| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/08/2007 01:55:59 PM · #1 |
i just got my new 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM, and took it out for my first shoot today. i was not very happy with it, for everything just wasn't sharp as a tack as i see others.
i will admit up front, i suck w/ my flash. (sigma EF-500 DG SUPER)
i just use it for fill flash, but just don't know where to go from there, mainly just put it on auto ETTL mode and go. usually too harsh, too
but in these pictures, look at the detail...there is none. now that i quit being so frustrated while shooting and stopped and thought i shot in ISO 100 the entire time, and had no tripod or monopod w/ me, even with the 70-200...is this a mistake? when on location, do most of you use a tripod or monopod of some sort? just curious. this may be my problem, i do not know. but i've done some good portraits before, and none of them took me as long to figure out. maybe i'm out of practice, and am just overlooking the basics, and in my frustration just didn't try enough. maybe it's a camera issue, i really don't know. i think it's behind the camera, but i'm too frustrated to figure it out right now, i suppose.
if anyone has any insite, i would greatly appreciate it.
here's the pictures. i'll edit-post a few more later.
thanks so much, means a lot to me...
on these pics, nothing has been processed on them. just a convert from raw.
THE PICS (exif information in details of each pictures)
full pic 1
100% crop of pic 1
full pic 2
100% crop of pic 2
thanks so much.
jon rowe |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:20:52 PM · #2 |
You do realize that you need to sharpen the RAW images to get that tremendous detail, don't you?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:30:13 PM · #3 |
Nevermind. :P
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 19:50:43. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:30:55 PM · #4 |
| Yeah, you want to at least use a monopod. Or shoot higher ISO to get faster shutter speeds. I'd say at least 1/350 or above. With the 70-200 you're going to get camera shake at the lower shutter speeds. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:33:52 PM · #5 |
Just a few thoughts. I too was disappointed with sharpness when I first got a telephoto lens. The thing that I didn't realise is that the shutter speed should be, as a minimum, 1/focal length of the lens. Plus don't forget to factor in the 1.6 crop factor on the 350 Rebel. However, I see that you used 1/200 and that you have IS, so that might not be the case for you, as it was with me.
Another thing is you could put it on spot focussing and make sure that the camera is focussing on the eyes.
Just a couple of things that helped me. I have the same lens and it should/can be sharper IMO. I often get inconsistent results, probably due to my inexperience, but when I get sharp shots with this lens, they really are good and sharp. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:35:12 PM · #6 |
i think i just had an off day...i get this beauty in the studio tonight, w/ two other girls, and hopefully i'll get back in the groove
InClearView...those were cropped just to 100% so you could see the lack of detail. i'll start using my monopod, and i was thinking afterwards it was ISO, but at the time, i was in another world. been a long week, don't know what i as thinking to tell you the truth.
thanks so much everyone...any other comments / suggestions are greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:37:22 PM · #7 |
OK first things first... that 70-200mm lens is mostly going to put you out of range for effective fill. Also, since you can't go over 1/200 of a second for flash sync, you can't get the shutter speed up high enough to deal with lens shake at 200mm (where you want about 1/350 or faster).
For full body shots that lens is WAY too long.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
These two lenses from you collection would be my choices.
BTW, I never use a tripod (or monopod) on portrait shoots...
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 19:40:17.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:43:43 PM · #8 |
If IS was on, you should be able to get sharp handheld shots even somewhat below 1/200. A shutter speed of 1/100 at 200mm should be easy, and 1/50 doable (I've gotten sharp results at 1/30, but the hit rate is lower).
Next is the focus point. It looks to me like the first shot was front-focussed a little, but it's very hard to tell. Best thing would be to post up the original file somewhere an let us poke around with it. it is definitely not as sharp as it should be, IMO, and it looks like OOF issues to me (as opposed to motion-induced blur) |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 02:54:45 PM · #9 |
with all that has been said, there is one more thing to really think about. I think no one really has adressed your question of tripod or no tripod. I really think that when in doubt use one. if it's cold your going to shake, if your going to zoom in past 100 use a tripod. I don't think a monopod is going to help you, they are really more for lens support, like professional sports shooters. (go bucks)
I really think it's a nice glass, and 200 isn't too much zoom in my oppinion just use a tripod and try to raise that iso to at least 400 if your camera can handel it without a ton of noise.
if you need help sharpening a raw file let me know, I have been shown three different ways to do it from the professors at my school. if there is enough interest in this I may just write a whole post devoted to that topic. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 03:39:19 PM · #10 |
RAW files are always rather soft. Here's your image with sharpening of 500% at diameter 0.3 and level 4. Had it already been sharpened, this level of sharpening would have made it look really bad (overly sharp edges and halos). Instead it looks pretty good, so I'm guessing it was never sharpened.
Also, keep in mind that at f/3.5 at 145mm, if you're at about 10 feet distance, your depth of field is only about 2 inches. Even less if she was closer. So if you are moving at all, and she is moving, the two of you could easily move out of focus in between when you initially locked focus and when the picture is taken.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 03:39:53 PM · #11 |
This might be useful... Online DOF Calculator
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 04:36:25 PM · #12 |
My suggestion is to use natural light and reflectors. I get really sharp detail standing far away with mine. Keep working with it. You may need to stop down to have more dof. Looks like your focal point was on the fence in the 1st pic, and not the girls face. Try focusing on her face, then moving your camera (while shutter still pressed half way) to capture the composition you want. Also, bump up the iso if you have to to maintain the faster shutter speed you need.
I'll post a few pics I took with mine.
  
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 21:42:27. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 10:50:16 AM · #13 |
idnik: here's the original raw files.
//www.magnolia-net.com/~jedmag/images/IMG_9603.CR2
//www.magnolia-net.com/~jedmag/images/IMG_9619.CR2
gi_joe05: i would love to hear your sharpening technique
dwterry: i would like to hear yours as well, for what you did to that one in jpg was truly amazing.
everyone else: thanks so much. i had a very successful shoot w/ the lens last night in a temporary studio i set up (with this girl, and two other beautiful ladies) and i'll post them soon. i really appreciate everyone's help.
cheers
JR |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 10:57:33 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
...if there is enough interest in this I may just write a whole post devoted to that topic. |
Why not create a DPC tutorial? I would imagine many folks here could benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:00:49 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
i
gi_joe05: i would love to hear your sharpening technique
dwterry: i would like to hear yours as well, for what you did to that one in jpg was truly amazing.
|
I, too, would love to find out more about sharpening RAW files. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:04:06 AM · #16 |
| The only thing that I see is on the first picture. It looks like your camera focused on the fence right next to the girl, not on her. As I look at the photo, its the fence that looks sharp, that might have been your problem. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:10:51 AM · #17 |
| well, i have a problem that is occuring more and more...and that's losing focus after recomposing. i'm sure i'm doing something wrong, or just waiting to long to capture. it's getting better, but yeah. really pisses me off when i have a beautiful shot, and the eyes are soft. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:13:30 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
well, i have a problem that is occuring more and more...and that's losing focus after recomposing. i'm sure i'm doing something wrong, or just waiting to long to capture. it's getting better, but yeah. really pisses me off when i have a beautiful shot, and the eyes are soft. |
Don't recompose after focusing and you should have more success. Change the selected AF point to be in the right place when you focus - and then shoot. In the fence shot, it looks like your focus point is about a foot behind her head.
It's also maybe worth disconnecting focus and shutter - there's a custom function that lets you put AF on the '*' button on the back of the camera and leaves exposure metering and shutter on the shutter button. Means you can focus and shoot independently from each other, which once you get the hang of, is a huge improvement.
I think the Rebel supports that, the rest of the Canon SLRs do.
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 16:14:16.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:39:55 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
dwterry: i would like to hear yours as well, for what you did to that one in jpg was truly amazing. |
I already listed the one and only step I took: Unsharp Mask filter applied at 500% with diameter 0.3 and level 4.
The raw converters I use all have a sharpening option in them. I usually adjust it upwards from the default so that the initial sharpening is done before I ever see the jpeg. But when I want total control, then I leave sharpening off and do it later in photoshop instead. (and even when the raw converter does it, I still usually apply another sharpening step just before going to print, or after reducing for web)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 11:48:51 AM · #20 |
I reviewed the full-body shot RAW file, and on that shot, it's easy to see that misfocus is the culprit. The fence *is* sharp at a point a few inches inches in back of where her hand touches the fence. That's substantially behind the plane of her face, maybe 2 feet or so. Shooting at f/3.5 at 140mm, I'd surely expect her face to be OOF. Let's do the math and check out that hypothesis:
From the focal length and sensor size of the 350D, the AoV is about 9.1° in the vertical direction. Given you framed an estimated 7 feet (vertically) and doing the math, your subject distance was about 22 feet.
Based on 140mm, f/3.5, 22 foot subject distance, and a CoC of 2*pixel pitch = 13µm, your DoF is 0.68 feet, or 8.16 inches. The DoF is almost evenly split in front and in back of the focal plane. This confirms that something 2 feet in front of the plane of focus will be considerably OOF.
Bottom line, a 2 foot focus error is far too much for a focus/recompose error. You should sort out why you're getting incorrect focus, whether it's because the camera locked focus on the contrasty fence, or the camera/lens combination is back-focusing (not unheard of) or some other reason. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:04:47 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Bottom line, a 2 foot focus error is far too much for a focus/recompose error. |
Well, it wouldn't be if it was a focus, recompose, refocus shoot error, which can happen with the focus on the shutter button - as you looked at the RAW file, you should be able to see where the selected AF point was, does it match the in-focus part of the fence at all ?
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 17:05:22.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:10:04 PM · #22 |
I'm not using the Canon DPP converter (don't even have it loaded) so no, I can't see where the selected focus point was.
you're of course correct, if it was a "refocus" error, that would explain it, but that's not really a "focus-recompose" error, it's a "photog didn't hold down the switch" error ;-)
In any case, he's gotta sort out why his focus is off so damn far. That's a whopping error, and if it was happening with some regularity, which it seems to have been, it may indicate a lens/camera issue. |
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:13:48 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not using the Canon DPP converter (don't even have it loaded) so no, I can't see where the selected focus point was. |
FWIW, quite a few of raw converters show the active AF point, breeze browser and quite a few others.
But yeah, if that is what happened its just generally a 'focus' error. What flagged it in my head was the comment that it always seems to screw up after recomposing. Could be subject moving, could be photographer swaying backwards/forwards (or a combination of both) along with technique issues on how focus is used/ maintained and how AF points are selected or used.
It could also be the lens back-focusing, but that's a whole lot rarer than internet forums might lead you to believe I think. It often seems to go away with fixed subjects and tripods, for a lot of cases.
Is the RAW file in single AF mode, or are all of them active ? Is it manually focused or not ? One shot AF or continuous ?
(All that's in the EXIF)
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 17:16:38.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:22:58 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
and 200 isn't too much zoom in my oppinion |
The reason I said that it was too long is that in my opinion long telephoto lenses flatten features too much. Another reason, (still my opinion) is that the photographer has to get too far away from the subject and takes away the "personal" feel of the photo.
Both are just my opinion, but then again, I'm no Sport Illustrated photographer on a tropical beach with a hot super model, using a big honkin' 300mmm L lens ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-01-09 17:24:12.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2007 12:25:05 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jerowe:
.
i will admit up front, i suck w/ my flash. (sigma EF-500 DG SUPER)
i just use it for fill flash, but just don't know where to go from there, mainly just put it on auto ETTL mode and go. usually too harsh, too |
Are you softening the flash? My Sto-Fen omni bounce lives on my DG Super, only coming off for long reach shots. It really takes care of the harshness of fill flash
|
|
