it really made it look nice. The RGB sharpening is more finicky, and I'm not exactly sure how to use it.

I do not have photoshop. I do have GIMP and Paint.NET - but have stuck to using Canon DPP for just about everything so far.


- Jason

pathfinder

grapejape wrote:

I think that the shutter speed is what is getting me here. I was trying for the best possible quality, which is why I had ISO100 set. I'm also still used to my ELPH and S2, where anything over ISO200 pretty much stinks. Using a higher ISO would help me get the shutter speed up.

With regards to fill flash (I think someone commented on that) - I tried a bunch of photos with flash but her dress kept getting blown out so I had to delete most of them. I do not have an external flash, just the popup. I am thinking of getting a Vivitar 285 HV and Canon F/1.8 50mm as my next two purchases.


- Jason

With a 40D you do not have to be so concerned about ISO for quality images. As long as you do not under expose them, noise is not a real issue.

This image was shot at ISO 1600 with a 40D, 1/100th f2.2



Is the noise excessive?

Scott_Quier

pathfinder wrote:

CS does not support the 40D in its RAW converter, nor does CS2 I believe.

You will need to use EOS Digital Photo Pro ( it came with the 40D ) to get from RAW to a 16 tif which CS will edit.

Hey PF, can the OP get a copy of the raw to DNG converter and open the DNG file in either CS or CS2? I don't know, just asking.

pathfinder

Scott, I thought about that when I posted earlier, but I have no personal experience, and was not sure whether the poster could obtain a copy of the RAW to DNG converter - I don't convert my files, so I don't follow that area that closely.

I am sure we have some readers who do know the answer to your question though. Hopefully they'll join in.

The software from Adobe is here

Scott_Quier

pathfinder wrote:

Scott, I thought about that when I posted earlier, but I have no personal experience, and was not sure whether the poster could obtain a copy of the RAW to DNG converter - I don't convert my files, so I don't follow that area that closely.

I am sure we have some readers who do know the answer to your question though. Hopefully they'll join in.

The software from Adobe is here

I don't convert either, but I think I've read/heard something to this effect.

achambers

DPP has an 'Export to Photoshop' feature. This opens PS and keeps it at 16 bit for further editing. Works with CS.

pathfinder

Thanks, Alan, that's what I thought was the most direct route.

Mnemosyne

The DNG converter works with CS2 (in fact I think they advertised it because of their CS3 release). I have done it, and not noticed any difference. I have since acquired CS3 so I no longer need it. But I know CS2 works with the DNG converter, not sure about CS though. But it is an option.

grapejape

As a follow up to all, I have discovered that most of my problems were simply my lack of experience w/ basic photography skills. I was simply using too slow of a shutter speed to achieve good focus. I have taken several sets of photos since these with much better results using higher ISOs to allow for speeds in the 1/125 to 1/250 range for similar shots.

I was slightly dissapointed in some of my prints, however, that I selected the TRUE color option on via Smugmug. They were quite a bit darker than I expected after viewing them on the LCD. From reading several posts and talking to Smugmug support, I think that I need to use the AUTO color options as my LCD is probably too bright to make good judgement with.

Thanks for the help with the focusing issue everybody.


- Jason

Scott_Quier

grapejape wrote:

As a follow up to all, I have discovered that most of my problems were simply my lack of experience w/ basic photography skills. I was simply using too slow of a shutter speed to achieve good focus. I have taken several sets of photos since these with much better results using higher ISOs to allow for speeds in the 1/125 to 1/250 range for similar shots.

I was slightly dissapointed in some of my prints, however, that I selected the TRUE color option on via Smugmug. They were quite a bit darker than I expected after viewing them on the LCD. From reading several posts and talking to Smugmug support, I think that I need to use the AUTO color options as my LCD is probably too bright to make good judgement with.

Thanks for the help with the focusing issue everybody.


- Jason

I have found that "TRUE" color works quite well if you system is well calibrated but if there's any doubt, it's best to go with the "AUTO" option. I've delivered, literally, thousands of prints to clients using the AUTO option and not had any complaints (though my system IS well calibrated and that MIGHT have something to do with it as well).

grapejape

Scott_Quier wrote:

I have found that "TRUE" color works quite well if you system is well calibrated but if there's any doubt, it's best to go with the "AUTO" option. I've delivered, literally, thousands of prints to clients using the AUTO option and not had any complaints (though my system IS well calibrated and that MIGHT have something to do with it as well).

If a photo looks good on the screen, too dark when printed in TRUE, and good if printed in AUTO - does that mean that the photo is too dark in reality (monitor is off) and that the AUTO color feature is in essence correcting a bad photo? I know that it really doesn't matter if the prints look good, but I am curious here. I do have a cheap LCD monitor.

- Jason

pathfinder

Jason, go down to your local camera store and spend 25 bucks for a Kodak Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale . You can still find them at B&H for $23.95 I think I paid 10 bucks for mine, that is how old it is. A gray scale is a great tool for assuring that your exposures are correct and for white balancing off of as well. Money well spent!




Shoot it with your camera, correctly exposed - and you should see a nice, stepwise reproduction of the gray scale. Now, you know when you look at your monitor what you should be seeing. If you cannot see all the gray scale steps, then, if the exposure was correct in the camera, you have a problem with monitor calibration or light intensity.

On my monitor, I can see the entire gray scale steps quite clearly.

A print should match the properly exposed gray scale quite closely. True should be fine, but then so should Auto for a properly exposed gray scale.

grapejape

pathfinder wrote:

Jason, go down to your local camera store and spend 25 bucks for a Kodak Color Separation Guide and Gray Scale . You can still find them at B&H for $23.95 I think I paid 10 bucks for mine, that is how old it is. A gray scale is a great tool for assuring that your exposures are correct and for white balancing off of as well. Money well spent!


Shoot it with your camera, correctly exposed - and you should see a nice, stepwise reproduction of the gray scale. Now, you know when you look at your monitor what you should be seeing. If you cannot see all the gray scale steps, then, if the exposure was correct in the camera, you have a problem with monitor calibration or light intensity.

On my monitor, I can see the entire gray scale steps quite clearly.

A print should match the properly exposed gray scale quite closely. True should be fine, but then so should Auto for a properly exposed gray scale.

I will check into that. I will note that on the photo you pasted, I cannot tell the differences between nos 3-1 on the rightmost chart unless I tilt my LCD quite a bit. It's very difficult to figure out brightness with these LCDs, as they are so sensitive to viewing angle.


- Jason

grapejape

grapejape wrote:

I will check into that. I will note that on the photo you pasted, I cannot tell the differences between nos 3-1 on the rightmost chart unless I tilt my LCD quite a bit. It's very difficult to figure out brightness with these LCDs, as they are so sensitive to viewing angle.


- Jason

Here is one of the photos in question - probably the most extreme case. This one might be a touch dark on the LCD, but the print from Costco looked quite good. My print from Smugmug with True Color selected was very, very dark. If you lay the Costco and Smugmug print side by side, it is a huge difference.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/318069738_NT8PL-X3.jpg

evoryware

that link isn't working. I see all the steps in his chart above. I'm still using a CRT. It's big but man it's a lovely thing.

pathfinder

grapejape wrote:

I will check into that. I will note that on the photo you pasted, I cannot tell the differences between nos 3-1 on the rightmost chart unless I tilt my LCD quite a bit. It's very difficult to figure out brightness with these LCDs, as they are so sensitive to viewing angle.


- Jason

Jason, on my calibrated Apple Cinema display that image displays each step in the gray scale quite distinctly, so I believe your display settings ( or lack of calibration ) are part of your difficulty.

Many websites display a gray step scale so the viewer can verify that they are able to see the images in their entire range. Depreview does that. Luminous Landscape frequently does it.

Without a calibrated monitor, Auto color will be a better choice.

If you are shooting a DSLR, and do not have a calibrated monitor, what you see on your monitor is a shot in the dark, so to speak.

grapejape

evoryware wrote:

that link isn't working. I see all the steps in his chart above. I'm still using a CRT. It's big but man it's a lovely thing.

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/5289754_Q3GUY#318069738_NT8PL

Here is the link again. The 1st photo in the gallery is the one I'm referencing.


- Jason

pathfinder

That first photo is too dark on my screen and the pixel data verifies my visual impression.

When I read pixels in the white shirt the child is wearing, I get about 170,170,170 - a light gray not a white at all. White would be about 240,240,240+

Even specular reflections in the lenses of the glasses barely read 245,245,245. Specular reflections are not white but off the scale way above 255,255,255 which is the upper limit in a digital file.

I think this is why the image prints too dark with True color - It is accurately representing the pixel data in your image, It is just that the pixel data in the image is not correctly exposed or processed.

When you set a white point, you do NOT want to use a specular reflection.

Here is my edit of your image. The black point was just to the left of the base of his neck, and the white point was the white stripe in the seam at his left shoulder ( viewer's right). Now the white point on his left sleeve reads nearer 235,235,235. This will print much lighter than your image.

grapejape

pathfinder wrote:

That first photo is too dark on my screen and the pixel data verifies my visual impression.

When I read pixels in the white shirt the child is wearing, I get about 170,170,170 - a light gray not a white at all. White would be about 240,240,240+

Even specular reflections in the lenses of the glasses barely read 245,245,245. Specular reflections are not white but off the scale way above 255,255,255 which is the upper limit in a digital file.

I think this is why the image prints too dark with True color - It is accurately representing the pixel data in your image, It is just that the pixel data in the image is not correctly exposed or processed.

When you set a white point, you do NOT want to use a specular reflection.

Here is my edit of your image with locations of the black point and white point shown. Now the white point on his left sleeve reads nearer 235,235,235. This will print much lighter than your image.

Pathfinder,

The edited version looks very bright on my laptop screen - but I suppose that is how it is supposed to look. Is this something that is possible using the Canon DPP software? If so, I would appreciate a quick walkthrough if you don't mind. I do realize that without a calibrated monitor it will be hard to determine my goal - but I would still like to know the process (if you don't mind).

FWIW - I do have the RAW version of this photo.

Once again, thanks. I am learning a lot on this forum.


- Jason

grapejape

I had a go at this in the Canon DPP software. I was able to get the shirt to read closer to white and the black spot closer to 0,0,0 by first bumping the exposure up a full stop and then fooling around with the sliders on the RAW and RGB tabs. I really don't know what I'm doing - just adjusting the sliders until the photo looks brighter. I was not able to get my edit to look like Pathfinders no matter what I tried.

I posted my edit in the gallery, along with the original and Pathfinder's edited version.

- Jason

pathfinder

Jason, if your screen is not calibrated, and even is it is calibrated, you need to know what the pixels should read for white, black and gray, and whether something is red or blue or green or yellow by reading the pixel data.

Only then can you look at the images on your screen with confidence about how they will print.

As I said earlier, 180,180,180 is not really white, but a lighter gray. Specular reflections cannot be mapped into the prints 0-255 data range or they compress the rest of the data down to far in the image and that is what happened with your child with the goggles on. You must use your range of contrast 0-255 - where is it will do the most good.

The other thing to remember is that a print is a reflective medium and never going to be as bright or have as high a contrast range as an electronic display like an LCD. You must look at your prints under a fairly bright, color balanced light like daylight or an Ott-light, or a Solux light to be able to compare it directly to a screen. Any of my prints that I print will look dark in general home illumination, but when examined under my Ott-light compare very closely to my LCD.