Help diagnosing problem

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Monekeymid - welcome to CiC.

All kinds of issues with the image. Unlikely to do with shooting with a polarizer (I rarely remove mine when I shoot outdoors).

The image is not sharp (likely cause by camera movement and inappropriate focus point). ISO 2500 is way, way overboard. A lot of the issues can be fixed in post (just the usual stuff). Not sure about your shooting or working in post experience; so that makes it a bit difficult to give specific direction.

Here are a before and after image (CAUTION: long loading time; these are full-size).

Awesome!

Rei.........

[monkeymind]

Thank you so much for so many helpful replies. I really appreciate your effort especially because I have no other access to direct feedback.

I think I was shooting at (unacceptably) high ISO because I was too wedded to the idea that the aperture had to be f/8 to f/16 to achieve sharpness throughout the frame. I'm obviously wrong about this (I'm still new at photography). Clearly, I need a tripod to keep myself in low ISO for landscape shots.

I have Lightroom 4. I don't know much about post-processing, but I'll be studying the forum posts here before I ask questions.

Where should my focus point be in these types of landscape shots? I think I read once that when shooting at f/14+ it should approximately be in 1/3rd of the frame to try to achieve focus throughout. I was using autofocus and various focus lights would light up (I was borrowing this camera so I've not fully familiarized myself with it.)

Thanks again for all of your feedback.

[Manfred M]

Monkeymind - what you have read is correct (sort of) but you now need to figure out what some of these things mean in real life. You will find that depth of field is an important consideration when you are very close to the subject, but when shooting at a moderate focal length, pretty everything will be in focus at a if you stop down a bit. With practice you will get to know what your camera / lens can and cannot do.

Tripod; well yes and no to that as well. If you are planning to print to a very large size, then absolutely shoot with a tripod, but if you are planning to display on a computer screen or do normal sized prints, having one is not quite as important. One of these shots was hand-held, while the other was shot with a tripod, while the other was not. Can you tell which one was hand held and which one I used a tripod on? The tower was shot at 27mm 1/13th, f/9 at ISO 100 on a tripod and the canal lock was handheld at 26mm, 1/100th, f/13 at ISO 640. I usually shoot at ISO100, and rarely go above 800. There was a polarizer on the lens for both shots. The lens I used is not stabilized. A decent tripod is not inexpensive...

By the way, the reason I used a tripod for the tower shot was because the image you see is a composite of three bracketed shots. The lighting was outside of the dynamic range of my camera's sensor, so I knew I needed a composite and the tripod ensured that all three shots were identically framed.







Post processing is important, but you might want to work on your compositional skills and develop an in-depth knowledge of your gear first. If you plan to shoot RAW; you MUST post-process these, jpegs coming out of your camera can give you decent results without PP. By the way; the images if your shot that I posted were tweaked in Adobe Camera RAW; Lightroom has exactly the same functionality and uses the same core processing engine.

For focus, I let the camera figure that out for me...

[dje]

Thank you so much for so many helpful replies. I really appreciate your effort especially because I have no other access to direct feedback.

I think I was shooting at (unacceptably) high ISO because I was too wedded to the idea that the aperture had to be f/8 to f/16 to achieve sharpness throughout the frame. I'm obviously wrong about this (I'm still new at photography). Clearly, I need a tripod to keep myself in low ISO for landscape shots.

I have Lightroom 4. I don't know much about post-processing, but I'll be studying the forum posts here before I ask questions.

Where should my focus point be in these types of landscape shots? I think I read once that when shooting at f/14+ it should approximately be in 1/3rd of the frame to try to achieve focus throughout. I was using autofocus and various focus lights would light up (I was borrowing this camera so I've not fully familiarized myself with it.)

Thanks again for all of your feedback.

Hi Monkeymind

Could I suggest you have a look at the CiC tutorial on Depth of Focus and plug a few numbers in to the calculator. This should give you a feel for the sort of apertures to use. I usually use somewhere between f/8 and f/11 for landscapes work where most of the subject is some distance away.

As for focus, I like to use single point autofocus for landscapes (or manual focus for low light). With single point AF, you can select exactly where you want the focus point to be. I also prefer to use the centre AF point, aim it at the part of the scene I want to focus on and half press the shutter to lock in the focus, and then re-compose the shot but there are other methods too.

Usually in this landscape situation where most of the image is some distance away, and you are using a relatively small aperture, the distance to the focus point is not particularly critical. The optimum position is the hyperfocal distance but this is a bit complicated for beginners and the "one third in rule" is fine. I often just focus on that part of the image for which precise focus is most important.

Dave

[ajohnw]

Hi Monkeymind

Could I suggest you have a look at the CiC tutorial on Depth of Focus and plug a few numbers in to the calculator. This should give you a feel for the sort of apertures to use. I usually use somewhere between f/8 and f/11 for landscapes work where most of the subject is some distance away.

As for focus, I like to use single point autofocus for landscapes (or manual focus for low light). With single point AF, you can select exactly where you want the focus point to be. I also prefer to use the centre AF point, aim it at the part of the scene I want to focus on and half press the shutter to lock in the focus, and then re-compose the shot but there are other methods too.

Usually in this landscape situation where most of the image is some distance away, and you are using a relatively small aperture, the distance to the focus point is not particularly critical. The optimum position is the hyperfocal distance but this is a bit complicated for beginners and the "one third in rule" is fine. I often just focus on that part of the image for which precise focus is most important.

Dave

That and a number of the other tutorials on here are a must in my view. They are one example of how good a site this is.

I spent some time poring all over all 3 images. What I see doesn't look like camera shake just general blur and muddy colours. Shake is usually mostly up and down. Different lenses where used as well. My feeling is that the AF wasn't working correctly or is seriously messed up. Misted up lenses can give the same sort of effect as can slight fog.. If the polarising filter was used on all 3 shots I would wonder if that has caused the problem. Easy to see if that is the case. Just take the camera outside and take some shots of anything with and without it. If in doubt about settings just select P mode or full auto. Full auto is probably best as most cameras will make a decent job of taking an average shot and this will rule out any setting problems you might have - focus and exposure mode for instance. Posting the best quality jpg the camera produces would also be the best option.

John
-

[monkeymind]

Hi Monkeymind

Could I suggest you have a look at the CiC tutorial on Depth of Focus and plug a few numbers in to the calculator. This should give you a feel for the sort of apertures to use. I usually use somewhere between f/8 and f/11 for landscapes work where most of the subject is some distance away.

As for focus, I like to use single point autofocus for landscapes (or manual focus for low light). With single point AF, you can select exactly where you want the focus point to be. I also prefer to use the centre AF point, aim it at the part of the scene I want to focus on and half press the shutter to lock in the focus, and then re-compose the shot but there are other methods too.

Usually in this landscape situation where most of the image is some distance away, and you are using a relatively small aperture, the distance to the focus point is not particularly critical. The optimum position is the hyperfocal distance but this is a bit complicated for beginners and the "one third in rule" is fine. I often just focus on that part of the image for which precise focus is most important.

Dave

Thanks! Hyperfocal distance I've read about, but still haven't wrapped my head around. I will continue learning.

[ajohnw]

Thanks! Hyperfocal distance I've read about, but still haven't wrapped my head around. I will continue learning.

It's worth taking note of the last paragraph on the calculator page and not getting too carried away with this. In depth things get more complicated so I am glad that comment is there. Actually getting out there and discovering the capabilities of your camera and the problems with using it are the most important factors. The tutorials give some guidance as to what goes on when lens settings etc are changed. What is done in practice depends on the camera, the lens, the shot and what some one hopes to achieve.

John
-

[Manfred M]

While the tables are probably worth considering, nicely said, they tell the range at which the focus is "sharp enough". The best way is to get out there and shoot and learn how your equipment works.

After a while you. as you start developing your own "style" and as you gain experience, you will develop the knowledge as to how you would take the picture; from selecting the ISO that is appropriate, focal length, aperture setting, shutter speed, filters, tools (tripod, remote release), etc. and of course the post-processing of a captured image.

You can never learn by reading, only by doing and making your own mistakes and having your own successes. While there are "rules" in photography, they really are more like guidelines and you have to know them to understand when and if they should be broken. So get out there and shoot away and try things. Bracket your shots (a nice way of saying taking the same shot at different settings), work the scene (another nice way of saying that you should try different approaches on a particular scene). It really is the only way that you are going to figure things out.

One other suggestion; the only way you will know how a particular setting will affect the final result is to change a single variable. Once you start doing a number of adjustements at the same time, you'll never figure out which of the adjustments gave you the shot that you do or do not like.

The other thing to remember is that you need good raw material to work with. so getting things "right" in the camera is important; some things can be corrected in post-production, but an image that is not sharp, properly exposed and composed cannot be corrected in post. Conversely, I also believe that a shot straight out of the camera (SOOC) is almost never "good enough" and some tweaking in post is required.

[Wavelength]

I liked the mild colors in the original as well as the saturated colors in the processed image. Nature's palette is awesome