Sharpness - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/05/2006 02:14:42 PM · #1

I have been shooting some photos, and have found that even though the camera is focusing ok, and I am getting good quality images based on color and lighting that the sharpness is too soft in almost all cases. Even the most in focus part of the photo will be not quite as sharp as I would like. I usually try and fix up using sharp filters in PS, but I would like to start with a better initial image. I get the same effect in low light or bright light, in the auto mode and manual, even with quick shutter speeds (my initial thought was I was moving).

I have a D50 with an 18-55mm Nikkor (standard lens) and a 70-300mm Tamron di macro. I get the same results with both. I notice that on this site people are getting incredibly sharp images that are stunning. I know that you all are better than I, but is it the gear or the opperator that is causing this?

taterbug

Nikon D300

06/05/2006 02:32:08 PM · #2

Hi :-) There should be settings in your camera's menu to adjust the amount of in camera sharpening. You could check to see what that is set at. They say DSLRs generally are a little less sharp, and most folks like the camera to not add sharpening at all, so they can control it in their editing.

As far as sharpening in your processing, the standard that most people use is the USM in ps. (that's unsharp mask) It will be in the menu in ps under filters>sharpen>unsharp mask. You will get many different answers as to the best settings :-) There is a tutorial on the site here (menu bar- learn>tutorials) on sharpening. The best thing is to play around with it. A starting point could be 220, 1.0, 1. Also, depending on what version of ps you have, the new smart sharpen is gaining a lot of fans also. I have just started using it, and seems to work well, just need some more refining :-)

taterbug

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

06/05/2006 02:35:35 PM · #3

here is the link to the sharpening tutorial

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

06/05/2006 02:39:19 PM · #4

I had similar issues with the D70. I know it is naturally a little softer than we think. But I have solved this with the following:

1. Better arm technique positions for stability.
2. Tripod use most people say is a must.
3. Lenses will make a difference. My Sigma 105mm Macro is very very sharp.
4. Aperture values will cause the subject to pop more (f/2.8 for instance). For for landscapes something like f/8 or f/10 for sharpness.
5. Using Unsharp mask properly. Toy will radius and percentage. I never use 220,1,1. not to say that doesn't work. But......I keep threshold at 0, but will not divulge other tricks. But just play with those other numbers.
6. Odds are it is not your camera body.

Here is my kit lens example:

Here is my crappy zoom example:

I consider these to be very sharp. And if you look at the original, I had to really work the digital darkroom to achieve the look I saw in person. Just really practice in photoshop and make it your best friend. Even more than your camera. Because the camera is easy to master. The Post is the tough part.

Hope that helps.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/05/2006 02:53:12 PM · #5

Have you eliminated camera shake as the problem? If you shoot at say 1/2000th shutter speed or use a tripod does your images come out sharper? If so then just make sure you used a shutter speed that matches or exceeds the length you are shooting at. For example, if shooting at 300mm use only a shutter speed of 1/300th or faster. Bump up the ISO if that's difficult to do. On a good day I can hand hold my 70-200mm (non IS) attached with a 1.4x extender at 280mm with only a shutter speed of around 1/25th and still get sharp images but not everyone can do that.

Message edited by author 2006-06-05 14:54:33.

06/05/2006 03:04:04 PM · #6

Wow! You guys rock. This is some great information on this.

Cutter: First of all those images are awesome! They are far sharper than the ones that I have out of the camera thus far. Those eagle picts really bring a smile to my face they are so nicely done!

Yanko: I have not eliminated camera shake 100% Even on my junky tripod it has been a bit windy most of the time and I cannot rule out camera shake. I love the example you have given me for the shutter speed exceeding the length I am shooting at. That is a great piece of advice I will remember.

Taterbug: I have not messed with the sharpness in the camera. I might try a few picts with that soon just to see what happens.

Could the problem lie in the focus? Should the autofocus be razor sharp?

Message edited by author 2006-06-05 15:09:31.

Prof_Fate

06/05/2006 03:13:21 PM · #7

//visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

printing and web display require different sharpening, and most likely you can adjust how much sharpening is done in-camera. Also, different images require different sharpening.

What works most of the time for me is a USM of 300%, .3,0 on teh jpg when i first open it in PS. then i do the work on it and resize it for teh web - then either another run like above or most often a 45%, .9, 1. For web use the second shot at sharpening is most useful. I do high pass at times too but it's not legal for basic editing.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/05/2006 03:24:46 PM · #8

That is a great article and might be my problem.

Here is an example of an image that I sharpened with software. The original is very unsharp and almost out of focus, but I have about 12 shots of this bird with the same exact result. Is this as good as I can expect? Should I just continue to use software to sharpen and not worry about the originals being soft? To my untrained eye the photos I see on this site are much crisper.

Message edited by author 2006-06-08 17:18:34.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/05/2006 04:18:40 PM · #9

Originally posted by Cutter:

But......I keep threshold at 0, but will not divulge other tricks.

My my.

06/05/2006 04:21:09 PM · #10

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by Cutter:

But......I keep threshold at 0, but will not divulge other tricks.

My my.

Ha! I was thinking that too. ;-) How about Radius 0.6 Amount 75?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/06/2006 12:50:00 AM · #11

Well I played around with it in photoshop, and it is working great. I have a couple images that I was able to make look much more pleasing using the sharpness suggestions you gave me. Thanks a bunch.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/06/2006 01:59:44 AM · #12

Originally posted by boomtap:

Well I played around with it in photoshop, and it is working great. I have a couple images that I was able to make look much more pleasing using the sharpness suggestions you gave me. Thanks a bunch.

Keep in mind that NO digital camera delivers what we would consider a sharp image without SOME sort of sharpening applied at some point in the process. You can instruct the camera to do it for you, or you can do it yourself in PP.

For routine family snapshots and the like, in-camera sharpening (and saturation etc) is certainly the easiest way to go, but it does not give the best possible results. For serious work, IMO, you should have in-camera contrast set to low, sharpening set to none, and color saturation set to normal or low. Photoshop has many different ways of attacking each of these areas, and what's best for one image won't be best for another. You have much more processing power to work with on the PC than the camera does internally, so take advantage of that.

Best, of course, is to work in RAW (some disagree, but that's my opinion) so you have a pristine, original capture that can be tweaked in a myriad possible ways, and you can go back to it as your PP skills improve and make it better and better.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/06/2006 01:59:57 AM · #13

Originally posted by e301:

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by Cutter:

But......I keep threshold at 0, but will not divulge other tricks.

My my.

Ha! I was thinking that too. ;-) How about Radius 0.6 Amount 75?

Nards and E: I don't get it. what is the my my? That I won't "divulge" or that I use 0 threshold. If it is the former, the reason is simply, we all have different tastes and I didn't want to sway. If it is 0 threshold, then I only do that because of habit. And all things equal, I like to keep the variables to a minimum. But no really, what does the my my and the concurence mean? Very curious.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/06/2006 02:40:58 AM · #14

Originally posted by Cutter:

It means you're playing your cards very close to your chest, and they're poking a little fun at you for it. It's certainly your right, and it's their right too :-)

R.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/06/2006 06:26:25 AM · #15

Just a little tease, Beau. More seriously, people really need to understand what the 'radius' setting actually does in USM - and to realise that it can be set to 0.x values, as that is by far the most common mistake made with it, setting too high a radius.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/08/2006 04:51:09 PM · #16

Originally posted by Cutter:

Originally posted by e301:

Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by Cutter:

But......I keep threshold at 0, but will not divulge other tricks.

My my.

Ha! I was thinking that too. ;-) How about Radius 0.6 Amount 75?

Nards and E: I don't get it. what is the my my? That I won't "divulge" or that I use 0 threshold. If it is the former, the reason is simply, we all have different tastes and I didn't want to sway. If it is 0 threshold, then I only do that because of habit. And all things equal, I like to keep the variables to a minimum. But no really, what does the my my and the concurence mean? Very curious.

Mebbe I misunderstood. The statement sounded a little bit secretive, and that's just not normally the attitude we see here. Most people here are willing to divulge virtually everything they know about photography to help a fellow DPCer, and I was rather surprised that you would not feel the same.

Cheers, no problems, just a little surprised.

06/08/2006 04:57:37 PM · #17

Originally posted by e301:

I get it a tease. That is what I thought. Setting to high a radius is crucially bad I agree.

Nards656:

The only point for incomplete divulgence is my way letting you discover it on your own. Not that I have some secret. I actually let my radius and percentage vary based on each photo's merits. So, I could tell you what I did for a particular photo, but that wouldn't mean much. Do you understand? Anyway, there it is. I can take some playing no worries.

06/08/2006 05:04:13 PM · #18

Mind you, if you talk to Manny he'll tell you what he does with a radius of 14, but that's a different story

e

06/08/2006 05:17:27 PM · #19

Originally posted by e301:

Mind you, if you talk to Manny he'll tell you what he does with a radius of 14, but that's a different story

e

your kidding right.

deapee

Kodak V803

06/08/2006 05:24:46 PM · #20

I use threshold 0 too...not sure what's so strange about that.

06/08/2006 05:35:05 PM · #21

What exactly does the threshold do? It seems to have the opposite effect that I am after.

06/08/2006 06:08:03 PM · #22

Originally posted by Cutter:

Originally posted by e301:
Mind you, if you talk to Manny he'll tell you what he does with a radius of 14, but that's a different story

e

your kidding right.

Actually, no. Very large radius settings - and I use up to 50 sometimes, can be a very useful way of enhancing local contrast, especially in monochrome images (me, monochrome?). Play with it, it can be fascinating - and legal for basic editing, to reference this place.