Sinister Face

[DanK]

At those settings, you have about 0.8 inch of depth of field on either side of the point of focus (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html). That should be enough (barely), assuming you have the focus spot on and nothing moved.

I agree with Grahame: it looks like you might have missed the focus slightly, as some other parts of the image are sharper.

Most lenses are less sharp when wide open, and that will probably be more so with a budget lens, which that is. I had a copy of that lens for a while, and it could get nice, crisp images if stopped down a few stops.

I would get rid of the polarizer. I don't see a need for one in this photo, and it is robbing you of a few stops of light that you could better use by closing down the aperture or increasing the shutter speed. Also, if there really is backlighting, filters can cause flare and ghosting, particular inexpensive filters, if that is what you are using. Try it without the filter to see.

[Stagecoach]

The shot was taken about 12 feet from the flower. fl 250mm, f5.6, 1/60 sec @ ISO 100. My camera is a Canon T5i with a 1.6 crop factor. The lens was set at maximum focal length and wide opened.

Andre, considering the distance you were from the flower, and you used the lens at max extremities of both FL and aperture which are at it's possibly worse settings for IQ the result is pretty good (ignoring the glare and missed focus)

Get in closer to your subject if you physically can, stop down a bit, concentrate on getting that focus where you really want it and I think you will be surprised.

Additionally, not sure if you are undertaking any sharpening in post but what you did get in focus can still be sharpened slightly.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Mike - You won't see any BLACK petals because he said BACK petals.

Andre - I'll bet your lens will do a decent job at f8-11 or so. I've some lenses that are similar and they usually sharpen up when stopped down but aren't the best at the extremes. And like Grahame says, sharpening can be your friend here in post.

[Round Tuit]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Glare is a form of direct reflection, which in turn is reflection of the light source. This appears to be a direct reflection to me because all texture in those areas is lost. In other words, the surface of the petals is acting as a mirror that reflects the sunlight, which has no texture.

You are right of course. What I should have said is that the glare is a result of the sunlight hitting those petals directly as opposed to the rest of the flower which is illuminated from behind. I realize that the sun was not directly in line behind as it was higher but the main light still hit the back of the flower. This is why I called it backlit. I might have used the wrong terminology.

Andre

[Round Tuit]

Mike, Dan, Grahame and Alan,

I did a quick experiment using the same lens and settings to photograph a flat target at the same distance. I had to use mirror lockup to get a crisp shot. The problem was not with the equipment but with the photographer.
Thank you sincerely for your tutoring. All of you advice will be taken into consideration as I progress in my photography.

Andre

[IzzieK]

No one mentioned it in any of the comments I had read but there is a hint of it from Grahame's post (#22), first paragraph. I have read somewhere and has been doing it on all my shots since that you do not use the max extremities of your FL. So your zoom lens is up to 250mm, back if off a bit to 240 or 230mm or even 245 or 248mm and your centre will be sharper. It works all the time for me...unless I am using a prime lens. Try it. You'd only lose one or two shots to know if you do not like it anyway.. Just a thought...

[Round Tuit]

No one mentioned it in any of the comments I had read but there is a hint of it from Grahame's post (#22), first paragraph. I have read somewhere and has been doing it on all my shots since that you do not use the max extremities of your FL. So your zoom lens is up to 250mm, back if off a bit to 240 or 230mm or even 245 or 248mm and your centre will be sharper. It works all the time for me...unless I am using a prime lens. Try it. You'd only lose one or two shots to know if you do not like it anyway.. Just a thought...

Thanks Izzie, I will try it.

Andre

[Mike Buckley]

I realize that the sun was not directly in line behind as it was higher but the main light still hit the back of the flower. This is why I called it backlit. I might have used the wrong terminology.

A lot of people do use the wrong terminology, so you're in lots of company.

If the main light hit the back of the flower, your image displays that something had to have been reflecting light onto the front of the flower that was more powerful than the so-called main light. Considering that the main light by your description was high in the sky, the only way the flower could have been back lit is if the flower had been above the camera and you had shot from below. It's clear in your image that that was not the case.

The only reason this discussion of whether the scene was back lit or not is important is because back lit scenes require very different attention than scenes that are not back lit. Exposure and flare are probably the two most important concerns when the scene is back lit. It will surely be helpful for you to think about that.

[JohnRostron]

Nobody else has mentioned this, but I cannot see any image at all here. Has it been deleted? The thread looks interesting, but meaningless without the image!

John

[Shadowman]

Nobody else has mentioned this, but I cannot see any image at all here. Has it been deleted? The thread looks interesting, but meaningless without the image!

John

John,

It only recently disappeared, you may have to log off the forum, I can see the icon but no image.

[Round Tuit]

Nobody else has mentioned this, but I cannot see any image at all here. Has it been deleted? The thread looks interesting, but meaningless without the image!

John

Sorry for the missing photo. My hosting web site is experiencing technical difficulties. Hope it gets back on line soon.

Andre

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Andre,

Well, I have had a real hoot tonight reading what everyone else has written having not read/understood your posts, so now it is my turn to add to the confusion - and throw egg in my own face

I don't think anyone else has mentioned this, but looking at the histogram, the shot was well over exposed, which will also degrade sharpness. Flowers are notoriously easy to blow one or two colour channels with, so keep an eye on your RGB histogram while shooting and take more shots with less exposure if you are clipping in any channel(s).

I'm not a Canon shooter, but after manually focusing it with Live View, is it possible the camera decided to Auto-Focus just as you took the shot? (e.g. if you released and re-pressed the shutter button)

As Grahame first pointed out, the focus is there, just not where you thought it was.

I agree that using any lens at max focal length and max aperture is asking for sub-optimal results. The wide aperture used would also give insufficient Depth of Field.

Add to that the noted back-lighting, implying that the sun may have been shining directly on the CPL filter and the front of the lens, reducing contrast by raising the black point, unless a deep enough lens hood was fitted.

Hope that helps, Dave

PS I can see the image

[Round Tuit]

Dave

Hi Andre,

Well, I have had a real hoot tonight reading what everyone else has written having not read/understood your posts, so now it is my turn to add to the confusion - and throw egg in my own face

Nobody said that these threads couldn't be entertaining as well as educational.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned this, but looking at the histogram, the shot was well over exposed, which will also degrade sharpness. Flowers are notoriously easy to blow one or two colour channels with, so keep an eye on your RGB histogram while shooting and take more shots with less exposure if you are clipping in any channel(s).

I looked at the histogram with LR5 and did not see any clipping yet dropping the exposure by half a stop greatly improved the shot.

I'm not a Canon shooter, but after manually focusing it with Live View, is it possible the camera decided to Auto-Focus just as you took the shot? (e.g. if you released and re-pressed the shutter button)

No. Once set to manual focus, the Auto-Focus is completely disabled.

As Grahame first pointed out, the focus is there, just not where you thought it was.

After much sole searching and experimentation, I have reached the conclusion that I did in fact miss the focus because of poor technique on my part. I sometimes adjust the focus using the barrel of the lens rather than the focusing ring. What I did not realize is that there is a slight play between the extended barrel and the main body of the lens. A slight touch of the barrel is enough to change the focus. The extremely narrow depth of field in this shot made this focus change prominent.

I agree that using any lens at max focal length and max aperture is asking for sub-optimal results. The wide aperture used would also give insufficient Depth of Field.

I have determined that I can get very acceptable sharpness even at max focal length and max aperture if I am careful enough. I will definitely will test different settings to find the "sweet spot" of the lens.

Add to that the noted back-lighting, implying that the sun may have been shining directly on the CPL filter and the front of the lens, reducing contrast by raising the black point, unless a deep enough lens hood was fitted.

I don't know if that contributed to the problem but I will keep that in mind for the future.

Hope that helps, Dave

PS I can see the image

Yes it does help a lot as did the advice of all the contributors to this thread. Anything that make me stop and think things through is of great value to me.

A sincere thank you.

Andre