blurred picture... why?

kokolino23

kokolino23

Messages
768
Name
Angelo
Edit My Images
Yes
I was trying to get some shots in Tv mode but every single one was blurred ?!
If I choose portret mode is fine.
I disbled the focus from the shutter button and I've used the AF button instead. I can see how the focus is being done because the lens is moving but the result is a catastrophy.

I had ISO 200,400,600 but the same thing. F5.6 but I didn't know how to setup the shutter speed. I think this is causing the issue here.

 
Last edited:
Camera shake - according to the exif data your shutter speed was only 0.4s.
 
+1, shutter speed too slow. If you're in Tv mode then turning the finger wheel (on top)will adjust the shutter speed. Try 1/100th or faster and bump the ISO to 800 or 1600. Looks like you're shooting indoors, in low light and not using the flash. If the camera chose f/5.6 in Tv mode then I'm guessing your also using the kit lens or a similar slow lens. For low light without using the flash you'll get better results with a faster lens.
 
I'm using a 17-85 mm lens. It doesn't bother me if I take the picture in Av mode or Tv mode as long as I learn what settings I have to set up.

The picture was attempted in the room and WB was on throom settings. I did try to play with the shutter and ISO but I had a black picture ?! This points to me that there wasn't light at all!

I disabled the flash.
 
kokolino23 said:
I'm using a 17-85 mm lens. It doesn't bother me if I take the picture in Av mode or Tv mode as long as I learn what settings I have to set up.
Click to expand...

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.. there are only three settings you need to get to grips with (aperture, shutter speed and ISO) and this is a pretty good book to read to understand their relationship.

The 17-85 is a very poor lens for low light pictures, it just doesn't have a wide enough aperture to let enough light in. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is the budget option for low light shots.
 
Remember you have the flash too, to compensate for the small aperture.

You can also increase the ISO, to allow a faster shutter speed.
 
Somebody had already recommended this book to me. I've already ordered this book from Amazon.
I was thinking to buy a 50mm 1.4 and I'm hoping I'll have the chance to get a sigma.
I'll go through the book and get it from there.
 
Agree and also try get better lighting :thumbs:

You could try Manual, ISO 200, F11/F8, 1/250th sec, and fire your flash, also use flash compensation the pic may look dark on your cam but a bit of levels will sort it :thumbs: alter the WB take a test shot, then use that as a custom WB
 
Last edited:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED for your advices!

I need to learn my camera first and then play with it after I read something about exposure. I just need to get used with the manual mode for my 40d. The automatic pics can be taken by my wife...
 
Hi Angelo,

The problem with flash is that it introduces a light source that's quite hard to visualise, mainly because we don't see it for more than a fraction of a second, plus it can be confusing figuring how that and the ambient light fit together into your 'exposure triangle' (see Bryan Peterson's book!).

There's nothing to stop you using it though, playing around with it and just seeing what results you get, but I certainly wouldn't make it part of your initial learning process for the above reasons.

Personally, I'd get used to the modes that your camera can use, starting with AV. Starting with this leaves the shutter speed as the main variable, allowing you to gradually change other functions to see how they all interact. Once you've cracked it (believe me, when it clicks it really CLICKS!), you'll be able to walk into a room and figure out your ideal settings in seconds.

Once you've got that down you can look at flash with a fresh set of eyes and see how that will affect that mystical exposure triangle or ISO, aperture and shutter speed.

Can't say I'm as experienced as most of the people offering advice on here but I was a beginner a few years ago and remember how tricky it was getting my head around this baffling settings and exposure concept. The above method worked for me!

Stick with it, I would suggest that everyone on this forum has taken a few blurry pictures in their time! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Oh, to answer the original question:

In low light with your camera/lens combination, put it on ISO 1600, make sure the aperture value is at it's lowest and hope your shutter speed comes out above 1/50ish. A steady hand helps!

If you still can't get the picture to stay sharp due to a slow shutter speed, put it in Tv mode (shutter priority). What you're doing there is telling the camera you want a fast shutter speed and it does it's best to sort everything else to get the picture. Sometimes though your photo might just come out dark as your camera can't physically gather enough light.

Off to bed, happy shooting.
 
your exposure time is 1/3th! obviously too slow. or use flash? and follow all the above suggestions.
 
Id also wind the lens back to the wider end 17mm, this will give you the option of f4 at 17mm rather than f5.6 at 64mm. This gives you one stop of extra light transmission, or in otherwords would double the shutter speed to keep the exposure the same.

This will also give you a slightly different perspective as you'll need to walk forward to frame the shot identically. It should however give you a quick enough shutter speed to counter the camera shake and also expose accordingly.

Also increase your ISO as mentioned above.
 
I took everything on board so THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED!
I have to play with the camera for a start and read something about the exposure as well.
I can't wait to get back with some proper pictures.

Thanks a lot once again!
 
Good luck Angelo,Im same as you still trying to get my head around it all.
 
Andy, this is really really useful for beginners like me. So helpful!
Thank you very much indeed!
 
The white balance is way off and the shot is about a stop underexposed. I can't do anything about the shake/blur but here is an idea of how I think the the colour and exposure probably should look....

20101110_213551_7995_LR.jpg


Given the constraints of your slow max aperture (I do not recommend shooting at 17mm simply in order to gain a little more light), you might have got away with a shutter speed of around 1/30 with the benefit of IS, some extra care, a cooperative subject and a little luck.

To get from the actual shutter speed used of 0.4 seconds to 1/30, or 0.033333 seconds if you prefer, requires the shutter speed to be just over 10X faster, or 3.3 stops. Add in the 1 stop underexposure and you need to find a total of 4.3 stops more light either from your lens, your ISO, or additional lighting. The lens can't give you any more light. To go 4.3 stops brighter on ISO, from 400, would require an ISO of 8000. Not gonna happen. You needed to add light. And while you're doing that you may as well increase the shutter speed to a safer figure like 1/60 or 1/125.

A 50/1.4 lens shot at f/1.4 would actually get you 4 stops of the 4.3 required, but without IS you would need to look at using a tripod or raising the shutter speed to around 1/60 minimum, meaning you'd need to find yet another stop of light from somewhere. That could be by raising your ISO to 800, but of course you are dealing with very thin DOF at f/1.4 and the lens is a bit creamy/dreamy soft wide open. In other words, more light would still be a better option.
 
Thanks a lot, Tim.
I've just sold my 17-85 lens and I have to buy another one now.
Is such a difficult decision and I've got in my mind a few: canon / sigma 50mm 1.4, canon 85mm 1.8, canon 17-40 f4.
I need to read a little bit more about exposure and stuff like that and then get a proper lens to start with.

Thanks everyone for the help provided so far!
I'm so happy *** I found this site!
 
It's not easy, is it. :)

I used the 17-85 with my 30D for a year before upgrading to a 17-55/2.8 IS, and even had a crack at shooting a wedding with it (with the aid of a 580EX flash!). I did buy a 50/1.8 but found that it barely got used before I bought the 17-55 and I found no reason to use it at all after I bought the 17-55. Now I've replaced the 50/1.8 with a 50/1.4 and have added an 85/1.8 to my collection. They each serve a purpose and no one lens will do everything that the others can.

If you want a 17-85, mine is boxed up, clean and tidy and available for sale. I simply haven't got around to advertising it. It's four years old but has not been used for the last three years. I was pretty happy with the lens when I had it but was really after a faster max aperture, which is the main reason I bought the 17-55. I hung on to it as a spare, but now I have a 16-35/2.8 and a 24-70/2.8 as well so it really is surplus to my requirements.
 
tdodd said:
It's not easy, is it. :)

I used the 17-85 with my 30D for a year before upgrading to a 17-55/2.8 IS, and even had a crack at shooting a wedding with it (with the aid of a 580EX flash!). I did buy a 50/1.8 but found that it barely got used before I bought the 17-55 and I found no reason to use it at all after I bought the 17-55. Now I've replaced the 50/1.8 with a 50/1.4 and have added an 85/1.8 to my collection. They each serve a purpose and no one lens will do everything that the others can.

If you want a 17-85, mine is boxed up, clean and tidy and available for sale. I simply haven't got around to advertising it. It's four years old but has not been used for the last three years. I was pretty happy with the lens when I had it but was really after a faster max aperture, which is the main reason I bought the 17-55. I hung on to it as a spare, but now I have a 16-35/2.8 and a 24-70/2.8 as well so it really is surplus to my requirements.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom,
I'm not sure if is against the forum rules to advertise that lens here but is not up to me to say that.
Anyway, I had a 17-85 already but I've sold it and I had bought already a sigma 50mm 1.4. What an improvement !!! The picture is so sharp now. I still need to figure out what settings I have to choose because at the moment I still take pics on automatic mode.
Cheers once again.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Have a look at this easy to follow beginner's guide and practice lots.

Don't try to blame th ekit too much, any lens and any body is capable of great shots once you undertand the limitations of it.
Click to expand...

As I've already mentioned I just purchased a sigma 50mm 1.4 and I'm really happy with it. Such a sharp pictures! I need to read a little bit more about the xposure and start to shoot in manual mode instead of automatic.
CHEERS!
 
Hello again Angelo, one thing that's worth throwing into the mix is that even though it will go to f1.4, it's worth trying the lens (when light is good) at an aperture like 2.8 where it's even sharper! Truly stunning after using consumer zoom lenses!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top