Whats wrong with this "dirty" image, missed focus maybe ??

[Kopite4Ever]

Good evening all,

I took this image the other day on a walk as part of a set and while the image is nothing special at all I am intrigued as to why it looks, well I can only say dirty, grainy. It's towards the middle left and right it does not look right at all as shown in a crop below. The ISO is at 250 which is absolutely nothing for my Sony camera.

My only thinking is I have missed focus but zooming into the top centre of the image there are fence posts that run all the way down and along and they seem to be in focus, maybe not tack sharp but still in focus. Shot at F9 so should in theory have enough DOF to get all that in as it was miles away.

The image was shot on a tripod at the following settings:

Screenshot 2021-01-11 at 22.42.22.png

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

A full size jpeg export:

Dirty Image.jpg

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Crop of an area in question:

Dirty Image-2.jpg

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

I will be more than happy to concede its not the gear and my dodgy focusing (it was bloody freezing & I do manual focus). I will have had it on a 10 second timer for the focal length and 95% certain image stabilisation was turned off.

Any ideas ?

 

[Craigus]

Hmm, im only on my iPad at the moment so that may not be helping, but I think that you are simply seeing the results of an incredibly contrasty scene at pixel level. The snow and rocks are very complex, I suspect that youre expecting too much from the sensor.

FYI, if you’re shooting static subjects on a tripod there is no reason why your iso should be above base and your ss adjusted accordingly, in case you didn’t know.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

There is nothing really "dirty" it is just light snow over nasty dark ground.... Now the bottom of the shot looks somewhat soft like there is some sort of lens centring issue or something funny going on with stabilisation elements. I hope there were no filters, etc (these are best avoided on anything over 200m, ideally 100mm). I would double check all the other images at that focal length. If there is a pattern emerging I'd want to replace it to be quite honest.
ISO 250 is an odd choice. I thought it was best to avoid 125, 250, 500, etc... It shouldn't matter too much anyway as long as exposure is OK. f/9 is reasonable choice but to be fair a good prime lens should handle this scene pretty well even at f/4 or 2.8, i.e. wide open.

 

[Nawty]

I agree with @Craigus, looks fine to me it’s just that your subject is ‘dirty’.

 

[Kopite4Ever]

FYI, if you’re shooting static subjects on a tripod there is no reason why your iso should be above base and your ss adjusted accordingly, in case you didn’t know.

Plenty of reasons and situations it should be above base iso even on a tripod. Ideally I’d have taken it at 100 iso and f11 but the shutter speed would have been 1/125 given the conditions wouldn't IMO been fast enough for 350mm in that situation. The shot was at 350mm nearly and there was a fair bit of wind about so I matched shutter speed to the focal length to help with that wind and any micro shakes as well.

 

[Kopite4Ever]

There is nothing really "dirty" it is just light snow over nasty dark ground.... Now the bottom of the shot looks somewhat soft like there is some sort of lens centring issue or something funny going on with stabilisation elements. I hope there were no filters, etc (these are best avoided on anything over 200m, ideally 100mm). I would double check all the other images at that focal length. If there is a pattern emerging I'd want to replace it to be quite honest.
ISO 250 is an odd choice. I thought it was best to avoid 125, 250, 500, etc... It shouldn't matter too much anyway as long as exposure is OK. f/9 is reasonable choice but to be fair a good prime lens should handle this scene pretty well even at f/4 or 2.8, i.e. wide open.

Thanks. There were no filters or anything attached. The lens is sharp at longer focal lengths in other images. I’ve taken lots of wildlife shots at 400mm tack sharp across the image.

 

[Craigus]

Plenty of reasons and situations it should be above base iso even on a tripod. Ideally I’d have taken it at 100 iso and f11 but the shutter speed would have been 1/125 given the conditions wouldn't IMO been fast enough for 350mm in that situation. The shot was at 350mm nearly and there was a fair bit of wind about so I matched shutter speed to the focal length to help with that wind and any micro shakes as well.

Sounds like you need a sturdier Tripod

 

[riddell]

The main thing that is wrong with it is that its underexposed and shot in crappy light, plus its actually not a very interesting scene and the scene itself is a mess.
White balance is probably out too.

Psychologically thats instantly making you question everything about the photo. Reject it move on.

 

[Coho-Blue]

Plenty of reasons and situations it should be above base iso even on a tripod. Ideally I’d have taken it at 100 iso and f11 but the shutter speed would have been 1/125 given the conditions wouldn't IMO been fast enough for 350mm in that situation. The shot was at 350mm nearly and there was a fair bit of wind about so I matched shutter speed to the focal length to help with that wind and any micro shakes as well.

Could you not have simply used "Exposure Compensation" to gain the extra Shutter Speed ?

I read about lots of guys in wildlife situations using Exposure Compensation to gain extra SS and even Landscape shooters who, for example need the correct SS as its critical for a scene that has moving water and they want that base ISO,, so to maintain that critical SS they use Exposure Compensation going as low as Minus 1-2 stops then bringing it back it post to great effect ..

I`ve tried it myself (only Twice mind you) to keep the SS fast enough and it works a treat .. its something I think I`ll use more often


Coho-Blue

 

[Craigus]

Could you not have simply used "Exposure Compensation" to gain the extra Shutter Speed ?

I read about lots of guys in wildlife situations using Exposure Compensation to gain extra SS and even Landscape shooters who, for example need the correct SS as its critical for a scene that has moving water and they want that base ISO,, so to maintain that critical SS they use Exposure Compensation going as low as Minus 1-2 stops then bringing it back it post to great effect ..

I`ve tried it myself (only Twice mind you) to keep the SS fast enough and it works a treat .. its something I think I`ll use more often


Coho-Blue

If your ss and iso are fixed the only other variable that exposure compensation can adjust is aperture, which opening up is often not ideal for landscapes as you often will be shooting at f8 - f11 to maintain sharpness throughout the scene.

 

[Kopite4Ever]

Sounds like you need a sturdier Tripod

The other half will kill me if I spend more money on camera gear.

 

[Kopite4Ever]

The main thing that is wrong with it is that its underexposed and shot in crappy light, plus its actually not a very interesting scene and the scene itself is a mess.
White balance is probably out too.

Psychologically thats instantly making you question everything about the photo. Reject it move on.

Probably should just give up then

I agree its a rubbish photo but nothing ventured nothing gained. In regards to exposure the histogram looks okay I think pushing it further to the right may have blown out some of the brighter areas towards the top left.

 

[Kopite4Ever]

Thanks for the input anyways looks to be a combination of things. I will move on.

Ta

 

[riddell]

In regards to exposure the histogram looks okay I think pushing it further to the right may have blown out some of the brighter areas towards the top left.

No, its well underexposed.
You are right though about blowing out the top, and this is where you'd need to employ grads to stop that happening.
More importantly if you'd have waited for the right time of day so the sun lit up the main part of the image, then it would have jumped up a lot in quality. Although it still isn't an exciting vista in anyway.

 

[Michael Batten]

No, its well underexposed.
You are right though about blowing out the top, and this is where you'd need to employ grads to stop that happening.
More importantly if you'd have waited for the right time of day so the sun lit up the main part of the image, then it would have jumped up a lot in quality. Although it still isn't an exciting vista in anyway.

It's really not, exposure is subjective and used for artistic purposes and the poster is quite right in saying that if the histogram is pushed to far to the left then the image with have blown highlights.

Whether the image meets your criteria for a good image is also subjective to you.

If people don't have anything constructive to say then I really wish they'd move on without the necessity of slagging off peoples images especially when the question was on another topic.

 

[darkroom12]

I don't understand what you mean by 'dirty'. In the 2nd image especially, it seems to me that it is just under exposed. As snow was covering a major part did you use any exposure compensation? Some recommend up to 2 stops more exposure, but I think in this case, 1 stop more would have boosted the image. I would not have worried about blowing the highlights, if it was shot in RAW that would be well within the limits of being able to reclaim some or most of the detail.

 

[LeeRatters]

The trouble with positive exposure compensation is that it would give a higher iso and or a slower shutter speed both of which could make things worse. I think it is just a case of doing what you thought was the best in those circumstances and it just not working out.

It is the sort of situation where I would take several images at different settings. Just for insurance

 

[StephenM]

It's really not, exposure is subjective and used for artistic purposes and the poster is quite right in saying that if the histogram is pushed to far to the left then the image with have blown highlights.

Whether the image meets your criteria for a good image is also subjective to you.

I've looked (several times), read the comments above, and my (subjective, if you like) opinion is that it isn't "dirty" (although I'm not entirely certain what that means ). I also actually like it as it stands, and would be happy if I'd produced it.

 

[riddell]

It's really not, exposure is subjective and used for artistic purposes and the poster is quite right in saying that if the histogram is pushed to far to the left then the image with have blown highlights.
If people don't have anything constructive to say then I really wish they'd move on without the necessity of slagging off peoples images especially when the question was on another topic.

Exposure is of course subjective, but there are limits and this sort of a phrase is too often used as a crutch to support an incorrectly taken image. Just as it is to avoid using the correct techniques.

I gave constructive advice by employing the use of grads and waiting for the correct light. And can further offer advice that bracketing and merging could have been used as well, all options which would gain a correct exposure without blowing anything out.

Being poorly exposed under such dull lighting conditions is undoubtedly contributing towards the 'dirty' effect

 

[Kopite4Ever]

I gave constructive advice by employing the use of grads and waiting for the correct light. And can further offer advice that bracketing and merging could have been used as well, all options which would gain a correct exposure without blowing anything out.

That light never came could have been there all day. It was just a gap in the cloud that poked some average light through. Its also where forums crack me up. You say use grads, the guy at the top said dont use grads for that focal length. ??? who knows best, the word of two strangers

Thanks for all the comments, like I said it was just something I noticed when reviewing some images from a couple of days shooting. Never claimed it was anything worth of keeping just was wondering why (dirty is probably a bad word) the image maybe gritty and lacking in detail in the outer areas of the image, when the body and lens combo can produce supreme images in the right hands

I usually do take my time, shoot a few exposures using a few different settings for a broader range to check but it was bitterly cold at the time on top of a fell & not a scene I was going to hang around for as its a bit boring.

I did have a play in LR and boosted the overall exposure tweaked some of the whites and highlights and its a little cleaner with a more black/white tone than the blue/grey tone it had.

 

[Michael Batten]

The main thing that is wrong with it is that its underexposed and shot in crappy light, plus its actually not a very interesting scene and the scene itself is a mess.
White balance is probably out too.

Psychologically thats instantly making you question everything about the photo. Reject it move on.

That is far from constructive. You've based your opinion on how you would capture the image not on how the poster has captured it.

Exposure is of course subjective, but there are limits and this sort of a phrase is too often used as a crutch to support an incorrectly taken image. Just as it is to avoid using the correct techniques.

I gave constructive advice by employing the use of grads and waiting for the correct light. And can further offer advice that bracketing and merging could have been used as well, all options which would gain a correct exposure without blowing anything out.

Being poorly exposed under such dull lighting conditions is undoubtedly contributing towards the 'dirty' effect

I disagree, there is no such thing as correct light otherwise landscapes would only be taken in the "golden hour" which is utter codswallop. Rule of thirds anyone, or an interesting foreground, lead in lines. Blah blah blah. These "rules" are written in stone? Sent from the photography gods deemed so important not to challenge? No they are not.

Whether you personally like, love, dislike, hate an image is your whim however if you don't like it just move one.

People should be encouraged, not told that what they produce is crappy because someone deems it so.

 

[riddell]

That is far from constructive. You've based your opinion on how you would capture the image not on how the poster has captured it.

No. I gave advice on a technique that can be used to solve a problem next time.

Faced with a situation, such as having framed an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the camera you need to employ one technique or another. You can't just hope for the best.
If you are not prepared to learn....