Ooh thanks. I'll give that a watch and have a go.Nikon D700 has live view and lcd magnification so you can manual focus more precisely.
Have a look a the videos below, all on D700.
Ooh thanks. I'll give that a watch and have a go.Nikon D700 has live view and lcd magnification so you can manual focus more precisely.
Have a look a the videos below, all on D700.
I haven't sharpened this image but it still shouldn't look this bad.What settings did you use for sharpening in Affinity? Is it possible you forgot to sharpen before exporting?
I did wonder about doing that!To rule out any settings that may have caused the issue you could perform a reset.
Doing a search on the topic found this
Post in thread 'D700 Reset To Factory Conditions' https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/d700-reset-to-factory-conditions.134061/post-1542717
I ran it through affinity's de-haze filter, and got much the same as you.and perhaps by atmospheric haze
I over sharpened it as a test, and the focus appears to be between the rock and the tree.I did NOT add any sharpening.
I really don't think this is a sharpening issue. The image is very clearly slightly out of focus.What settings did you use for sharpening in Affinity? Is it possible you forgot to sharpen before exporting?
There’s a difference between ‘in focus’ and sharp. Many things can make something unsharpThankyou. 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.
No, it's not. While it will resolve detail in the right environments, there is notable noise in the shadow detail of the tree line, for instance. I shoot a 10MP Canon, and that has been my experience.Rubbish.
From the D700:
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GtBAow]Father & Son by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
[url=https://flic.kr/p/G7SHR1]Stormy Lyme Regis (1 of 1) by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]
Sharp as you like
In focus noise though probably.No, it's not. While it will resolve detail in the right environments, there is notable noise in the shadow detail of the tree line, for instance. I shoot a 10MP Canon, and that has been my experience.
Interesting. I hadn't appreciated there was a difference. I will read up. Thankyou.There’s a difference between ‘in focus’ and sharp. Many things can make something unsharp
I don't want to take this thread too far off-topic, but. . .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.
Presumably a bit smaller.Geez how did we enlarge images 10 years ago with only 12mp cameras?
In focus noise though probably.
And we weren't discussing noise
Thankyou. Lots to think about there. I spent a while experimenting yesterday with both my camera body's and my 3 lenses. I have more experiments planned for the weekend. I hear that a D700 with a 50mm 1.8 lens should give sharp images so I'm going to work with that combination for a while to improve my technique.I don't want to take this thread too far off-topic, but. . .
When the D700 came out, 12mp was a lot. most were 3 or 6mp. Apparent sharpness is all about viewing distance, so even massive enlargements are OK at reasonable viewing distances. I still have and use one, and also have the D3, which is basically the same camera but with a few extra features that put it in the "Pro" camp. I also had a medium format 6mp camera, which produced even better results.
An anecdote. A few years ago one of my images was used on our display stand at Focus on Imaging, as it then was. We'd hired a graphic designer who thought that she knew all about photography but who knew nothing, she took my image and printed a small part of it at 4m high. Just guessing, but I think that if she had used the full frame the image would have been at least 9m x 6m. And, to make matters even worse, she had it printed on gloss paper.
But, to my amazement, it looked (almost) pin-sharp, even when viewed at a distance of less than a metre, which is a a typical viewing distance at an exhibition.
So, why did it work?
Shot in raw, correctly exposed and correctly focussed. No camera shake, ISO 200, decent lens.
Improve your technique
Focus with care. When the subject allows you to (such as a landscape) check the image for both correct focus and camera shake by enlarging it on the viewing screen after taking the shot. Make absolutely sure that you don't underexpose. Use a good tripod when you need one.
Check the lens quality
It may or may not be OK, as suggested by others, compare it to other lenses that are available to you. It may or may not focus as expected.
Post Processing
Is an important part of photography today, and we simply can't manage without it. Free versions are available but personally I think that a subscription to Photoshop is well worth the cost. Use PP to improve good images, don't take the lazy approach of trying to rescue bad ones, it can never work. Don't shoot in raw unless you have the right software, and don't expect the learning process to be a quick one.
This shot of mine is in focus, but it's nowhere near sharp because of the heat haze coming up off the track surface. Loads of things can lead to reduced image sharpness that are nothing to do with the shot being in focus or not.Interesting. I hadn't appreciated there was a difference. I will read up. Thankyou.
OTTOMHInteresting. I hadn't appreciated there was a difference. I will read up. Thankyou.
Ahh I get it. Thanks.This shot of mine is in focus, but it's nowhere near sharp because of the heat haze coming up off the track surface. Loads of things can lead to reduced image sharpness that are nothing to do with the shot being in focus or not.
British GT Championship 2023 by Richard Crawford, on Flickr
Excellent information. Thank you.OTTOMH
camera movement
Subject movement
Heat haze
UV haze
Moisture haze
Lens Flare
Softer light creates softer images than harder light.
Not a comprehensive list.
And importantly all of the above are ‘features’ of an environment or situation that we may want to capture rather than eliminate.
Which brings us to the conclusion that the only ‘bad’ picture is one that doesn’t achieve the aims of the photographer.
And why we sometimes appear pedantic when someone posts an image and asks ‘what went wrong’ and the first response is ‘what were you aiming to achieve?’
And back to your image?Excellent information. Thank you.
It wasn't meant to look nice. I was experimenting with trying to get things in focus. Foreground, midground and in the distance.And back to your image?
IMHO what went wrong first is that I don’t know what it’s a picture of!
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you might have stood in nature and thought what you were looking at was beautiful, however the composition you’ve chosen doesn’t reflect that.
There’s no obvious ‘subject’, no use of any compositional tools to create a compelling image. You appear to have just lifted your camera and made a half arsed attempt to focus on the ‘landscape’. Which is probably why nothing looks sharp, it looks snatched rather than considered.
That’s not how ‘focus’ works, or consequently how photography works.It wasn't meant to look nice. I was experimenting with trying to get things in focus. Foreground, midground and in the distance.
Out of interest, in your picture, where did you actually focus the camera?It wasn't meant to look nice. I was experimenting with trying to get things in focus. Foreground, midground and in the distance.
Phil is right. Like me, he isn't always tactful, but tact doesn't always work . . .And back to your image?
IMHO what went wrong first is that I don’t know what it’s a picture of!
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you might have stood in nature and thought what you were looking at was beautiful, however the composition you’ve chosen doesn’t reflect that.
There’s no obvious ‘subject’, no use of any compositional tools to create a compelling image. You appear to have just lifted your camera and made a half arsed attempt to focus on the ‘landscape’. Which is probably why nothing looks sharp, it looks snatched rather than considered.
That’s not quite what I said:Phil V called it. It's a general rule of thumb that you focus on a point that's about a third of the way in. The reasoning being that if you have a small enough aperture you should have sufficient focus before and after.
That’s not quite what I said:
In fact at worst it’s where I pointed out the OP may have been misled. (Sorry)
Whilst I understand the principle of hyperfocal distance, I could never bring myself to not focus on a ‘subject’, I find the notion bonkers.
I concur. It works but rarely, and only in the hands of certain seasoned individuals. For the run of the mill practitioner, it's a cliché technique that they've read about, try to emulate and hopefully will grow out of. There's no way that real life can be represented by a 'painting by numbers' approach (if anybody understands that reference).... silky water shots for example. I just can't bring myself to do it.
Thanks @woof woof but again a slight misunderstandingIt sort of works and it sort of works well enough that a whole picture can look ok and even look ok when zooming in to 100% and looking around the picture, from front to back, things may look ok. I do this quite often.
As I've often advised, we should start at the end result we want and work back to determine both the kit needed and the settings used. For me using a "FF" camera and mostly lenses in the 28-50mm range and mostly viewing pictures as whole pictures or slight crops (after lens profiles/corrections or for aesthetic reasons) on a screen or occasionally as A4 prints with rare A3 prints hyperfocal techniques seem to work quite well and perhaps with some focal lengths and apertures and compositions you're going to get pretty much front to back acceptable sharpness even if you deliberately focus on something depending upon what distance things are from you, what aperture and focal length you are using and how big things are in the frame.
There may be a number of reasons why someone might do this. Acceptable sharpness all over could be a a reason, speed could be another. For example I often use manual lenses and if set to a suitable aperture and distance using a prefocus technique can be a quick and effective thing to do.
But I do know how you feel. Some things just feel wrong. With you it's hyperfocal and I have things which just seem wrong to me, silky water shots for example. I just can't bring myself to do it.
Thanks @woof woof but again a slight misunderstanding
I don’t object to the principle of close to front to back focussing, many great landscape photos are made using this technique.
My problem with the discussion of it is that it can lead newbies into believing it doesn’t matter where they focus as long as DoF is wide because ‘everything will be in focus’ which is both technically incorrect, and can lead to the misunderstanding shown here by the OP.
BTW silky water is a bit of a bete noir of mine.
Thanks @woof woof but again a slight misunderstanding
I don’t object to the principle of close to front to back focussing, many great landscape photos are made using this technique.
My problem with the discussion of it is that it can lead newbies into believing it doesn’t matter where they focus as long as DoF is wide because ‘everything will be in focus’ which is both technically incorrect, and can lead to the misunderstanding shown here by the OP.
BTW silky water is a bit of a bete noir of mine.