'Fluffy' images

  • Thread starter Thread starter RobC
  • Start date Start date
R

RobC

Guest
Ok, perhaps it's me, perhaps it's my monitor, perhaps it's my equipment.... I'm going with the first reason but would be very interested to hear what others think.

Equipment
50D, 70-200 USM L (non-is) f4.


EXIF
AV, 1/400 @ f4, 1280ISO, spot metering, picture style Faithful, AWB, one shot, RAW.

PP
RAW
Cropped to 60%
Saved for web and devices 1280 x 5??

New image
Teeny weeny bit of NR, Sharpened using Hi-Pass method from here
Saved for web and devices 800 x 533

The result

4538312895_0071af402a_o.jpg

What's going on? Is it soft because I'm cropping so heavily?




Nothing I take is what I'd call sharp, the example above is pretty much what I turn out regardless of my settings, even on full auto :bang:

Please help, I'm losing the will to 'tog'.
 
What you need is a good day out practicing :lol: Arrange it for next week ;):thumbs:
 
Blue skies here (and a few planes today dam it :lol::lol:) if you want more Kite practice:shrug: they can be arranged to visit me with a few chicken wings and a whistle !!!!!
 
I agree that they look a bit soft.
I have this lens and on my 40D and 5 Mk2 its one of my sharpest lenses.
ISO 1280 should be ok with this camera but try and keep ISO a tad lower if possible.
I've never used the Save For Web method. I use CS3 and resize to 800px on the longest edge and set resolution to 72 for showing online.
60% is quite a large crop so it could be that but I'm only guessing.
My method is to process RAW images in LR2 then save and open in CS3 to sharpen and crop. Try saving your processed RAW as a normal JPEG rather than "Save for Web" as this is the only thing I can see that you are doing differently from me.

Sorry not be much help but your images should be sharper with this lens/camera set up.

I'm interested in what other members views will be
 
Try sharpening and image manipulation on the RAW before you do any save for web work, I find that step in particular degrades an image.
When I first started shooting in RAW, my images were pretty pants, I joined this forum and found out so many tips on image manipulation it made a huge difference.

The other thing that helped me was a tripod, I get shaky shots a fairly high shutter speeds on occasions, especially with this type of shot as I rush to get the pic before the damn thing flies off, relax, take a breath, steady away and shoot, also helps.

I will be interested in seeing more images as this lens is pinging like mad on my radar, maybe i need to hold out for an IS version.

Paul
 
Suggest you compare it with something at ISO100 and not cropped, if it's still soft then maybe you have a lens issues, but suspect ISO/crop is your problem. If you have shot in RAW, remember to sharpen. It's a little hard to tell from this image, but have you focused on the wing rather than the eye?
 
RobC said:
Please help, I'm losing the will to 'tog'.
Click to expand...

Rob relax, take a deep breath and take note.

The most important element of a good bird photo full of detail and definition, is the light, and your position relative to the subject and the light.

Ideally you want the Sun behind you coming over your shoulder.

Looking at the shadow on the branch of your shot and at the bird I would say that the sun was above and beyond the subject, in effect making it a backlit shot.

Your lens is always reported as being a sharp one, however 200mm is a bit short for small song birds, unless you can get in a hide and get close.

Shooting wide open can soften images unless you are using top end glass, so stopping down to f5.6 / f6.3 would help, but I have never used that lens so do not know what its like wide open.

As for sharpening and PP have a read of this thread LINK

The biggest improvement will come by simply getting in a good position with regard to the light.
 
Thanks to all for their suggestions, replies and ideas, I think I have a lot to learn and think about.

Just to confirm a few things:

Image PP is carried out to the RAW file in CS4.
Distance to subject was no more than 10feet.
Sun was 'above and beyond' the subject.
According to Canons software I did focus on the wing :(
 
Martyn... said:
That is the main problem, no end of manipulation sharpening etc can correct that .... get the Sun behind you :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks Martyn, I'll try to be a little more concious of my surroundings in future. Sadly this means no more pics of my 'visitors' unless I reposition my house or stand in the road :bang:
 
Rob, there's so many things that could be causing you problems, from camera settings to which RAW editor you use and the settings in your editor. There's your whole work flow and technique which has to be suspect if you're regularly experiencing soft images.

BUT... looking at this shot you're waaaaay too cautious in your sharpening, so you need to get that sorted before you look elsewhere. This is a quick sharpen and a slight colour adjustment.

4541261844_4d79009e43_o.jpg


It's still not showing the resolution it could, possibly down to the large crop, and possibly due to how soft it was to begin with. We'd need to see the original fil to really know what we're dealing with.

I'd forget the high pass sharpening mate, for a while at least, and keep it simple. Use USM applied frequently in small increments and use you own judgement as to when to stop. :thumbs:
 
CT said:
Rob, there's so many things that could be causing you problems, from camera settings to which RAW editor you use and the settings in your editor. There's your whole work flow and technique which has to be suspect if you're regularly experiencing soft images.

BUT... looking at this shot you're waaaaay too cautious in your sharpening, so you need to get that sorted before you look elsewhere. This is a quick sharpen and a slight colour adjustment.

4541261844_4d79009e43_o.jpg


It's still not showing the resolution it could, possibly down to the large crop, and possibly due to how soft it was to begin with. We'd need to see the original fil to really know what we're dealing with.

I'd forget the high pass sharpening mate, for a while at least, and keep it simple. Use USM applied frequently in small increments and use you own judgement as to when to stop. :thumbs:
Click to expand...



OMFGG !!

Is that the same picture ?!

I'm actually stunned at what you've pulled from the shot. I'd be really interested in your workflow. I will be having a good read on the useage of USM though. Here's a download link to the original RAW image as it came from the camera (if you're interested).

Goldfinch Raw File
 
I think the main problem there is the flat lighting (subject is in shade) and lack of sharpening as CT points out - he is a master at this sort of thing. Plus the heavy crop - basically, don't. Get a longer lens.

I'm not sure that focus is spot on (focus point indicator only shows which point was used, which is not necessarily what subject area was focused on) and 1/400sec is marginal given that you were probably on 320mm effectively focal length (200 x 1.6) plus the crop which has roughly doubled that. 1/1000sec minimum to be safe with that combo, without IS.

In a nutshell, it's technique - this stuff is not easy! Better light, use centre focus point on the eyes, higher shutter speed, more sharpening, longer lens and don't crop!
 
Would be best to post Original Raw somewhere we can download it and have a look and see what we all come up with.
 
Oh..you already did that...Note to self : Slap yourself around the head.
 
Briony said:
It's no good Rob, you have got to get your 400 very soon :lol::lol::lol::lol: :naughty:
Click to expand...

Not this month, got a holiday to finance :(

HoppyUK said:
I think the main problem there is the flat lighting (subject is in shade) and lack of sharpening as CT points out - he is a master at this sort of thing. Plus the heavy crop - basically, don't. Get a longer lens.

I'm not sure that focus is spot on (focus point indicator only shows which point was used, which is not necessarily what subject area was focused on) and 1/400sec is marginal given that you were probably on 320mm effectively focal length (200 x 1.6) plus the crop which has roughly doubled that. 1/1000sec minimum to be safe with that combo, without IS.

In a nutshell, it's technique - this stuff is not easy! Better light, use centre focus point on the eyes, higher shutter speed, more sharpening, longer lens and don't crop!
Click to expand...

Really appreciate you taking the time to confirm my own suspicions, I'm crap at photography and my PP skills are lacking ;) Oh and my subject matter requires greater 'length'.

CraigF said:
Would be best to post Original Raw somewhere we can download it and have a look and see what we all come up with.
Click to expand...

CraigF said:
Oh..you already did that...Note to self : Slap yourself around the head.
Click to expand...

Ha-ha, you're funny, thanks for making me smile :thumbs:
 
Briony said:
Blue skies here (and a few planes today dam it :lol::lol:) if you want more Kite practice:shrug: they can be arranged to visit me with a few chicken wings and a whistle !!!!!
Click to expand...


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Hey Nicki, that sounds like one of my dog training days!!!! ;)

Maria
x
 
Just had a play with unsharp mask and the 'fade' function, honestly is this any better?

4541043243_1228bdd533_o.jpg
 
Re: Sharpening.

When in the PP are you doing it? If you're resizing down for the web, it needs to be the last part of the process you do before you click "Save for web and devices" in photoshop. :)

Even if you sharpen up in the raw, when Photoshop scales it down and merges all those pixels to make a smaller web sized image, you're going to lose all that sharpening detail (it's just a simple fact of scaling it down).

Example, this was shot at the TP Blackpool Zoo meet a couple of weeks ago, razor sharp in the camera, it looks great at 100% on the monitor, looks awesome in print, scaled down to 600x400 for the web, it looks soft.

lioness_unsharpened.jpg


After a bit of sharpening (at 600x400 res, after resizing)...

lioness_sharpened.jpg
 
I sharpen last, always have.

Must admit I seem to get better results using unsharp mask than I expected, trouble is it sharpens the whole image rather than just the bit I want sharpened :(
 
mstphoto said:
Sorry to disagree but the position of the sun wouldn't cause soft images surely, unless you are talking about flair being the cause ??
Click to expand...

Mike if the subject is backlit the fine detail of the subject is not picked out anywhere as near as much as when the light strikes the subject from the front at an angle.

The result is an image that looks flat and lacking detail, or perceived as being soft, getting the light right is the most important thing about getting a detailed and crisp image.

Cedrics processing has improved the original image, but it would look a lot better had the photographed side of the bird not been in shade.
 
RobC said:
I'm actually stunned at what you've pulled from the shot. I'd be really interested in your workflow. I will be having a good read on the useage of USM though. Here's a download link to the original RAW image as it came from the camera (if you're interested).

Goldfinch Raw File
Click to expand...

I'm downloading your raw file file Rob and I'll have a look at it when it eventually lands.

My work flow is pretty simple really mate - I shoot RAW using Canon DPP then export to Paint Shop Pro as a tiff file on which I do all the editing - including sharpening. I rarely need to edit in DPP at all, but when I do it's usualy highlight/shadow recovery for an exposure balls up, or sometimes WB adjustment, and on those occasions you just can't beat a RAW file.

But assuming sharpening is what you mean by my work flow, then it couldn't be simpler. You'll find that whatever editing package you use it will have a one shot sharpen filter probably just labelled 'Sharpen' and this is usually quite a potent sharpen effect. It will also have the facility to use the USM sharpening method with is a far less drastic way of sharpening and you can adjust the parameters anyway.

I always try the straight 'Sharpen' filter first - sometimes it's too strong, sometimes it's just right, and sometimes I might still use further shots of USM. The main thing is to be carefully looking at the image with each sharpen and judging the effect and knowing when it's still soft and when you've overdone it.

There aren't any magical editing methods for sharpening Rob-all images are different and ultimately it's a judgement call on your part, but what's the worst that can happen - someone might tell yoi've over-sharpened which is no better or worse than a soft image anyway. Don't let fear of over-sharpening stop you from going for tack sharp images.

Don't forget - you need to do your sharpening after you've reduced the image to it's final output size

Your Goldy image needed two full shots of the straight 'Sharpen' filter so it was pretty soft.

Hope that helps Rob, but keep it simple - I do! ;)
 
Martyn... said:
Mike if the subject is backlit the fine detail of the subject is not picked out anywhere as near as much as when the light strikes the subject from the front at an angle.

The result is an image that looks flat and lacking detail, or perceived as being soft, getting the light right is the most important thing about getting a detailed and crisp image.

Cedrics processing has improved the original image, but it would look a lot better had the photographed side of the bird not been in shade.
Click to expand...

Despite me being an idiot, you're right, it makes sense to me.
 
RobC said:
Just had a play with unsharp mask and the 'fade' function, honestly is this any better?

4541043243_1228bdd533_o.jpg
Click to expand...

It's better than the first version Rob, but see that slight halo around the bird's head? That's a classic sign of over-sharpening starting to creep in. Don't knock yourself out though, take your time - it's just practice.
 
RobC said:
I sharpen last, always have.

Must admit I seem to get better results using unsharp mask than I expected, trouble is it sharpens the whole image rather than just the bit I want sharpened :(
Click to expand...

You could always use the history brush to undo the sharpening in the areas where you don't want it, or duplicate the layer, sharpen and then mask off the areas you don't want sharpened.
 
DPP doesn't use an Unsharp Mask (I don't think) but nevertheless, its sharpen tool is - if I may say so - rather good. If the picture is nice and sharp in the first place (as it should be, and any good optic can deliver that) then a notch or two of sharpening gives the image loads of pop.
 
RobC said:
Despite me being an idiot, you're right, it makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

You are a long way from being an idiot, an idiot would not have asked the question, you are just learning, which is something we all had to do once.

Most of the important things in taking photo's of birds is free, patience, practice, and lighting.
 
CT said:
It's better than the first version Rob, but see that slight halo around the bird's head? That's a classic sign of over-sharpening starting to creep in. Don't knock yourself out though, take your time - it's just practice.
Click to expand...

Thanks a million. I'm guessing I should prolly get this moved to the processing forum now. I'm gonna try my luck though, is it possible to apply unsharp mask to just the birdie ?
 
RobC said:
Thanks a million. I'm guessing I should prolly get this moved to the processing forum now. I'm gonna try my luck though, is it possible to apply unsharp mask to just the birdie ?
Click to expand...


Cracked it :D



Thanks chaps. Hopefully if I learn to slow down and think before shooting and apply my new learned unsharp mask 'skill' I'm gonna be a happy bunny :thumbs:
 
LOL 60% crop indeed!! :D

4541168097_e35dcee7ee_o.jpg


Rob that's a huge crop mate - even for the 50D. It's not critically sharp in the full file. It would be sharp enough usually, but with a crop that big you're really pushing the envelope.

I reckon you've pulled as good an image out of that shot as is possible, so I'd say your issue is just with the sharpening which is good news.

The bad news is you need to get closer or get some longer glass. :lol:
 
RobC said:
Thanks a million. I'm guessing I should prolly get this moved to the processing forum now. I'm gonna try my luck though, is it possible to apply unsharp mask to just the birdie ?
Click to expand...
You're welcome Rob. Yep - use the magic wand to select the whole bg - you need to keep control pressed on your keyboard throughout, until you have a tight mask around the bird. Then invert the mask and you can just apply sharpening to the bird.
 
CT said:
You're welcome Rob. Yep - use the magic wand to select the whole bg - you need to keep control pressed on your keyboard throughout, until you have a tight mask around the bird. Then invert the mask and you can just apply sharpening to the bird.
Click to expand...


when I use the crop tool it definately said 60% in the little window bottom left.

With regards shrpening just the bird, I created a duplicate layer, applied unsharp mask, then applied a mask, then inverted the layers and just brushed over the bird..... I think it worked. I really do appreciate you taking the time to sort my issue out.

Promise to either get closer or buy a bigger lens ;D
 
RobC said:
With regards shrpening just the bird, I created a duplicate layer, applied unsharp mask, then applied a mask, then inverted the layers and just brushed over the bird..... I think it worked. I really do appreciate you taking the time to sort my issue out.
Click to expand...

Yep that would work too. I prefer the mask method because it's cleaner, quicker and no fiddling about with the eraser, but whichever method gets you there is fine.

Promise to either get closer or buy a bigger lens ;D
Click to expand...
LOL. 400mm is enough really, but you probably need to be getting to around 20 feet from the bird to fill the frame enough to leave you a good quality image after cropping.

Longer glass is nice, but it makes a mess of the bank balance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top