A big softie?

Simmotino

Simmotino

Messages
3,336
Name
Clarke Kent ;)
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had a nagging doubt for a while that something in my setup is a bit soft (oo-er missus) so I'm planning on taking some comparatives to see if I can narrow down the problem. Question is, what should I shoot?

Is it better to fire some off in the garden or take some of packaging around the house that has colour/text? :shrug:

I'm constantly looking at others' shots and wondering why I'm not getting the same sort of clarity and it is beginning to really annoy me so I guess it is time I did something about it.

So, what do you use to check for clarity/sharpness of your gear?
 
Believe it or not, a brick wall is best!
 
OK, so I've taken a few shots of a wall using both of my bodies (400D and 40D) and two different lenses (24-70l set to 50mm and 70-200l set to 70mm) and I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, the results tell me to be honest.

Is it just me being paranoid, or are there some sharpness issues here that need to be addressed?

All shots taken on a tripod, remote release, and straight from camera save for a resize.
 
Last edited:
continues with...

I really want to get this resolved once and for all, so any observations welcomed, however stupid they may seem (other than on the state of the wall that is! :p)

Many thanks in advance all.
 
Last edited:
What exactly do you expect to see from a picture of a brick wall? It's a hopeless target, just like a newpaper pinned to the wall is also.

If you want to check for overall total system sharpness, then you need something to compare against, and preferably something fairly relevant. Images in isolation are almost meaningless. Just shoot any distant subject (to minimise focusing errors) at a high shutter speed. But you must do that side by side with another camera/lens of a known good standard, or you have no reference. Lighting and post processing must be identical.
 
HoppyUK said:
What exactly do you expect to see from a picture of a brick wall? It's a hopeless target, just like a newpaper pinned to the wall is also.

If you want to check for overall total system sharpness, then you need something to compare against, and preferably something fairly relevant. Images in isolation are almost meaningless. Just shoot any distant subject (to minimise focusing errors) at a high shutter speed. But you must do that side by side with another camera/lens of a known good standard, or you have no reference. Lighting and post processing must be identical.
Click to expand...

I was hoping to see the turin shroud to be honest :lol:

Seriously though, I was using wontolla's suggestion above.
 
I know. It wasn't a very helpful recommendation though! :lol:

What is it that you are unhappy about?

Then devise an appropriate test. And you must have something to compare it to or you have no reference, good or bad.
 
HoppyUK said:
I know. It wasn't a very helpful recommendation though! :lol:

What is it that you are unhappy about?

Then devise an appropriate test. And you must have something to compare it to or you have no reference, good or bad.
Click to expand...

:suspect:

I guess it's a case of getting together with someone with the same kit and firing off some comparatives then? :shrug:
 
Simmotino said:
I'm constantly looking at others' shots and wondering why I'm not getting the same sort of clarity and it is beginning to really annoy me so I guess it is time I did something about it.
Click to expand...

You say you did nothing to your brick wall shots other than resize? If that's the case then you need look no further for why your images aren't sharp. You absolutely must sharpen an image after your've resized it - the smaller you resize it the more resolution it will lose, so small web sized images really suffer from downsizing if you don't sharpen.

This could be your sole problem if you're judging the sharpness of your images against other people's web pics.

This is the first of your images sharpened and with the contrast boosted a bit....

5030493940_d659074138_o.jpg


Looks OK to me?

You can run round like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to sort out suspected sharpness issues and possibly not establish anything concrete unless you go about it in the right way, but first of all you need to grasp the principal that you must sharpen after downsizing.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
You say you did nothing to your brick wall shots other than resize? If that's the case then you need look no further for why your images aren't sharp. You absolutely must sharpen an image after your've resized it - the smaller you resize it the more resolution it will lose, so small web sized images really suffer from downsizing if you don't sharpen.

This could be your sole problem if you're judging the sharpness of your images against other people's web pics.

This is the first of your images sharpened and with the contrast boosted a bit....

5030493940_d659074138_o.jpg


Looks OK to me?

You can run round like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to sort out suspected sharpness issues and possibly not establish anything concrete unless you go about it in the right way, but first of all you need to grasp the principal that you must sharpen after downsizing.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT. I know about input and output sharpening but chose to upload these to give a fair representation if the kit 'as is' rather than after any post work.
 
Simmotino said:
Thanks CT. I know about input and output sharpening but chose to upload these to give a fair representation if the kit 'as is' rather than after any post work.
Click to expand...

Fair does then, but having had a quick look at your Flickr shots, I'm really not seeing a problem. I don't think you ever really nail the sharpness issue - I bin a lot of shots which just aren't sharp enough and wont sharpen in processing.
 
CT said:
Fair does then, but having had a quick look at your Flickr shots, I'm really not seeing a problem. I don't think you ever really nail the sharpness issue - I bin a lot of shots which just aren't sharp enough and wont sharpen in processing.
Click to expand...

Really? So why do I always think they look worse than they could?

They never seem 'clean' if that makes sense? Other images I look at are immaculate, tack sharp, and without any sort of noise, whereas mine seem to always be lacking in terms of their clarity :shake:
 
Simmotino said:
Really? So why do I always think they look worse than they could?

They never seem 'clean' if that makes sense? Other images I look at are immaculate, tack sharp, and without any sort of noise, whereas mine seem to always be lacking in terms of their clarity :shake:
Click to expand...

Well sharpening is a judgement call every time, and it's very easy to either not do enough of it or too much. There's definitely an optimum point where it all goes to rat poo with the next step. :D

Beyond that of course levels adjustment and careful noise reduction can both make huge differences to apparant clarity and sharpness. It's probably something in your work flow that's not pressing the buttons for you?

What editing software are you using?
 
I shoot RAW and process through ACR and then CS4.

I've tried USM and High Pass methods for sharpening and can see if it is pushed too much, but they just never seem clean.

I thought for a while it may just be a full frame thing, but that got ruled out a while ago.
 
Give Canon DPP a try.You'll probably get the cleanest noise results from the Canon software. Just try it - you don't have to burn your bridges. ;) It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but I'm more than happy with it - mostly.

Probably a good idea to download the latest version - there have been a few upgrades since the version which would have come with youir 40D.

Regarding sensor size, an 800 pixel image viewed on the web is an 800 pixel image regardless of sensor size or format and you'll see little if any difference with full frame images. If you're cropping apopreciably that's a different matter, where the high pixel desnsity sensor can make a big difference to a web image.
 
CT said:
Give Canon DPP a try.You'll probably get the cleanest noise results from the Canon software. Just try it - you don't have to burn your bridges. ;) It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, but I'm more than happy with it - mostly.

Probably a good idea to download the latest version - there have been a few upgrades since the version which would have come with youir 40D.

Regarding sensor size, an 800 pixel image viewed on the web is an 800 pixel image regardless of sensor size or format and you'll see little if any difference with full frame images. If you're cropping apopreciably that's a different matter, where the high pixel desnsity sensor can make a big difference to a web image.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT, I'll give it a whirl and see if there is any difference. I'm often pleased with the shot but then depressed by the perceived lack of clarity. I've been looking through some others' shots tonight and again sat there and bemoaned their visual quality over mine and it is really beginning to affect my love of my hobby :(

Appreciate your help, thanks :thumbs:
 
I just looked at your wall shots again mate, and I'm pretty sure you're running either ACR or CS4 ( or both) in Adobe RGB. It doesn't matter if you have your camera set to Adobe RGB as the colour profile is assigned by your raw editor, but shots for web viewing need to be saved in sRGB.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
I just looked at your wall shots again mate, and I'm pretty sure you're running either ACR or CS4 ( or both) in Adobe RGB. It doesn't matter if you have your camera set to Adobe RGB as the colour profile is assigned by your raw editor, but shots for web viewing need to be saved in sRGB.
Click to expand...

I do, yes (it's all set to Adobe)

Would that affect the quality though? I thought it was only relative to the colour range of the images :shrug:
 
Simmotino said:
I do, yes (it's all set to Adobe)

Would that affect the quality though? I thought it was only relative to the colour range of the images :shrug:
Click to expand...

The most significant thing is that we'll all be seeing your web images in very different colours to you because we''re uploading sRGB images and viewiing them in an sRGB environment. Adobe RGB images viewed on the web typically look very saturated compared to sRGB images, which is really the case with your wall shots.

It's not really a quality issue as such, and Adobe RGB can have advantages for printing with it's wider colour space, but yoiu really need to upload your web images in sRGB if you want us to see what you see. :)
 
Last edited:
CT said:
The most significant thing is that we'll all be seeing your web images in very different colours to you because we''re uploading sRGB images and viewiing them in an sRGB environment. Adobe RGB images viewed on the web typically look very saturated compared to sRGB images, which is really the case with your wall shots.

It's not really a quality issue as such, and Adobe RGB can have advantages for printing with it's wider colour space, but yoiu really need to upload your web images in sRGB if you want us to see what you see. :)
Click to expand...

OK, now I'm confused! Won't we both be seeing the same thing when looking at my Flickr stream for example?
 
Simmotino said:
OK, now I'm confused! Won't we both be seeing the same thing when looking at my Flickr stream for example?
Click to expand...

We shouldn't be if you're uploading in Adobe RGB but having just looked at your Stairway To Heaven shot in my sRGB editor, it looks identical to the one on FlickR.The only explanations for that are that you uploaded it in sRGB or possibly FlickR automatically converts to sRGB.
 
CT said:
We shouldn't be if you're uploading in Adobe RGB but having just looked at your Stairway To Heaven shot in my sRGB editor, it looks identical to the one on FlickR.The only explanations for that are that you uploaded it in sRGB or possibly FlickR automatically converts to sRGB.
Click to expand...

I changed a while back from sRGB to AdobeRGB, so it's possible that was taken and processed using sRGB.

I'm still not sure how we can see it differently once it's on the internet though. Surely my browser isn't rendering the shot differently just because it was uploaded by me. Is it? :shrug:
 
Don't know about sharpening, but that wall could certainly do with some repointing here and there
 
Simmotino said:
I changed a while back from sRGB to AdobeRGB, so it's possible that was taken and processed using sRGB.

I'm still not sure how we can see it differently once it's on the internet though. Surely my browser isn't rendering the shot differently just because it was uploaded by me. Is it? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Erm... I'm not sure about this but I think supported colour space can vary from one browser to another.

The main point though is that the whole idea of sRGB is to give us all as common a viewing experience as possible, so if you post images to the web you should be using sRGB. If anyone wanted to edit one of your images, they'd see the colour difference as soon as they copy it into an sRGB image editor which is how I picked up on the fact that your were using Adobe RGB.

The wider colour space of Adobe RGB isn't night and day and the differences are subtle enough to be negligible for most users, apart from which if you really want to get the benefit of using Adobe RGB, you need to really know your onions if you're doing your own printing, or find a processing house which can give you the benefit from Adobe RGB, and that's a whole other can of worms. Most processing houses prefer images to be in sRGB.

If the bulk of your stuff is for posting on the web you're as well running your editng software in sRGB. If you leave your camera set to Adobe RGB, then if you want to output any files for printing, then you can save them in Adobe RGB if it's a raw file. Personally i wouldn't bother - I never use Adobe RGB for printing anyway.
 
CT said:
Erm... I'm not sure about this but I think supported colour space can vary from one browser to another.

The main point though is that the whole idea of sRGB is to give us all as common a viewing experience as possible, so if you post images to the web you should be using sRGB. If anyone wanted to edit one of your images, they'd see the colour difference as soon as they copy it into an sRGB image editor which is how I picked up on the fact that your were using Adobe RGB.

The wider colour space of Adobe RGB isn't night and day and the differences are subtle enough to be negligible for most users, apart from which if you really want to get the benefit of using Adobe RGB, you need to really know your onions if you're doing your own printing, or find a processing house which can give you the benefit from Adobe RGB, and that's a whole other can of worms. Most processing houses prefer images to be in sRGB.

If the bulk of your stuff is for posting on the web you're as well running your editng software in sRGB. If you leave your camera set to Adobe RGB, then if you want to output any files for printing, then you can save them in Adobe RGB if it's a raw file. Personally i wouldn't bother - I never use Adobe RGB for printing anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT, looks like I'll switch back to sRGB then. To be honest I never noticed a difference when I switched anyway but, as there wasn't any difference either way, didn't bother going through the process of switching everything back.

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure it will impact the perceived lack of quality but I'm willing to try anything at this stage!

Thanks again for your input, 'tis much appreciated.
 
Simmotino said:
Thanks CT, looks like I'll switch back to sRGB then. To be honest I never noticed a difference when I switched anyway but, as there wasn't any difference either way, didn't bother going through the process of switching everything back.

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure it will impact the perceived lack of quality but I'm willing to try anything at this stage!

Thanks again for your input, 'tis much appreciated.
Click to expand...


You're welcome mate - shame we haven't really sorted your original problem. :D
 
HoppyUK said:
I know. It wasn't a very helpful recommendation though! :lol:

What is it that you are unhappy about?

Then devise an appropriate test. And you must have something to compare it to or you have no reference, good or bad.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, the op asked 'what to shoot' not how to compare for sharpness. I assumed he would know how to sharpen etc! I am on holiday in Bournemouth at the mo, so didn't pick up on the follow up.
Sorry Bud!
 
wontolla said:
In all fairness, the op asked 'what to shoot' not how to compare for sharpness. I assumed he would know how to sharpen etc! I am on holiday in Bournemouth at the mo, so didn't pick up on the follow up.
Sorry Bud!
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, it was just a duff suggestion! :lol::lol:

I know how to sharpen, soften, blur, vignette, etc. etc. etc..

What I didn't know was whether the picture quality was good enough to start with! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top