up close - DPChallenge Forums

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

11/20/2007 03:53:54 PM · #1

hi there I am just wondering, this may sound like a really stupid question. I was just wondering what a photograph SHOULD look like when you view it as actual pixels photoshop. I may think I have a nice crisp lovely photo but when I look at it in actual pixels it looks noisy. I photoshoped an example as to what I am talking about but flickr is being stupid today and I am not a member anymore.

Thanks
xx

Gnarf

11/20/2007 03:55:18 PM · #2

maybe you iso is set high?

11/20/2007 03:57:04 PM · #3

nah it usually stays at 200.

bassbone

Nikon Df

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

11/20/2007 03:57:52 PM · #4

D70 cameras are infamous for problems at ISO settings above 200. I can usually bump mine to about 400 at the max end without significant noise, but not much higher.

Oh, to have a D300...

Originally posted by Anni:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/22/2007 06:08:04 AM · #5

here is the example from far away it looks great. close up not so great, Could someone please put up what it is supposed to look like at view actual pixels. This is the biggest hurdle I am trying to get over to improve my photography.

xx

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/22/2007 08:33:47 AM · #6

Maybe I'm going blind but I don't see any noise issues in the closeup.

11/22/2007 09:18:21 AM · #7

Doesnt seem to be anything wrong with that picture. No evident noise issues to speak of. Is it actually noise you're referring to? The ugly RGB bits that inhabit shadows at high ISOs?

If you want to know what a pic will look like on a print (detail-wise), then view it at 100% where each pixel represents a dot that is printed.

11/22/2007 09:32:02 AM · #8

i don't know exactly what it is, but it dosen't look quite right to me. I think it is something to do with the way I sharpen images. I am not sure how many pixels to sharpen. and am clueless when it comes to smart sharpening on the shadow and highlighted bits. It may be a contrast issue as well. I have basic knowledge of photoshop, and I have never seen anyone's images in up close like in the second picture which is viewed at 1oo% I can never get the eyes right, The almost shiny sharp light eyes so many of the dpcers have mastered.
like these images here

audry woulard

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 09:41:03.

11/22/2007 09:52:27 AM · #9

There is a tutorial dedicated solely to pimping the eyes right here on DPC. Have you seen that ladies pics at 100% crop? Be sure to check your AF points too and select the one nearest the eye if you can to ensure it's in focus.

As for sharpening techniques- there is no real secret, just do what you do until you think it looks right. There's no right or wrong technique, as long as you're happy with the results. If you're not then change your technique. Have you tried doing another layer of the sharpening and then erasing it all apart from the eyes and whatever else? That would help, then you can make a slight blur layer so the sharpening looks even stronger because of the relation between the blurring and sharpening.

Also, it depends on your lens, your aperture and pretty much everything else to do with the camera.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/22/2007 09:58:46 AM · #10

to focus on the eyes I like the eye with the middle square the recompose and shoot. I have not tried any other techniques for pimping the eyes. (love that saying!) I tried to sharpen on the luminance channel but that didn't make much of a difference. does anyone the link to the pimping tutorial I have taken some pictures this morning to practice on.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

11/22/2007 10:12:08 AM · #11

Originally posted by Anni:

When recomposing the eyes may end up at a different distance from the camera therefore causing them to fall a bit out of focus.

Best would be to use the focus point that falls on one of the eyes so you don't have to recompose.

Having said that, I don't think this image has suffered from your recompose technique (at least not enough to be noticeable in a print).

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/22/2007 10:14:12 AM · #12

hard to tell you without knowing the lens, aperture, shutter speed (could be shake blur). But it seems to me that the right eye (that is the eye to the right of the picture) is sharper than the left one. If so, it could be a focus/DOF issue (can be emphasize when you focus then recompose before shooting). Try shooting with a minimum of f/8.0 to make sure DOF is right...?

And then post-processing helps. But here I think you have a pb even before post-processing.

Have you applied any noise reduction (in lightroom or aperture or whatever software) or this straight out of the camera? Looks to me like there is some NR applied. Strong noise reduction can also cause softness issues. By the way are you shooting JPG (with in camera processing) or raw an processing yourself?

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 10:17:16.

11/22/2007 10:33:02 AM · #13

yes I am obsessive when it comes to noise well I am learning not to be now. I have been trying to teach myself to use neat image (speaking of does anyone know where I can get a free noise software that will save in tiff?) Instead of neat image I was using the noise reduction filter in photoshop. The left eye is ou tof focus that is another problem I am having as I don't know which metering system. I have it on center weighted(sp) but there is a fine tuning to that in mm but don't know which one is best.

11/22/2007 11:19:09 AM · #14

here is one I took this morning. The before after and a close up at 100% Is this what a photo supposed to look like at 100%

BEFORE

AFTER

11/22/2007 11:30:54 AM · #15

that looks pretty good to me honestly. It does look like a slight amount of breakup after the sharpening, but nothing drastic. You could just be splitting hairs here, the pics look great to me, and will do to anyone but the most critical. It looks a lot better than most my my pics at 100%.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/22/2007 11:43:17 AM · #16

thanks tez, I readjusted the colors in the final version because it looked a bit green to me.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/22/2007 11:59:40 AM · #17

You need to adjust your monitor I think. The first shot is a bit on the magenta side, the after shot went a bit green/yellowish.

I think what you are talking about are focus issues, not noise. At least that's how I'm interpreting your likes and dislikes about the various shots. This latest batch, the left eye is still out of focus in the 100% crop. You should post what aperture you are using for these shots. Odds are it's just too large for how you are setup on these portraits or else you are doing the focus/recompose thing and your focus point is shifting enough to foul things up.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

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

11/22/2007 12:02:50 PM · #18

Can you show us the same 100% section on an unedited "before" shot?

R.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/22/2007 03:14:24 PM · #19

it was taken with my 50mm 1.8 and I had the apature

exposure manual
f 2.0
sutter speed 1/250
taken outside on a cloudy day.
the first images is straight from the camera

The before photo was straight out the camera in RAW. So I guess I am having white balance issues as well.

here is the original close up

and here is the new edit where I shifted the color balance.

If it is a problem with focus I don't know what I am doing wrong. possibly I have my camera or something as most of my images come out like this.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/22/2007 07:53:44 PM · #20

So if you were 5 feet from the kid you've got about 2 inches of focus to play with. Very easy to get one eye slightly out of the focal plane when the head is twisted slightly like that or if you focused on the nose, etc, etc. Google for a 'depth of field calculator' you can get an idea of how narrow your focus zone is based on aperture, lens focal length and how far you are from the subject.

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

11/22/2007 08:36:37 PM · #21

I have a 400D, so I don't know whether any of the same things apply, but...

1) JPGs are almost always soft. Raw images do come out of the camera much sharper, even with default settings for the in-computer RAW conversion. They also come through with more visible noise. However, some JPGs do come out of the camera sharper than others. Occasionally, with the right lighting and other random factors, the JPG will be pin-sharp at 100% magnification. Don't know why this is. Same lens, same aperture, different lenses, different apertures - doesn't seem to be any correlation that I can see, but good lighting is a prerequisite, often improved with using flash.

2) The auto-focus is not always highly accurate, particularly noticeable on wide aperture lenses where the DOF is so thin. My 2.8 lens is notoriously hit-and-miss, and at f2.8, 200mm, focus out by 1 percent (10cm over 10m) is very noticeable. Again, sometimes it gets it bang on, but mostly it's just a little out, and with a very thin DOF, it's noticeable. For an idea of how accurate autofocus is, put the camera on a tripod on centre-spot focus and autofocus on something several times. It is not uncommon for my focus range to move up and down by a foot or so over 10m. Sometimes it settles down and stops moving, but other times it just keeps jumping around.

I've given up on trying to analyse and fix this problem. I'm a bit obsessive about this sort of thing, but I could obsess about it until I die, and probably never be happy. So, I'm trying to accept that autofocus is a bit dodgy, but it's still far better than I can ever do manually, so I have to accept it as a limitation of the equipment and live with it.

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 20:38:17.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

11/23/2007 02:02:34 AM · #22

at 2.0, especially if you focus and then recompose, you're going to have a lot of miss-focus. Each time I did a portrait session like this, I end up with 4 out of 5 photo slightly OOF on the eyes.

EIther take a lot of shots, or reduce aperture to 4.0. look at //www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Also, most of the times, the lenses do not give their best at th highest aperture. To get the sharpest output of your lens, target for 4.0-8.0 kind of aperture.

you can sacrifice a bit shutter speed. with a 50mm, if you go down to 1/100, maybe even 1/60 you can compensate for reduced aperture.

Message edited by author 2007-11-23 02:29:25.

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

11/23/2007 02:09:57 AM · #23

Oh, the other thing I found is shoot fast. If your aperture is wide open, and you have 0.5 seconds between prefocus and tripping the shutter, then that gives 0.5 seconds for your subject to move 2 inches, or for you to sway on your feet, or the breeze to blow. :) As mouten pointed out, if you are too worried about carefully getting the focus right, you can actually make the problem worse! I've tried using servo focus, and it really didn't help much. I just don't do the pre-focus thing much anymore. If you do prefocus, take your finger off the button again and do a full shutter press when you take the real shot. If you have a static subject (i.e. not a person), and a tripod, this can help too.

11/23/2007 06:53:59 AM · #24

thanks for the advice. As for depth of field calculations, I don't really get it while I am reading, let alone trying to calculate while I am in the middle of the session. Is there an easier way? Would my camera AF settings make any difference to the problem. When I use flash my images are usually bang in or very close to, bit I don't like the effect, I much prefer natural lighting, I don't have a budget to get a bounce flash any time soon.