out of focus?

[hallbilly]

I'm trying to figure out why most of my pictures seem to be ALMOST focused? Sometimes it will be right on. But most of the times it seems like every image is just barely off. I could be the problem, no doubt there... Maby it is just the lcd screen on my computer. My eye sight is not what it used to be either!

This one was at 400mm f/5.6 ISO 400 and 1/640 second shutter. Crop + resize...
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/other/skeet.jpg

This one was at 250mm f/5 ISO 400 and 1/800 second shutter. Resized...
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/other/cory.jpg

I've read that the 100-400L is soft on the long end... but this happens with different lenses. And compared to the rest of my lens lineup it should be the sharpest. Is it the heat? I try to keep everything as clean as possible so I don't think it could be dirty glass.....

Or do I just need to start shooting more and get better?

[Rhys]

Yes. It does seem *almost* in focus. I get that problem a lot myself - which is why I'm dumping Canon in favour of Nikon. I have never seen a really sharp photo with my XT - no matter what lens I use. It seems to me that the AF is not that great. Nikon has an AF illuminator so the AF should be much more accurate. In any case, the D200 works with MF lenses :)

[DonSchap]

a polarizer on your lens? I've noticed that focus is directly affected by cheap polarizers on long glass.

Consider removing it and taking the same pictures. :cool:

[cwphoto]

Yes. It does seem *almost* in focus. I get that problem a lot myself - which is why I'm dumping Canon in favour of Nikon. I have never seen a really sharp photo with my XT - no matter what lens I use. It seems to me that the AF is not that great. Nikon has an AF illuminator so the AF should be much more accurate. In any case, the D200 works with MF lenses :)

Canon cameras are (all things being equal) no worse to focus than Nikon cameras Rhys, seems like an expensive way to find this out - but it's your dough. If you want better AF, why not move up to a 30D which should have equal AF to the D200 but without the hassle of changing a whole lens system?

BTW, Canon suppprts Nikon MF lenses via an adapter. And I'm pretty sure you can use the Speedlite's AF beam for focus assist too.

[hallbilly]

I've allready experienced the cheap CP filter... That upset me. The only filter I have been shooting with is a UV filter just to keep the dust off of the lens.

[coldrain]

No idea how Rhys can see they are almost in focus. They are resized (downsized) and that will give a downsize unsharpness anyway. A 100% crop is needed to judge sharpeness on these low screen resolutions.

What is clear though, is that you use a very large aperture. This will mean that the depth of field is very shallow, and then only a very small slice of the 3 dimensional subjects will actually be in focus.
Again, without 100% crops it is not possible to see what actually is in focus.

[cwphoto]

I dunno Coldy, they both look in focus to me. Maybe the first one the face is a little out but his shirt seems OK.

The second one looks fine - fine for a 100-400 L of course!:p :D

[coldrain]

To me they look fine too, and it seems a case of that the poster is not used to the softer images of DLSRs compared to "compact" digital cameras that do a lot of in-camera sharpening. That is also why it would be handy to see some 100% crops, so we can actually judge what his camera is producing.

Original poster: DSLRs have softer photos because in-camera sharpening leads to artifacts that can not be removed without loss anymore, so most DSLRs sharpen very conservatively. You are expected to sharpen in post process when you want/need to. Out of focus or "soft" are not the same thing.

[Rhys]

I see a certain amount of out-of-focusness in the faces and in the shirts. It's not something I can put my finger on and say "that's it" but there's something that's not quite right. I'm not sure whether it has to do with the narrow depth of field.

I did notice that AF film cameras when they first came out had the same kind of unsharpness about them. With a focussed film camera that unsharpness just wasn't present.

[hallbilly]

:( i've been trying to find a site that will host full size images but no luck yet...

[coldrain]

Please do not post full size photos, no reason to. Just cut out part of the photo, and post that. Those are called 100% (because the pixels are the original pixels, not scaled up or down) crops (you cropped the photo) to show what you see as out of focus. My bet is they are not out of focus, you just think they are because of DSLR softness when you look at the photos at 100%.

[DonSchap]

There have been several already suggested on DCRP in the past day or two.

[coldrain]

There have been several already suggested on DCRP in the past day or two.
No one wants full size photos posted... please have merci on us. You do not want to load several Mb per photo when you just happen to click on a forum topic. So, post scaled down photos, or post cropped details of photos.

[Vich]

Or post a link to the original, properly labeled as "Full Sized Original" or "56K warning", etc.

100% crop should suffice though - and it seems to be the only one you can host. Just cut an area that's less than 800x800 pixels and you may be able to post it as an attachment.

I hesitate to say anything before the 100% crop gets posted, but at first glance I tend to agree with the OP, they look slightly OOF. I have seen much sharper results straight from the camera. This looks similar to very slight camera shake, like when you take a fast lens to the theater and try as you will, you simply cannot get a clear shot. Bring a monopod or use an IS lens and suddenly they're clear as a bell (by comparison).

Look at what Peter posted with his 70-300 IS (horizontal view) [URL="http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=134935&postcount=13"]in this thread [URL].

[coldrain]

Peter knows how to unsharp mask when downsizing too, probably :P
No matter how sharp your original is, downsizing just also has a slight softening effect, ans soft is not out of focus.

[Vich]

Peter knows how to unsharp mask when downsizing too, probably :P
No matter how sharp your original is, downsizing just also has a slight softening effect, ans soft is not out of focus.
He posted links to full sized images and explicitly said there was no sharpening. That's why I used that link, since I'm not 100% sure about not sharpening the images I've taken recently.

Your points about in-camera sharpening being suppressed is not in dispute, those are relevant points. However; a sharp image is still possible without any sharpening - if proper care is given to technique (ie: tripod, shutter speed, IS, handholding method, etc).

I'll be happy to prove it next opportunity I get. I'll get out the tripod and post some ultra-clear photos straight from the camera this weekend. Surely you've experienced ultra sharp results straight from the camera. Surely the entire photography industry got by without sharpening all these years...

I don't know, maybe razor edges aren't possible, but these 2 photos are way below that threshold. Again, 100% crops can tell for sure. As you pointed out, reducing them could have introduced much of the problem. :)

[24Peter]

Peter knows how to unsharp mask when downsizing too, probably :P
FWIW - On 95% of my images I do not sharpen since Photo Impact 11's sharpening tool s#$ks. :D

[hallbilly]

I was going to post the links to full size images... but tonight when i get home i'll do 100% crops for you all;)

[hallbilly]

here are the 100% crops...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/projects/cory1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/projects/skeet1.jpg

I would not expect the DOF to be that small over 100 feet... maby its all just me and my focusing/picture taking??

[Vich]

here are the 100% crops...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/projects/cory1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/hallbilly/projects/skeet1.jpg

I would not expect the DOF to be that small over 100 feet... maby its all just me and my focusing/picture taking??
A 100% crop is, by definition, a crop. Or, post a link to a full sized copy. If you took this original at 233 K then there's your problem. I don't think so, but that's what downloaded when I saved it.

The 2nd pic does indeed look pretty sharp. And, like CWPhoto and ColdRain's practiced eyes declared, the shirt does look in-focus on the 1st.

Further, the EXIF data is missing, so what shutter speeds and aperture etc. Were these hand-held or from a tripod? At 400mm, I'd presume tripoded, although CDI-Buy was doing some pretty good 500mm shots handheld.

EDIT: I see you mentioned the shutter speed and aperture on the first post. Sorry. I am curious, what lens and/or TC?

[hallbilly]

They are 100 % crops...... the jpeg quality level was not at 12 though... maby 10 or so. I tried to cut them small enough to be bearable for everyone.

No TC
100-400L IS USM
300D rebel


Thanks everyone for the post... and nice shots peter! I have taken sharp pictures with this setup... but they are becoming less and less.

[coldrain]

Depth of field with tele can be quite small at f5.6 It is not like the 2nd pic has a totally bokeh face... and a bit of USM can recue it.

The 1st pic is sharp, nothing out of focus about the guy. Very DSLR. If you want more sharpness out of camera, set the parameters different. But I would not do that, the photo is fine and when you actually will blow up a picture and you need a bit more "sharpness", use good software on your computer to sharpen it more.

[Rhys]

Try this thread about Canon sharpness:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1665351#post1665351

[24Peter]

Thanks everyone for the post... and nice shots peter! I have taken sharp pictures with this setup... but they are becoming less and less.
Sharpness and focus issues are (often) two different things. I've never used the 100-400 IS but don't think it's known for being overly sharp. On the other hand, it seems to be focusing OK. For focus tests I usually use a high contrast subject (writing on the box the lens came in for instance) under more even/controlled lighting. The shots you posted look focused. Their sharpness is probably more typical of the lens under those lighting conditions.