| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2005 01:39:29 PM · #1 |
Hi Folks,
I just got back from holidays in Tasmania, Australia. It is a beautiful place and I didn't waste any moments to snap a few shots.
What I found however is despite my supposed understanding of photography some photos turned out soft and dismal and others true to form. I don't shoot in Auto and most of the exposures were made in either aperture-priority or Manual modes because of the lighting conditions.
In these shots I'm using only the 300D/ Digital Rebel with the Kit 18-55 lens on a tripod and cable release. Looking through the folder I can see a massive difference between the photographs in terms of quality but the only real difference I see is zooming in or out a bit. Surely the sweet spot isn't so sweet that a zoom is really only a fancy prime lens?!
I'm so confused because I'm sure I didn't fluke the hyperfocal ratio, and the aperture shouldn't have made such as dramatic difference as it did. It gets so amazingly complex that I either become a scientist and loose the ability to capture the mood of the image or I keep with the moods and botch it up with post processing and never get any quality work.
Please ignore composition/ colour balance. These are just straight out of the camera and I already know my composition sucks 80% the time anyway. Can you see the difference in the sharpness and image quality?
This one worked (in my opinion)
Shooting Mode: Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ): 2.5
Av( Aperture Value ): 11
This one was not as sharp but the only change it that it is slightly zoomed out and is a longer exposire.
Shooting Mode: Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ): 3.2
Av( Aperture Value ): 11
This one is even more zoomed out.
Shooting Mode: Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ): 3.2
Av( Aperture Value ): 9.0
I'm sorry if my question doesn't make sense. I have read heaps about the science of photography over the last 3 years. I'm just so baffled as to how these brilliant photographers can compute these cumbersome equations, get a sharp photo and still capture the mood of the scene.
I would love to just be able to achieve photos that are to the best capacity of the equipment I own before any further purchases are made.
Thank you very much for reading this and I hope I'm not asking too much.
Thanks,
Michael Black. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:47:28 PM · #2 |
I don't get your shutter speed. Is that 2.5, 3.2 and 3.2? You lost me.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:50:08 PM · #3 |
i would think it is in seconds.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:52:15 PM · #4 |
I'm not entirely sure that I see a difference in sharpness/image quality but those photos are pretty small to look at...
Which one do you think is the one that's sharper than the others?
I'm kind of lost, too...
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:02:48 PM · #5 |
Disregarding the funky shutter speeds, I am guessing that you think the widest image is the sharpest? I will also guess that you were not using a tripod. Based on these assumptions, I will tell you that camera shake is intesified at longer focal lengths. That may be it in a nutshell.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 14:06:04.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:04:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Disregarding the funky shutter speeds, I am guessing that you think the widest image is the sharpest? I will also guess that you were not using a tripod. Bassed on these assumptions, I will tell you that camera shake is intesified at longer focal lengths. That may be it in a nutshell. |
And DOF is decreased, right?
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:05:52 PM · #7 |
| I guess the obvious question is did you use manual focus? If so did you use a hyperfocal distance chart and change it based on zoom? If you used auto focus are the places within the image that are sharp the areas that you focused? In the second image you have a foreground tree that looks in focus (hard to tell with small photos). Were you trying to get that sharp or the waterfall or which? |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:06:55 PM · #8 |
And what lens were you using?
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:08:35 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Disregarding the funky shutter speeds, I am guessing that you think the widest image is the sharpest? I will also guess that you were not using a tripod. Based on these assumptions, I will tell you that camera shake is intesified at longer focal lengths. That may be it in a nutshell. |
He said he used a tripod and a cable release. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:08:58 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Disregarding the funky shutter speeds, I am guessing that you think the widest image is the sharpest? I will also guess that you were not using a tripod. Bassed on these assumptions, I will tell you that camera shake is intesified at longer focal lengths. That may be it in a nutshell. |
And DOF is decreased, right? |
He was shooting at f/9 with a fairly short zoom. I don't think in this case that it would make that much of a difference.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:09:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Disregarding the funky shutter speeds, I am guessing that you think the widest image is the sharpest? I will also guess that you were not using a tripod. Based on these assumptions, I will tell you that camera shake is intesified at longer focal lengths. That may be it in a nutshell. |
He said he used a tripod and a cable release. |
My bad.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:10:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
He was shooting at f/9 with a fairly short zoom. I don't think in this case that it would make that much of a difference. |
Gotcha.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:18:47 PM · #13 |
According to Michael's original post, he thinks the most-zoomed of the 3 (the first one) is the "sharpest."
It's impossible for me to discern a difference at this resolution. I'd observe that the most-zoomed image makes the background leaves larger and gives an impression of greater sharpness to the image, but I'm not sure it's physically any sharper than the others.
Extremely small apertures (physical size) can reduce sharpness. Every lens has an aperture at which is is the sharpest it can be, and any stopping down beyond that point increases DOF at the expense of critical sharpness. In the best lenses the effect is negligible.
I'd have to see the original files...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 14:21:54.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:32:50 PM · #14 |
Could you post a small full-sized crop of each image that shows what you are talking about -- the reduction in size has removed any difference there to begin with.
BTW: these images must have been chosen from the 20% with composition that didn't suck. :P
David
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:39:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
BTW: these images must have been chosen from the 20% with composition that didn't suck. :P
David |
Yeah, that first one is composed superbly...I think...
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 06:20:21 PM · #16 |
I can't see a lot of difference in sharpness but if there is, then the obvious answer is either focus or camera shake. Assuming you were using auto focus and that it operated consistently, I would ask about the cable release. Does the 300D have a timed delay shutter release? and does it have mirror lockup? If so, that might give a steadier camera for the long exposures you are using.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 07:12:57 PM · #17 |
Groover, I also cannot discern any issues regarding overall sharpness due to the size of the posted images. Waterfall landscape shots can be tricky, especially when you are trying to effectively slow the motion of the water so it looks smooth. As has been said already lenses have a sweet spot in regards to their zoom range and aperture settings where you are able to get the maximum DOF and image sharpness. You may want to test your lenses in a very controlled situation to learn about your particular lenses. Generally you want to stay away from the extreme ends of the aperture and zoom ranges unless you have tested your lenses beforehand and know for sure that those ranges work well. Frankly, I enjoy these photos and I can't see any major problems with them except that maybe they are slightly over-exposed. The highlights in the waterfalls could use a little more detail. That might mean underexposing the shadow areas slightly with the intent of brightening (with dodging or the shadow/highlight filter) them up later in your editor. Also, keep in mind what type of exposure meter setting you are using. If you are using a wide area metering mode you will get various exposure readings depending on what zoom range you are at. The values of your scene that the camera is reading are changing as you are zooming in and out. I know when I am taking pictures in one of the manual modes I am often still making decision based on the cameras exposure readings. Sometimes it can mess me up if I am not careful. And lastly, the camera files are going to always need, at least, a little sharpening and other exposure and color enhancements. That's what most of the pros do. Good luck and it looks like you enjoyed your vacation.
T
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 07:17:35 PM · #18 |
| I can simply say this...I find my 18-55mm to be noticably sharper at 30-55mm than 18-29. Also, I find aperatures between f8-11 to be more sharp than others, especially when fully zoomed at 55mm. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 08:27:33 PM · #19 |
Thanks for your replies folks! I will upload some full resolution crops as well as more photographs that illustrate what I'm talking about.
From what I have experienced it is not camera shake, issues with mirror lock up (I'm using the hack firmware), compression qualities or even the mode I'm using... just sometimes the shot will come out great with good detail, great depth and clarity and others are soft or a digicam dull grey etc.
It must be some combination with focal length, aperture, where the light source is, where I am, what the ambient conditions are, and what stars I am aligned to in the solar system and the distance between me and those stars...!
Thanks,
Michael. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:07:13 PM EDT.
