Why I can't shoot good sharp high quality photos?

[Manfred M]

This is one of quality I like to learn.
The subject is so sharp, and brighter than background.

more: http://www.joeyl.com/

First of all Joey Lawrence is a very experinced professional photographer who travels with battery powered studio flash with soft box and an assistant (usually one of his friends), plus his driver and translator. So you have a "golden hour" lighting situation (notice some of the artificial lights in the image) plus he is hitting the rower with a very large, soft light source.

This is not a simple snapshot.

If you look at his website, this is what he travels with: http://www.joeyl.com/gear/



Profoto 7B 1200 battery pack A high quality battery powered flash generator. Just drag this sucker around and you won't need any electricity for about 200-250 full-powered flashes.

Profoto 7B Flash Head
 The appropriate flash head for the 7b generator mentioned above. I usually bring two on location in case I accidentally break one.

PocketWizard I use 2 of these. One on the 7b generator, and one on the camera to trigger it.

Kata backpack This will hold all your stuff and not totally destroy your lower back.

Manfrotto pole I don't like to use lighting tripods because they are too cumbersome to travel with. Instead, this pole does the trick. My assistant holds the light head out and tweaks it by hand. Think "voice-activated light stand."

Release Me: The Model Release App I developed this app with some friends of mine and always have it with me on my iPhone. "Release Me" frees you from the shackles of paper, and puts your model release forms in a simplified, organized digital format which has just as much legal standing as a classic paper one.

Elinchrom 69" Rotolux Octa Big soft light

A lot of his shots are with a medium format camera (Phase 1 / Mamiya 645).

[Meisam]

Thanks Manfred,
I see his work and I knew those are not simple snap shots.

I think photography is all about light and light density. Are these even useful for landscapes? I saw some landscapes which foreground were noticeably bright!

[ajohnw]

If you look at the properties of that shot Meisam you will see mention of Phase One and a P65+. That is a 645 60mp medium format digital back with 48 bit colour. Lens - might be a Hassleblad but his digital back is a cheap one of it's type. The Hassleblad is probably a lot more expensive. A 645 format is 60mm by 45mm near 4 times the area of a full frame 35mm dslr

If you look at the shot full size you will see that the figure and the post of wood in front of him running across the boat is very sharply focused. He has used the equivalent of a std lens for 645 format 80mm. Full frame 35mm would need to be 50mm and aps about 32mm. Neither of the smaller formats can have any where near 60mp so that could be one problem with duplicating his results with either of them. The screen image is only at 100dpi though and has about 4mp in it or 12 accounting for colour. That suggest an aps camera with a decent lens on it should be able to take the same shot.

Guessing he was 16ft from the man his depth of field was 4.5ft

A 15mp aps camera with 32mm lens at F4 would have a depth of field of 13ft which means more would be in focus. To get the same depth of field the aperture would have to be F1.4. That would be difficult. Another option would be to use a 52mm lens at F4 but the only part of the oars would be in the shot.

This outlines one of the major advantages of medium format cameras. The fact that the man etc is in sharp focus and the rest rapidly isn't adds to the over all impression of sharpness. It's a much used optical illusion and makes things stand out from the background. Your best bet for a lens for this sort of thing is probably the canon 17-55mm F2.8. You could buy the 30mm odd F1.4 lens but it's a bit limiting as to what else it can do. The other option is to add the blur yourself but the 17-55 would probably be ok as is or need little "improvement" mainly in the extreme distance.

Actually this shot on a PC screen isn't that sharp really. If you could look at the full res shot at a suitable size which would be rather large I suspect individual hairs would be visible in the man's beard. You wont match that aspect with anything other than a similar camera. This doesn't really matter though unless you wanted to produce a very large print.

-

[Meisam]

Oh, I see now John, I thought I can't take such these photos, from what I've heard from you and other guys it seems many things needed to take an awesome photos.

So I need to work on composition, and stop yelling for high quality output from my Canon T2i... and 18-55mm lens.

If I want to buy a lens for my camera what lens you guys suggest me to buy?
I like 15-85mm (EF-S).

[ajohnw]

You should be ok with your 18-55mm lens Meisam. It's not a good idea to try and solve problems by just throwing money at it. It's mainly a case of remembering the points that have been raised and trying to apply them. Sharpness can be improved by processing - tone mapping and the usual unsharp mask. Some unsharp mask is always a good idea when a shot is reduced to it's final size. Too much is obvious but the right amount has a distinct effect on general colouring and apparent sharpness. The fuzzy background is another factor. Useful in portrait type shots such as the one you posted and still life types subjects. The best thing to do is practice and get the techniques correct. Then composition and subjects. The shots from other people that you have posted are very critically focused where the photographer wants them to be. The stream looks like like it's had some hand work done to it as well to me. Getting the focus right depends on the camera. They vary but it's often possible to restrict the area the camera focuses on, point that at what ever it is and half press the shutter to lock it, frame and shoot. Add shutter or aperture priority or even full manual to that and you have control. Manual focus can also have it's uses. Point and shoot may work out too but do carefully look around in the viewfinder. It's too easy to concentrate on the subject sometimes.

Bright forgrounds? Yes in some cases but darkening and also probably fuzzier into the distance. All depends on the scene.

On lenses no I wouldn't buy an 15-85mm. It has too wide a zoom range to be really sharp and doesn't really rate as a telephoto. I pixel peep so probably wouldn't be happy with it.. On the other hand it is possible to crop shots so that they are at the same scale as a longer lens provided they are accurately focused on the part that is wanted and it is a reasonably sharp lens. If you do buy another lens I think it would be better to go for more aperture and a zoom range of 3 to 4 max. Later you might want a true telephoto something like a 70-300mm.

Anyway you recently posted a much better shot you took yourself. Over all there is a lot to learn and the need to find the scene or what ever it is you are photographing.

-

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred,
I see his work and I knew those are not simple snap shots.

I think photography is all about light and light density. Are these even useful for landscapes? I saw some landscapes which foreground were noticeably bright!

Meisam - You need to understand how others create the images that you like and get out there and work on you skill and keep improving them. I could not have taken the image that JoeyL you like; I don't have the equipment, and even if I did, I'm not sure if I would be willing to drag a couple of studio flash heads and a all around the world. John and I have already commented on the technique he has likely used to achieved the results.

The other image that you like has also been done with specialized hardware and techniques, both in camera and in PP. The shot was taken using a tripod and possibly a ND filter, suing a slow shutter speed to blur the flowing water. The scene was likely given a boost in contrast and saturation in PP. The bright foreground comes from the fact that the shot was taken in a clearing in the forest, so the foreground would be bright, especially with the way he has handled the flowing water. No flash in this shot for sure.

You need to get your photographic and PP skills up to the point where you can understand and analyse how others have taken their photos, before you can hope to emulate them. As photography is all about the interplay of light, you also need to understand how to recognize what might work to make a great shot. Once you do that, you can work the scene and try to get that perfect image. You only see the image that was posted, but not the 5 or 50 that were also done while the photographer was working the scene that did not get posted because they were not good enough.

As for a camera lenses; I spent the first 2-1/2 years that I had my DSLR primarily shooting with the kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses on a crop frame camera. It's not the camera or the lens. You have to understand the limitations of your equipment, and if it gets to a point where you cannot get the pictures you want, you then need to make a decision as to whether or not you need to invest in other equipment; and that is not just new lenses.

I don't know the Canon lenses, so I can't comment specifically here. I suspect that the 15-85mm lens you are looking at is not going to be a great performer, as it is one of the "do everything" type lenses. Because of the extended range, these lenses tend to be a bit soft and have distortion throughout the range, perhaps even more than your existing lens.

[ajohnw]

Oh, I see now John, I thought I can't take such these photos, from what I've heard from you and other guys it seems many things needed to take an awesome photos.

So I need to work on composition, and stop yelling for high quality output from my Canon T2i... and 18-55mm lens.

If I want to buy a lens for my camera what lens you guys suggest me to buy?
I like 15-85mm (EF-S).

As far as scenes and lighting go it's probably best to think mood. The final light levels need to match the scene. Normally under even light the foreground will be brighter and sharper fading and darkening into the distance in any photo. An optical illusion really. This often isn't what you will see when you look at the scene as our eyes adjust where ever we look and the brain holds everything together and gets round the obvious problems. A camera can't do that and in many cases wont have sufficient dynamic range anyway. There will be even less dynamic range available on a PC screen or on a print so we have to cheat. How we do that varies. You posted what is essentially a sky shot with a very black foreground showing no detail at all. When you looked at the foreground you could probably see it clearly. What to do? The main aspect of the shot is the sky so as suggested you bring up the foreground so that it shows shadowy detail but doesn't catch the eye and detract from the sky. Another shot you posted had everything bought up evenly. That wont work as the distance optical illusion is usually needed. Haze may provide the reduced sharpness with distance. The light variation will often be down to you. A blur brush can be used to reduce resolution with distance if it happens to be clear.

Some shots like the church one I posted are entirely different. It could be HDR'd to show everything clearly or the light levels could be changed in various parts of the shot to give a balanced result. The hdr could be made up with 3 separate exposures from the same raw file. Neither method will reproduce what I could see visually so I chose the light level variations as it produces a more interesting shot. In this case I actually intended to do that when I took the shot so exposed for a perfect sky. It's difficult to recover skies well but on the other hand you can finish up with black levels that can't be bought out at all as they have hardly registered. Unusual but it can happen.

Objects like the man in the boat - the only reason that looks sharp is the blurred out of focus background and I suspect contrast enhancement on the man - tone mapping again. Maybe with a brush or a mask. It's often easy to produce masks from one of the colour channels - less work than carefully selecting the man or what ever. Not an area I have ever really tried I usually manually select or use a brush. Backgrounds can be blurred in the same way. Might just be a case of inverting and modifying the mask or selection. I did suggest the blur mod on a shot some one posted on here. Cries of leave it sharp. All I can say is try it. Anybody can notice the effect if they watch the telly and look around the backgrounds in scenes. The camera men in the UK at least are very good at making use of it especially in soaps etc. The backgrounds will be just sufficiently blurred to keep your eye on the actor in shot.. The technique is also used a lot in commercial and portrait photography. The object might just be a packet of cornflakes or a tin of baked beans etc. Many of the backdrops used in portraits would look stupid if they were precisely in focus so the photographer sets things up so they aren't and this makes the subject stand out.

The last problem is finding something that can be made to produce a great shot. Not easy and probably largely a matter of luck in some ways for the majority of people including me. Take the man in the boat. Is it a great shot? It's an good example of technique and would be perfect for a shot in a magazine article about travel in India (if that is where it was taken) The stream is maybe a better example of a "great shot". Not to my tastes as it looks over processed and I suspect some of the long exposure water effects have been done by hand. It does give me ideas to try my way though. I see lots of shots that don't do anything at all for me. Mostly those that use a "modernistic" approach. Some object from an unusual angle or features in or on buildings etc. Not sure modernistic is the right word really but tastes vary.

Composition is a nightmare. People mutter about thirds and all sorts of things and think if they stick something on a third all is ok. Really the aim is to make people look where you want them to look and notice what you want them to notice and achieving some sort of visual balance. Complicated subject usually only touched on in books aimed at artists. Often in my case I find that cropping is the best option rather than trying to frame a scene. I just alter the aspect ratio and size until I like the look of it. Somebody else may not.

-

[Meisam]

Thanks John and Manfred for your great and complete replies.

To having a sharp photo, and reasonable bokeh, I really work hard to know lenses.
I know what lenses do and the deference between L series and other ones.

Now I think I should buy a lens which let me achieve a variety of ranges, I love wide as I like seascape and landscape.
I also like portrait and so telephoto lens is I think the best choice for portrait. I know prime lenses work the best (50mm, 85mm, 135mm even 100 macro lens)

I like this 15-85mm but I think buying 24-105 L series is more reasonable. Am I true?

Here is a flicker account the photographer used Canon 7D and 24-105mm lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dozerman2010/

[Meisam]

Another question
Is noise a major problem?!

a sample:
I say wow what a quality... how sharp it is:


Untitled by RubyT (gone hiking), on Flickr

but when I see the original photo I will confuse!

[Meisam]

duplicate :-/

[ajohnw]

Given the shots I have seen you post Meisam I think you would be happier with the Canon 17-55mm F2.8. That gives you 27-88mm in 35mm terms, The 24-105mm would give you 38-166mm loosing the wide angle end. Performance wise on aps cameras there isn't much difference other than that the 17-55 has better resolution in some areas. It suffers an unusually low fall towards the corners too. Basically set at F4 it's probably a better lens than the 24-105 F4 wide open. Your highly likely to be able crop shots down to a 1/4 size with the 17-55 giving you the equivalent of a 110mm lens that's still big for the web. This isn't surprising really as the F2.8 isn't a cheap lens.

If you want a cheap telephoto option I would recommend the early 70-300mm IS zoom. The AF has to be switched off for manual focus, This is a typical result on a 300D at 300mm hand held. The pixel count on that doesn't really make use of the resolution of the lens.



Or go for something that doesn't need the AF switch used to manually focus but stick to a similar restricted zoom range. You could crop shots out of this one too. Wonderful lens that dates back to film. I will never sell mine.

DOH I thought you would be able to see the full frame view but uploading it has reduced the size. A pity really.
-Whoops that's at 140mm.
-

[ajohnw]

This one links to a full res image that has just been cropped. (right click - open image) The lens is actually a 75-300mm IS and is a full frame EF type that was mainly made for film and at a time when canon only made low quality dslr kit lenses and the normal high quality range. A full frame is a good idea for telephoto's on aps. They have tough job to do.
.
Anyway the shot gives some idea of it's capabilities wide open at 225mm. They crop up for sale in the UK from time to time. Had to brighten the guy up to show his face.



I bought it new with my 300D.

-

[AB26]

Hi Meisam,
Haven’t posted on the forum for some time.
Looking at the pictures you posted I am just wondering if we are not perhaps missing something here. Have you tested your camera for focus? Could there be something wrong with the lens or the camera? Was the camera and/or lens dropped?

Set up your camera on a tripod and focus on a subject as close to the lens as the lens allows you to focus with the smallest aperture available (F22). Take a shot and see if any part of the subject is in sharp focus. Use Auto Focus and then Manual Focus. Post a test, let us see if you can get the shot in sharp focus.

[Manfred M]

Another question
Is noise a major problem?!

a sample:
I say wow what a quality... how sharp it is:


Untitled by RubyT (gone hiking), on Flickr

but when I see the original photo I will confuse!

This image has a very narrow depth of field, and the photographer has focused on the eyelashes and things get soft everywhere else.

Here you are seeing a different compositional tool, and no, there is no rule saying the whole image has to be sharp. In portrait photography, it is important that the eyes, or at least the eye closest to the camera should be sharp and other areas can be softer. In this case the subject's face is sharp enough, and the rest of the image is a bit soft, and it works.

Is noise a major problem? In general most people would say yes, but it does not have to be. Chromatic noise is something that can be objectionable and perhaps less so for luminance noise; this tends to be particularly visible in dark areas in the image. My personal approach is to shot at as low an ISO value as I can, to minimize noise. Using flash can help keep the ISO value down to an appropriately low setting. Sometimes, there is nothing you can do but shoot at a high ISO rating and to try to minimize the noise in PP.

[jcuknz]

Is noise a problem?
It depends on the viewer, some people are extremely conscious of noise, other simply don't notice it, particualrly if the image is an interesting one. It was suggested to me awhile back that people who used to shoot film are less allergic to noise than people who started in the digital age. Electronic is supposed to be 'perfect' whereas film had grain. [The old technician v. user problem] I used to be very aware of grain and one time shot Agfa Pan F 25 ISO developed to 100 ISO simply becuase Kodak film was so grainy at that time. Both developed in DK76 I think from memory.

[ajohnw]

Is noise a problem?

You will know it is when you can see it and that it is problem. High iso and certain light levels tend to make it more apparent. Large sized shots can also make it more apparent. In some cases it's possible to filter noise out before finally reducing the size of the shot. Software often offers several types of filter and filters for specific types of noise. Best to play with them when you have and if you have a noise problem. This shot shows marginal noise problems when viewed full size. Detail has been lost in the blacks masking some of it. It would probably be worse if the detail in them was bought out even from a raw.



-

[Dave Humphries]

Is noise a problem?

It needn't be.

Don't underexpose.
Don't crop excessively.

Trouble is; I shoot wildlife, usually in poor light, with a lens that isn't long enough (welcome to my world)

The very act of downsizing (for web use) will reduce noise and if you have deliberately not capture sharpened it before, downsize it, then sharpen, you may not need to noise filter. If you do want to, use one of the sampling noise reducers, don't just use a high pass filtering, you'll lose even more resolution in that process

On my D5000, I shoot 400iso as standard (for wildlife) and usually do not noise reduce, I will (NR) when I have shot at 800 and above, usually because I am also cropping.

I am shooting at 12MP, so the image starts at 4,284 wide, I then crop to no less than 2,000, so I can downsize at 2:1 and still get a 1000px wide image. Better results obtained by having 3,000+ px width left after cropping and downsize to 1,500 wide. Ultimate aim, e.g. when shooting wide angle, or managing to be close enough to properly frame the subject, is little or no cropping and downsize to produce a nice sharp, noise free, upto 1920 x 1080 image, as a PC screen saver/wallpaper.

There is no point obsessing about noise when viewed at 100% and while panning around the image, the photo was shot to be viewed in its entirety - and when you do that, whther it be on screen or in print, noise usually is not a problem.

Unfortunately, a soft subject, caused by subject movement (or possibly camera shake) usually is though!

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

It needn't be.

Don't underexpose.
Don't crop excessively.

I think we need to add a 3rd point to our usual advice Dave ...

... Don't pixel-peep. Seriously - I wonder how many people take a high-ISO shot - look at the entire image on the screen - think "I like it!" - then zoom in to 100% and think "uh-oh - noisy - DELETE.

[Manfred M]

I quite agree Dave / Colin - when the decision comes to whether to live with the noise or not get the shot, getting the shot tends to win.

On the other hand I know a few photographers that are so wrapped up in shooting existing light, that they would not even consider pulling adding light to the scene (i.e. using a flash), and they then proceed to whine about the noise in their shot. I know it is not always possible to do so, but more often than not it is.

I guess I have very little sympathy with people whining about the noise at high ISO levels. When I first starting in photography, IS0 400 Tri-X was as fast as one could shoot and even with push processing ISO 1200 to 1600 was pretty well the limit and you paid for it with a grainy, contrasty negative, but you could still got the shot.

[Dave Humphries]

I think we need to add a 3rd point to our usual advice Dave ...

... Don't pixel-peep. Seriously - I wonder how many people take a high-ISO shot - look at the entire image on the screen - think "I like it!" - then zoom in to 100% and think "uh-oh - noisy - DELETE.

Yeah, I take your point, but I thought I had that covered in the last two paragraphs

It probably does need to be a 'headline' though.