Beginner Why are my images soft?

H

Hawthorn

Messages
124
Edit My Images
Yes
Really hoping someone can help. Nothing I take on my Nikon D700 is sharp. This unedited image was taken 60mm, f10, 1/125, iso 200 and is a good example of the problem. I've tried using a different lens, a
tripod and putting a delay on the shutter button but still the same soft results. When I use my more basic D50 I get shaper images.


Soft1.jpg
 
What make of lenses are you using?
 
It's not.

Soft1.jpg

Took about thirty seconds to buck it up a bit.
 
You posted a picture of a snail on the DPOTY thread and that doesn't look soft. Was it the same camera?
 
Hawthorn said:
Looks awful at 100% they all do.
Click to expand...

You've also got to factor in the MP's. I think yours is only 12MP, isn't it? It probably won't look great blown up.
 
Plain Nev said:
You've also got to factor in the MP's. I think yours is only 12MP, isn't it? It probably won't look great blown up.
Click to expand...
I will have to do more experimenting because I put the same lens on my even more ancient d50 and got better results today which has far less megapixels
 
ShinySideUp said:
You posted a picture of a snail on the DPOTY thread and that doesn't look soft. Was it the same camera?
Click to expand...
Yes it was. I was surprised it came out like that as I've been having consistant trouble with my d700. I'm sure I've got something set wrong on it.
 
I did wonder about the weight of the lens and body causing shaking (1.8kg combined) but my tripod stuff isn't right either. Neither are images with the 28-70. Having said all that, my tripod isn't really up to the job.
 
Does it have image stablising in the lens? That needs to be off if your on a tripod. I dont have the Nikon 28-300 but I do have the Canon, it's an OK lens, but not a great lens. The D700 is still a good camera, it should do better than that.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Does it have image stablising in the lens? That needs to be off if your on a tripod. I dont have the Nikon 28-300 but I do have the Canon, it's an OK lens, but not a great lens. The D700 is still a good camera, it should do better than that.
Click to expand...
Yes it does have image stabilising. I didn't know to turn it off for the tripod (thankyou). That shot was hand held though. D70O has a great reputation but i know something isn't right
 
ashishtamhane said:
Have you tried calibrating the lens for the D700?
Click to expand...
No. I did read something about that online but it sounded a bit complicated. since I have issue with both the lenses I've been using, I'm thinking its to do with either me or the body.
 
Hawthorn said:
Nikon 28-300
Click to expand...
Well that is awful
Hawthorn said:
also have nikon 28-70
Click to expand...
would that be 3.5-4.5 by any chance? Even if it is not, yeah they are not so great on digital going beyond 4x6".

Perhaps some dodgy filter on top?

Besides your focusing is potentially all over the place.

There you have it. Even though D700 is not a demanding camera, it is demanding enough to have at least a basic decent lens. Collect a few Sigma ART primes, then get yourself a higher res body and all will be sharp.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Well that is awful

would that be 3.5-4.5 by any chance? Even if it is not, yeah they are not so great on digital going beyond 4x6".

Perhaps some dodgy filter on top?

Besides your focusing is potentially all over the place.

There you have it. Even though D700 is not a demanding camera, it is demanding enough to have at least a basic decent lens. Collect a few Sigma ART primes, then get yourself a higher res body and all will be sharp.
Click to expand...
Yes it is the 3.5 -4.5. No filters (dodgy or otherwise) Sadly no money for lenses and body's atm. Saving for a tripod which can hold the weight. I'm really hoping it's a user error issue. I have a nikon 50mm 1.8 so I'll go and and take some test shots with all 3 lenses at 50mm and see what happens. My focus probably is all over the place as I'm trying different things to see what helps. Thanks for the reply.
 
Gav. said:
Have you done any editing and sharpening in software?
RAW can show as soft from the camera.
Click to expand...
They do look sharper after processing but obviously there is only so much you can do with that so I need a better starting point.
 
You need to rule out as many things as possible, using all 3 lenses at the same focal length is a good start - I would also suggest camera in manual, on a tripod, and using the self timer.
 
^^^^^
Good start

Stop wandering aimlessly around the countryside taking snaps and hoping for the best - too many variables involved.

put the camera on a tripod or, failing that, a hard surface like a kitchen worktop
put the 50mm on and set it at f/4, ISO 200, aperture priority metering
point it at a flat subject with clear details, about 2 to 3 meters away - eg cereal box with clear text
switch to live view and focus manually, using image magnification
take a shot using exposure delay

IF that works, do the same thing, but using autofocus - still in live view

IF that works, do the same thing but using the viewfinder, with autofocus


if none of these processes give a sharp image, you’ve got a problem with the body - highly unlikely IMO
 
Hawthorn said:
It was raw.
Click to expand...
A common misconception is that Raw files are 'higher quality' than a jpeg. Straight out of camera a Raw will look much worse than a jpeg, as you need to process the Raw file. What you've posted looks about right for an unprocessed Raw. Try shooting a jpeg and it will look much better. A Raw is just that, raw data from the image sensor and you are meant to process it before anybody sees the final image.

Raw is better if you're happy to spend the time on a computer / tablet / phone processing the shot afterwards using something like Lightroom, or one of the many other photo processing software packages available.

PS Don't feel bad about this, if you go way way back to my early posts in 2008 or 2009 I ask basically the exact same question.
 
Last edited:
Get a "nifty fifty" (50mm prime lens) and see how you do.

This will rule out your lenses being naff and won't break the bank.

12MP is more than enough to be sharp at 100%. (I know I used to have that camera).

I had the 35-70 F2.8 & 80-200 f2.8 and I had some great results.
 
Hawthorn said:
Yes it does have image stabilising. I didn't know to turn it off for the tripod (thankyou). That shot was hand held though. D70O has a great reputation but i know something isn't right
Click to expand...
We had a d700 (and a d3) which if I remember rightly had the same sensor. I used both a lot, never had any sharpness issues, we still have the d3, my mate still uses it a lot. Most IS lens have a switch on the side of the lens to turn on or off IS, I dont know if the 28-300 has it though.
If your hand held leave it on normally.
 
ecoleman said:
Geez how did we enlarge images 10 years ago with only 12mp cameras?
Click to expand...
12mp is fine for everything other than massive enlargements. This question is really about technique, not equipment, and better equipment doesn't replace poor technique!
RichardC27 said:
A common misconception is that Raw files are 'higher quality' than a jpeg. Straight out of camera a Raw will look much worse than a jpeg, as you need to process the Raw file. What you've posted looks about right for an unprocessed Raw. Try shooting a jpeg and it will look much better. A Raw is just that, raw data from the image sensor and you are meant to process it before anybody sees the final image.

Raw is better if you're happy to spend the time on a computer / tablet / phone processing the shot afterwards using something like Lightroom, or one of the many other photo processing software packages available.

PS Don't feel bad about this, if you go way way back to my early posts in 2008 or 2009 I ask basically the exact same question.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Original shot below left, very quick edit below right. I added some vibrance and adjusted the contrast. I did NOT add any sharpening. The unsharpness in the distance seems to me to be caused partly by less than perfect focus (DOF limitation) and perhaps by atmospheric haze. We can't do much about DOF issues because we can't "bend" the laws of physics, but focus stacking is always and option. . .
soft_combined.jpg
 
Hello Hawthorn.

Being positive, I don't think there's an issue with your camera or lens. It'll no doubt be a mixture of things overlooked at the time of taking the shot. I have thousands of examples on my hard drive ;)
 
yzfmike said:
^^^^^
Good start

Stop wandering aimlessly around the countryside taking snaps and hoping for the best - too many variables involved.

put the camera on a tripod or, failing that, a hard surface like a kitchen worktop
put the 50mm on and set it at f/4, ISO 200, aperture priority metering
point it at a flat subject with clear details, about 2 to 3 meters away - eg cereal box with clear text
switch to live view and focus manually, using image magnification
take a shot using exposure delay

IF that works, do the same thing, but using autofocus - still in live view

IF that works, do the same thing but using the viewfinder, with autofocus


if none of these processes give a sharp image, you’ve got a problem with the body - highly unlikely IMO
Click to expand...
I will give it a go but I'm not sure I've got live view. Thankyou.
 
swanseamale47 said:
We had a d700 (and a d3) which if I remember rightly had the same sensor. I used both a lot, never had any sharpness issues, we still have the d3, my mate still uses it a lot. Most IS lens have a switch on the side of the lens to turn on or off IS, I dont know if the 28-300 has it though.
If your hand held leave it on normally.
Click to expand...
Yes the 28-300 has a switch on the side.
 
LouisDorset said:
Hello Hawthorn.

Being positive, I don't think there's an issue with your camera or lens. It'll no doubt be a mixture of things overlooked at the time of taking the shot. I have thousands of examples on my hard drive ;)
Click to expand...
Thankyou. I'm sure its user error but I can't understand why I get sharper results with my crop sensor body.
 
I remember when I had a Sigma 28-300mm and that lens was widely regarded as... not being very good... but I got some pictures I still look and and like today :D

My advice is to give the camera and lens every help you can, make sure you are focussed on something, make sure the shutter speed is adequate and process for best effect.

Good luck with it Hawthorn. I'm sure you'll be able to get good results and the beauty of digital is that it costs very little to experiment and see what works best for you.
 
Garry Edwards said:
12mp is fine for everything other than massive enlargements. This question is really about technique, not equipment, and better equipment doesn't replace poor technique!

Agreed. Original shot below left, very quick edit below right. I added some vibrance and adjusted the contrast. I did NOT add any sharpening. The unsharpness in the distance seems to me to be caused partly by less than perfect focus (DOF limitation) and perhaps by atmospheric haze. We can't do much about DOF issues because we can't "bend" the laws of physics, but focus stacking is always and option. . .
View attachment 407286
Click to expand...
Thankyou. I have got similar results by editing but nothing in the image appears sharp. Surely something must be in focus as it won't take the image until it finds something.
 
Hawthorn said:
Thankyou. I have got similar results by editing but nothing in the image appears sharp. Surely something must be in focus as it won't take the image until it finds something.
Click to expand...
Just because the camera says its in focus doesn't mean anything is. What had you focussed on?
 
RichardC27 said:
A common misconception is that Raw files are 'higher quality' than a jpeg. Straight out of camera a Raw will look much worse than a jpeg, as you need to process the Raw file. What you've posted looks about right for an unprocessed Raw. Try shooting a jpeg and it will look much better. A Raw is just that, raw data from the image sensor and you are meant to process it before anybody sees the final image.

Raw is better if you're happy to spend the time on a computer / tablet / phone processing the shot afterwards using something like Lightroom, or one of the many other photo processing software packages available.

PS Don't feel bad about this, if you go way way back to my early posts in 2008 or 2009 I ask basically the exact same question.
Click to expand...
I always take raw files because I edit them in affinity photo. This isn't an image I'd edit as it's absolutely naf but it was a good example of the problem I'm having. I just quickly changed it to jpg so I could upload it.
 
What settings did you use for sharpening in Affinity? Is it possible you forgot to sharpen before exporting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top