Photos not sharp?

Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been taking some images with my d3300 Stock camera lens at work today, and noticed quite a lot of grain and lack of sharpness. Was wondering if you guys could have a peek and give me some clue as to why it's not looking very sharp?
8ea03333-f404-44c7-85f2-18261074591e


I Won't embedd the image because it is massive. But heres a link.


Thanks for any advice or help or anything.

Shooting options are...
F/4.2
1/40s
ISO 800
18-55mm @ 31mm
No Flash.
using Auto Focus with matrix metering.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Photo's not showing for me but with the info supplied it's going to be grainy at 800 ISO and F4.2 is almost wide open on a kit lens.

I'd try and get the ISO to 200 and shoot at F8, most kit lens' sweet spot.

There may be some camera shake at 1/40th too.

See if someone else can see the link, or post to Flickr and post the link here.
 
Well, for that lens, shutter speed and camera at that ISO I'd say it was fine. Maybe you're expecting a bit too much while pixel peeping at 100%?

Dave
Yeah at 100% I'd kind of expected the image to be clear and not pixelated, is this normal for the pixels to start to show at 100% zoom on a 24mp camera? I didn't think it would pixelate until past 100% Zoom. I've seen some images where you can zoom right in and it's pin sharp and focused.
 
It won't be pixels it'll be noise (grain in old speak).

The right hand edge of the towel looks to be in focus (as well as it will be at f4.2 on that kit lens) but the taps are OOF (as they haven't been the target of the focus).

I'd say that's not bad a shot considering the equipment and settings used.
 
Looking close up on my 27" mac I can't see evidence of pixelation, though I can see some grain, not too much though

If your screen at 100% is 72 dpi and you're looking at it from 2ft away, then you're looking at an image that's around 83 inches wide, or over 6ft. There's no way you'd look at such a big image so close. This is the problem with pixel peeping

Sure a far better camera and far better lens may be sharper, but in the real world its hardly likely anyone would notice

Buy a better lens as your best way to a sharper shot, one that's not wide open at f4 - but if you're printing A3 or less, I honestly wouldn't bother

Dave
 
Exposure's more important than absolute pin sharpness anyway, and you've done a great job of a not so easy exposure. OK so the camera's probably done it but it's a good shot.

Print it out to A4 and I bet you won't think its soft.
 
How do you properly expose a shot like that without flash or a tripod. Aperture causes blur, ISO causes grain, and shutter speed needs a tripod...
 
How do you properly expose a shot like that without flash or a tripod. Aperture causes blur, ISO causes grain, and shutter speed needs a tripod...
and the tripod will require a cable or remote release for the camera and not your fingers on it. The speed is too low, and the aperture too open to get much/any depth of field. Sorry, I don't have any magic suggestion but as a minimum I would choose a speed where can be hand held (e.g. 125th?) and the rest the best you can.
 
To be able to use a low shutter speed I try to lean heavily against something fixed, then breath out and hold my breath out, relax and gently squeeze the shutter button - and I'll also take 3 or 4 shots to be more likely to get at least 1 sharp one. 1/40th should be fast enough using that technique.

As noted already, the towel is sharp and the taps out of focus. If you're at least a little serious about this kind of work then invest £30 or £40 in a tripod from Amazon, or better still, get a Red Snapper tripod at a reasonable budget price.
 
Yeah at 100% I'd kind of expected the image to be clear and not pixelated, is this normal for the pixels to start to show at 100% zoom on a 24mp camera? I didn't think it would pixelate until past 100% Zoom. I've seen some images where you can zoom right in and it's pin sharp and focused.

Your expectations are based on a wish rather than anything more solid.

Your camera will give you 800ISO images better than anything available ten years ago and better than any 35mm film.

Photography is about light, in the first instance, enough light for an exposure, but more importantly decent light that shows off your subject.

If you really need to shoot in low light, you need to consider your options re aperture vs shutter speed or low ISO's, but there's no magic exposure tree! Wide apertures, slowshutter speeds or high ISO's are the price you pay, or add light.

There's nothing new here, it's always been the case.
 
and the tripod will require a cable or remote release for the camera and not your fingers on it. The speed is too low, and the aperture too open to get much/any depth of field. Sorry, I don't have any magic suggestion but as a minimum I would choose a speed where can be hand held (e.g. 125th?) and the rest the best you can.
It is possible to use the self timer so you dont have to touch the shutter button at time of exposure.
 
Last edited:
The main problem there is the slow shutter speed go to 80th sec at 1600. Noise is far more acceptable than camera shake also as I have said use the self time and just hold the camera as steady as possible as the countdown takes place.

You could also move something up to the location where you are and brace the camera againts it. Get a small table or something at the same hight as you want to take the shot use some books to get exact hight align the camera and focus it stick a strip of tape over the top so it does not move set the self timer and press shutter. That way you could use 1/4 sec at 200 ISO f6.3. It would be sharp then. :clap:
 
How do you properly expose a shot like that without flash or a tripod. Aperture causes blur, ISO causes grain, and shutter speed needs a tripod...

An open aperture does not cause blur, it just narrows the depth of field depending on how flat the focus plane is. For example, shoot a wall straight on or a flat piece of paper perpendicular angles it'll all be in focus.

As long as the subject is in focus, that's all that matters.
 
You've pretty much answered your own question.

To get a shot with more in focus to you need a smaller aperture. (e.g. f11 will have a larger depth of field)

Trade-off is shutter speed or ISO. The answer is that a tripod is best for a shot like this, in that you can hold the ISO nice and low to reduce image noise (grain) and extend the shutter speed instead.

If you have to shoot without a tripod, then you've already reached the compromise of less grain for a shallower depth of field, which you'll be able to get away with if you're careful about where you focus, or are only using the image for web/small print.
 
Yeah at 100% I'd kind of expected the image to be clear and not pixelated, is this normal for the pixels to start to show at 100% zoom on a 24mp camera? I didn't think it would pixelate until past 100% Zoom. I've seen some images where you can zoom right in and it's pin sharp and focused.

You need to understand that 100% zoom is the same as looking at a huuuuuge print.

If you're trying to produce 'professional' level results, you have to understand the photography, but also how to analyse requirements.

To produce websized images, your assessment of an image at 100% is irrelevant, you need about 3mpix of your 24 available, you should be examining your images at 10-25% for a realistic assessment.

Secondly, if you want front to back sharpness on a similar image, you'll need to think about f8 - f11(maybe smaller), so to get clean images if you're not in bright light, you'll need to either use flash or a tripod and long exposures.

But you also need to consider what your light source is doing. If you're shooting all over a showroom, is the light pattern consistent? Are you going to struggle with specular highlights?
 
Last edited:
It is possible to use the self timer so you dont have to touch the shutter button at time of exposure.
I'm glad someone else does this; in the absence of a WiFi enabled camera and smartphone type set-up it saves lugging a remote release around and is just as effective when taking still-life photos in steady lighting conditions where a 5 or 10 second delay in firing the shutter won't miss 'the decisive moment'.
 
Come on, Phil. I know it's early.

He's just a man with faith in his technique. ;)

Just to muddy the waters a little further, a lens with a shorter focal length will have a greater depth of field for a given aperture than a lens of longer focal length.
 
I'm glad someone else does this; in the absence of a WiFi enabled camera and smartphone type set-up it saves lugging a remote release around and is just as effective when taking still-life photos in steady lighting conditions where a 5 or 10 second delay in firing the shutter won't miss 'the decisive moment'.

Before wifi and electronic releases pretty much everyone did this, its a very old & thankfully cheap technique that I still do today :)

Dave
 
Back
Top