Struggling still with Landscape clarity and sharpness!

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
I have finally realised I need to get out earlier and later to get the dramatic light I need for landscape photography... I always knew this... I just had lazyness issues and prefered lying in my bed... I'm over that hurdle!

Then I have upgraded from a 28-135mm canon which was ok... to a 24-105mm L series... so better glass!

I always use a tripod and a cable release! I feel my technical knowlege is up to scratch... DOF, focusing etc...

But my shots are still lacking the clarity I yern for and see in some of the landscape shots posted on here...

So what have I still not got... Is it really just a light thing and that sometimes the light is just not clear enough... Or is there some PP trick im missing!

Mark
 
You will always need to do some PP sharpening whatever type of shot you take. If your shots are soft, what aperture do you generally use?
 
I had a look at your Scottish set on flickr and I'd honestly recommend you have a chat with EdinburghGary or Gandhi. They are much better placed to advise you on the PP aspect.

Personally I really like your pics and I can see what you are saying about clarity. Have you got the sharpening right? and would they benefit from a levels or curves adjustment?

I'm no expert but drop Gary or Gandhi a PM and ask them to have a look for you. :)
 
OOOPPPSSS!!!! Just noticed put this in the wrong category... meant it to be in the general one... can a mod move it please!!!

I generally shoot landscapes at f11 unless I need the extra DOF I never take it... I have a wee set of DOF charts I made up for my lens/ camera combination and consult them if i'm unsure... I always feel if you dont need it dont take it as that makes for shoft shots as not shooting at the sweet spot and also a faster shutter speed lessens camera shake effects....
 
AliB said:
I had a look at your Scottish set on flickr and I'd honestly recommend you have a chat with EdinburghGary or Gandhi. They are much better placed to advise you on the PP aspect.

Personally I really like your pics and I can see what you are saying about clarity. Have you got the sharpening right? and would they benefit from a levels or curves adjustment?

I'm no expert but drop Gary or Gandhi a PM and ask them to have a look for you. :)
Click to expand...

My scottish set on flickr are not the best to look at as only the very recent ones where taken on my digital camera... the rest are scanned from slides... and I lost alot of sharpness in the scanning!
 
3590228623_cf46920f45.jpg


This is an example... now I know I was using a polariser and it was hand heald... but my shutter speed was more than adequate to hand hold... but I just feel anything further back in the shot than the tree is soft and wishy washy!
 
pearce_jj said:
Have you remembered to turn off the IS?
Click to expand...

I sometimes forget... but generally I do when on the tripod... also i've heard that it doesn't matter with the latest generation of IS lenses anyway which the 24-105mm is??? But any more info on this would be good... I'll do anything for sharpness!
 
To my mind this needs to be approached using the hyperfocal distance. At 24mm F11 on FF then that's only 6ft, providing coverage from 3ft to infinity.

What ISO are you using? Maybe worth increasing aperture to F8, focus 8ft, provides 4ft to infinity coverage, to allow a one-stop reduction in ISO.

All assuming you're at the wide end, I can't see EXIF from here.

EDIT: another consideration is distortion introduced by atmospheric conditions.
 
markelliot said:
I generally shoot landscapes at f11 unless I need the extra DOF I never take it... I have a wee set of DOF charts I made up for my lens/ camera combination and consult them if i'm unsure... I always feel if you dont need it dont take it as that makes for shoft shots as not shooting at the sweet spot and also a faster shutter speed lessens camera shake effects....
Click to expand...

You should be OK with f/11 on a 5D but it is just about on the limit. The effect of aperture with regards to Airy disc/circle of confusion issues is well known but I wonder how many photographers realise how much of a limiting factor it is. Regardless of lens quality, the greater the pixel density of your sensor the larger aperture you must use before the circle of confusion is greater than one pixel & hence degrading your image. On my D300 it is f/6.3 and my husband's 50D it is f/5.1. As a full frame user you are better off than both of us so f/11 should be ok.
 
pearce_jj said:
To my mind this needs to be approached using the hyperfocal distance. At 24mm F11 on FF then that's only 6ft, providing coverage from 3ft to infinity.

What ISO are you using? Maybe worth increasing aperture to F8, focus 8ft, provides 4ft to infinity coverage, to allow a one-stop reduction in ISO.

All assuming you're at the wide end, I can't see EXIF from here.

EDIT: another consideration is distortion introduced by atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...

I generally will use ISO 100... and yes I normally shoot landscapes with the lens open wide...
 
DonnaM said:
You should be OK with f/11 on a 5D but it is just about on the limit. The effect of aperture with regards to Airy disc/circle of confusion issues is well known but I wonder how many photographers realise how much of a limiting factor it is. Regardless of lens quality, the greater the pixel density of your sensor the larger aperture you must use before the circle of confusion is greater than one pixel & hence degrading your image. On my D300 it is f/6.3 and my husband's 50D it is f/5.1. As a full frame user you are better off than both of us so f/11 should be ok.
Click to expand...

Can you explain your point a little more please... you lost me a bit to be honest... why should I be ok with f11... and what am I just on the limit off... are you saying i'd be better then at f8 or f16? if so why? Airy disc/circle of confusion issues ... not really sure what these are???
 
markelliot said:
Can you explain your point a little more please... you lost me a bit to be honest... why should I be ok with f11... and what am I just on the limit off... are you saying i'd be better then at f8 or f16? if so why? Airy disc/circle of confusion issues ... not really sure what these are???
Click to expand...

Whenever you stop down a lens, the diaphram causes light diffraction that blurs the image. If the extent of that blurring is greater than the size of one pixel you will see it as a softening of the image. As pixel densities rise, pixel sizes reduce so to avoid the softening you should stop down less. This is independant of the quality of the lens you are using it is the physics of light diffraction. Large sensor cameras like the 5D suffer less in this respect as the pixel size is relatively large so you can stop down quite a way before the diffraction reduces IQ.
 
I was reading a couple of days ago on this very subject, difficult to grasp to start with.
I`m still lost with alot of it but have a read HERE to get it explained in detail
 
5D with its 12.8MP is 14,800 pixels per sq.mm.

With a CoC of 0.03mm ~10 pixels cover the CoC.

I would suggest that that the CoC is more the issue than the pixel size. I guess working with a CoC of 0.03 will mean it's not sharp when pixel peeping though.
 
Mark,

I feel that picture you have posted above is suffering from the summer light, it looks really strong and that could be a lot of heat haze in the shot makign it look wishy washy
 
If you're doing all you can (which you seem to be) to reduce any camera movement and you have the right kit (which you have) then it can only be the conditions. As a wise man once said 'its all about the light'.

Andy
 
pearce_jj said:
EDIT: another consideration is distortion introduced by atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth!?!?!

I've recently been brought down to earth with a bump regarding my birding efforts. Atmospheric wobble can be a real concern when it comes to achieving clarity more than 50m or 100m away. I actually recorded a short video to show the effect on the Live View display of my 50D while focused on a TV aerial approx 150m away. The whole scene wobbles and morphs as the air moves. Here's the video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsOSBy8P7eY&feature=channel_page

Here's a sample shot (I've binned the original but I think this is a 50% crop) where you can see the effect that heat haze has had on the background....

20090607_120049_6957_LR.jpg


I was hoping to be able to get a useable shot from tight cropping but the bird is very soft and has a halo that I can only put down to haze moving the air around and acting like a very poor extra lens in front of my own hardware.
 
markelliot said:
I generally will use ISO 100... and yes I normally shoot landscapes with the lens open wide...
Click to expand...

do you mean wide open at the greatest aperture??? that seems way off to me.
try shooting the same shot on different apertures, you'll get a sharpness 'peak' into the aperture but not at the far end of it.
you can alway use a ND filter to shoot slower
also do you have UV filters on your lens? they can impede things.
L glass should be nice and sharp
 
DizMatt said:
do you mean wide open at the greatest aperture??? that seems way off to me.
try shooting the same shot on different apertures, you'll get a sharpness 'peak' into the aperture but not at the far end of it.
you can alway use a ND filter to shoot slower
also do you have UV filters on your lens? they can impede things.
L glass should be nice and sharp
Click to expand...

I meant wide open on the focal length... 24-35mm range... not the apature... I try to shoot landscapes at f11... sweet spot of my lens... I have done my own test shots and this always is the sharpest f no.

I never use UV filters... just another piece of glass to get dirty and cause flare... I'm never in any situations where there is much chance of my lens being scratched...
 
And dont forget the very ends of your lens will not be as sharp as the more middle focal lengths.
 
Janice said:
And dont forget the very ends of your lens will not be as sharp as the more middle focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Hence why im thinking of buying the 17-40mm next... although really have a fancy for a 70-200 f4 IS

although rather than the 17-40mm would i be better getting a 20mm prime for ultimate IQ???

M
 
To take a slightly different tack.... Always worth a try (?)
There seems to be no lack of understanding vis-a-vis the technical aspects, DOF, Diffraction, Hyperfocal Distance, Lens Sweet Aperture, Platform Stability, Glass Quality et-al. Further, (although aesthetics is always highly personal,) if I may say so, you don't appear to have compositional "issues," what my father called the "seeing eye."
Therefore I would ask - what is it exactly that pi**es you off with your results?
You refer to sharpness, seemingly an overriding concern. I wouldn't say that your images look particularly (or overtly) unsharp - to me.
Even stopped down to the sweet aperture and locked on the hyperfocal you're not going to achieve three feet to infinity tack sharp.
Looking at the larger copy of your sample image (downloaded from Flickr,) what I appear to be looking at is progressively thickening atmospheric haze the further away you go.
As a point of imformation, unless something very odd has happened since the image was ported from the memory card in your camera (?) The image appears to be suffering from a significant amount of sensor dust - spots everywhere.
 
zeugma said:
To take a slightly different tack.... Always worth a try (?)
There seems to be no lack of understanding vis-a-vis the technical aspects, DOF, Diffraction, Hyperfocal Distance, Lens Sweet Aperture, Platform Stability, Glass Quality et-al. Further, (although aesthetics is always highly personal,) if I may say so, you don't appear to have compositional "issues," what my father called the "seeing eye."
Therefore I would ask - what is it exactly that pi**es you off with your results?
You refer to sharpness, seemingly an overriding concern. I wouldn't say that your images look particularly (or overtly) unsharp - to me.
Even stopped down to the sweet aperture and locked on the hyperfocal you're not going to achieve three feet to infinity tack sharp.
Looking at the larger copy of your sample image (downloaded from Flickr,) what I appear to be looking at is progressively thickening atmospheric haze the further away you go.
As a point of imformation, unless something very odd has happened since the image was ported from the memory card in your camera (?) The image appears to be suffering from a significant amount of sensor dust - spots everywhere.
Click to expand...

I dont think it was my sensor but more likely a dusty polariser... I struggle to keep filters clean... however i do need to think about getting my sensor cleaned... not really sure how to go about that... but sure there will be an old post on here...

I think in reality I simply have suffered from taking images in the afternoon where there is allot of haze... as I get out more in the morning and evening hopefully my images will improve with the light quality of those times...

I guess im sole searching a bit here too... Thanks for the positive coments on my composition though... I take that as a real positive!

what do people think though a prime 20mm or the 17-40mm?

M
 
I own and use a 17-40mm f4L. I'm very happy with the resolving power of the glass. Distortion (pincushion & barrel) are quite acceptable to me. Chromatic abberation is well controlled. I find this lens on the front of my camera a great deal. For the money (they often appear "pre-owned" on Fleabay and EOS Classifieds) I think they're great value.
I have no experience of a 20mm prime. I think I would find a fixed focal length a hindance, but that's just me. People seem in the habit of "upgrading" to the 16-35mm f2.8L (I think this has IS if I recall correctly.) It's a HELL of a lot more expensive.
 
markelliot said:
3590228623_cf46920f45.jpg


This is an example... now I know I was using a polariser and it was hand heald... but my shutter speed was more than adequate to hand hold... but I just feel anything further back in the shot than the tree is soft and wishy washy!
Click to expand...

I am not a landscape photographer but It is pretty clear that ND Grad filters would come really useful here. f/11-16 is probably the best setting. And obviously you need to shoot RAW and convert.
 
daugirdas said:
I am not a landscape photographer but It is pretty clear that ND Grad filters would come really useful here. f/11-16 is probably the best setting. And obviously you need to shoot RAW and convert.
Click to expand...

Since taking that photo I've bought a ND grad and def going to invest in a better set for the future. It's a cokin one I have and just hand hold it in front of the lens... not used it much but def see the benefits of it... however that actually wont improve the sharpness of my shots...

Is using a polariser for landscape work all the time a good idea... I cant see that it wont have any detrimental effect only a benefit to the clarity of shots... does it not cut through the haze a little? Filters is the one part where im not sure my technical knowledge is up to scratch... I prob know more than I think mind you!

I always shoot in RAW... and on the landscape picture setting.
 
markelliot said:
I always shoot in RAW... and on the landscape picture setting.
Click to expand...

What raw processor do you use? AFAIK only Canon's own DPP and Zoombrowser software will read and interpret the picture style flag. Breezebrowser might also but I've never used it. Any other raw software (Lightroom, Photoshop, CaptureOne, RawTherapee, Bibble etc) could not care less what picture style you chose as it will ignore it completely. Basically, raw data is raw data. It does not get changed when you pick different picture styles. The picture style is just a single data field (probably just a simple numeric field) that tells the raw software how to present the image that it creates from the raw data. Most raw software ignores the picture style field and so it makes no difference to how the raw image is presented.

Setting "Landscape" picture style will affect the preview image you see in the camera, and also the histogram you see presented in the camera, whether you shoot raw or JPEG.
 
markelliot said:
I always shoot in RAW... and on the landscape picture setting.
Click to expand...

All setting the picture setting to landscape does is enable extra in camera sharpening.
I would have thought that neutral would be your best option and sharpen in PP.
Same goes for any noise reduction you have turned on, turn it off
 
Bagger said:
All setting the picture setting to landscape does is enable extra in camera sharpening.
Click to expand...
It does more than that. Here is a description of the picture style from Canon's webpage....

In photographic expression, deep blue sky and vibrant green leaves call for more vivid colors than in reality, for more impressive finish. The “Landscape” Picture Style changes the color respectively; blue to a vivid and deep color, green to a vivid and bright color.
This style also uses a stronger sharpness setting to bring out details in mountains, trees, buildings, and other things in the distance. A moving sight can be expressed in the strong impressive finish.
Click to expand...

But, like I said, the choice makes no difference to your image if your raw software ignores picture style settings.

FWIW I always shoot with Neutral picture style because it gives me a histogram within the camera that is a slightly more accurate reflection of the actual raw data, without the manipulation that the other picture styles might impose. Since I use Lightroom to process my files I could shoot with the Monochrome picture style and I would still get colour images in Lightroom.
 
tdodd said:
What raw processor do you use? AFAIK only Canon's own DPP and Zoombrowser software will read and interpret the picture style flag. Breezebrowser might also but I've never used it. Any other raw software (Lightroom, Photoshop, CaptureOne, RawTherapee, Bibble etc) could not care less what picture style you chose as it will ignore it completely. Basically, raw data is raw data. It does not get changed when you pick different picture styles. The picture style is just a single data field (probably just a simple numeric field) that tells the raw software how to present the image that it creates from the raw data. Most raw software ignores the picture style field and so it makes no difference to how the raw image is presented.

Setting "Landscape" picture style will affect the preview image you see in the camera, and also the histogram you see presented in the camera, whether you shoot raw or JPEG.
Click to expand...

I use the Canon DPP... I like it for two reasons... firstly it was free, and secondly I like its simplicity. I have photoshop but only use this to alter files if I really need to and only really for straigtening horizons or the odd digital efect like selective colour. I was brought up a film photographer and am not a huge fan of spending hours in front of computers... I like to try and capture my image as perfectly as I can with my camera!

I know the landscape setting makes no real difference as I shoot in raw... and sometimes change it or adjust the sharpness etc in DPP... In fact I always adjust the sharpness... I must admit I dont really know what im doing technically in DPP... I just alter the sliders to I like the look of the pic... but in terms of technically knowing what they do im not completely knowledgeable... I am to a point... but not sure about histograms etc...
 
Mark, it is well worth gaining an understanding of histograms. They are a much better tool for checking your exposure in the camera than by simply looking at the image itself. In fact, looking at the image can be very misleading. I use the histogram and also look for the blinking highlight warning in the image preview. The only other use the image has, for me, is to check composition and possibly focus, not exposure.

The histogram is also useful when editing your images, as you can fine tune how dark your shadows/blacks are and how bright your whites/highlights. If your monitor is calibrated then your eye can be of great use, of course, but the histogram tells no lies, even with the most dodgy monitor settings.

Take a look at these articles....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/histograms1.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/histograms-1/histograms-1.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/histograms-2/histograms-2.htm
 
Can you upload one of your raw files somewhere so other people can process it and post their results?

If you don't have suitable webspace upload it to a file sharing site (sendbigfile.net ...yousendit.com etc.) and post the link here.

I use the 24-105 with a 5D for landscape and have no sharpness problems. I even hand hold 1/10th second moving water shots successfully at times.
 
RobertP said:
Can you upload one of your raw files somewhere so other people can process it and post their results?

If you don't have suitable webspace upload it to a file sharing site (sendbigfile.net ...yousendit.com etc.) and post the link here.

I use the 24-105 with a 5D for landscape and have no sharpness problems. I even hand hold 1/10th second moving water shots successfully at times.
Click to expand...

I took a few of Scotts View at the weekend and Chricton Kirk... I'm at work just now and out tonight but will try and post them tommorrow evening... then maybe someone can PP it and i'll do the same to compaire results...

I think the more this thread goes on that I simply have a light problem rather than anything i'm doing wrong! I need to get out more in "good light"

Thanks

Mark
 
tdodd said:
Mark, it is well worth gaining an understanding of histograms. They are a much better tool for checking your exposure in the camera than by simply looking at the image itself. In fact, looking at the image can be very misleading. I use the histogram and also look for the blinking highlight warning in the image preview. The only other use the image has, for me, is to check composition and possibly focus, not exposure.

The histogram is also useful when editing your images, as you can fine tune how dark your shadows/blacks are and how bright your whites/highlights. If your monitor is calibrated then your eye can be of great use, of course, but the histogram tells no lies, even with the most dodgy monitor settings.

Take a look at these articles....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/histograms1.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/histograms-1/histograms-1.htm
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/histograms-2/histograms-2.htm
Click to expand...

Will read these articles... thanks!
 
Can someone coment on weather using a polariser on landscapes almost full time is a good idea... as all the things it does can only really enhance any landscape shot really?

M
 
My understanding is that if using a digital SLR it is unlikely that even when using the hyperfocal distance and shooting from close to infinity it is not expected that everything will be pin sharp. This is one reason why the big names use large format cameras as they can focus at different parts in the image. Also perhaps more relevant for the rest of us is not to get too close to the photo..I have just seen a famous Bill Brandt photo which from 10 feet looks great - if you get within a foot it is not sharp...perhaps we look to closely. If you stand say 6 feet away from your screen how does it look? Pixel peeping makes us too critical in many instances...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top