Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by Garry Shepperd, Sep 2, 2021.
Try resetting the camera to factory defaults
I doesn’t look soft to me, if anything the relatively sharp background is a distraction.
Looks OK to me from a sharpness/focus point of view. You are in close with a wide angle lens so the background is detailed. Metering is fine - Exif says you chose exposure yourself on basis of spot metering. You compressed it to death to make the file-size small. Better to follow forum guidelines and reduce the pixel count to 800 longest side and keep jpg quality at maximum - that keeps the tonal separation. Exif data is limited but suggests that you used flash - perhaps straight on - which has filled in very well but given a flattening effect. It looks as if it was a very bright day.
I've knocked the whites and exposure back a bit and added some mid-tone contrast and put the vibrance up a bit. I'd lose the white ballon over his left (as you look at it) shoulder and the bit of light between his sleeve and body. The littlest one needed something to stand on
Edit: for some reason the upload has lost a bit off the bottom. I didn't crop it and on my computer the uploaded picture still shows the little boy's button hole and the little childs hair down to his/her forehead. Weird, never seen that happen before
As I feared, hard to make a comparison given the difference in subject matter. It doesn't look like it's not sharp or not in focus.
What filetype is the camera set to create?
One of these (I don't own Nikon so I'm guessing)
What's it set to atm?
More info please .
What lens was used and was image stabilisation switched on ?
( this can cause motion blur on a tripod as the lens is trying to compensate for movement which isn't there )
Is this the same camera that you used to take a shot of the bee , and was it the same lens ?
If you have the full resolution photo on such as Flickr , can you provide a link to it so it can be seen proper .
The size posted on here is quite small and it's hard to tell what the issue is .
EDIT , I hadn't noticed we were already onto page two of the replies to it when I posted .
The larger picture Pete has posted seems O.K to me .
As they are backlit a bit of fill in flash would have helped , it might also have helped give it a bit more crispness ?
And another one
Tried that at first.
Thanks.This is just a sample
Still soft though isn't it? I'm not saying it's out of focus, just not pin sharp. Here's two samples taken with the same settings two weeks apart.
The lace in the dress looks sharp to me. The recently posted pair, certainly the right hand shot doesn't look sharp but it's not really possible to analyse why. That could be camera shake or that the camera didn't really have anything of contrast to focus on and being this close the depth of field isn't great. What post processing have you carried out, or are these direct from the camera JPEGs?
It appears to me that all these photos have been resized for the forum, in which case it is futile to attempt to judge the sharpness of he image without a clear understanding of the processes used in the resizing algorithm, as those with which I am familiar all use a measure of post size-reduction sharpening.
I contend that the only way to make an objective judgement is from viewing at one-to-one from a crop, or at worst a two-to-one crop.
If anything it looks like the images are more heavily compressed JPGs, do you shoot RAW or JPG? If JPG, which JPG setting? How do you process the images once you've taken them?
O.K , same settings ....
But what were the settings , and how are they saved in the camera ( jpeg or raw , what size jpeg etc ) and what did you do to them when you imported and processed them ?
Showing a couple if pictures without giving any other information doesn't tell us the full picture .
Of the wedding photo: Not really. It's a bit flat and my best guess at the reason is that you've used a square on flash-gun to provide fill in on a very bright day so that the faces lose some contouring. The jpg compression on what you posted doesn't help because it suppresses small differences in tone.
Of the side by side photos: I can't really understand what you are seeing to worry yourself about. To look at critical sharpness - e.g. when I am being picky at shots - a 100% view is what I use to judge.
It's sharp... maybe the problem lies with your monitor, or dare I say it, your eyes?
None of the images I have seen are unsharp, nor do they look over sharpened. I would be happy with them.
No, the wedding photograph isn't a little soft. The street lamp (it isn't a balloon Pete) is a distraction but it does demonstrate what unsharp looks like. I would look at the images on another monitor and see if you still think they aren't sharp.
If we assume same processing and same camera settings, and that both the left and right images are uncropped, then there's definitely something going on. On the left image you can see individual eye lashes, on the right image, you can't. But there's still not enough information in the conversation for us to help.
Ok - I hadn't realise that it got bigger if you clicked on it - I agree that the right hand pic is off. I couldn't see it at the base size.
The focus is a bit forward. It does look better with some extra sharpening but I think the hand has fooled the AF a bit.
The right image is not perfectly sharp - but having studied it for a few minutes I can't see anything that looks in perfect focus so I am suspecting that there was some minor camera movement that has very slightly blurred everything
The hair is less defined than the eyelashes, which are less defined than the watch/end of brush - which is why I thought it was forward focus and back to my first (?) post in the thread in which I wondered if someone had been playing with the focus micro-adjust settings.
Having done some experiments, my vote (since we'll never know if @Garry Shepperd doesn't return to tell us), is JPG compression. If you take the left hand image, save it at the same resolution but with higher jpg compression (lower quality) then you get edges which look like those in the right hand image.
So my guess is something different in post processing (lightroom export settings?) or shooting to a lower resolution JPG by default in the camera by mistake.
Since @Garry Shepperd tells us it affects all the lenses, it has to be something that is lens agnostic. The D7200 has something called AF Fine Tuning (which I think is the function similar to Canon's micro-adjustment) but I don't know if it applies to all lenses.
Bit of both I think. Given the compression on the posted file I was surprised how it sharpened up. Good point on the micro focus adjust - it is usually lens specific. I've never had cause to use it on any of my cameras.
Separate names with a comma.