Softness Issue

I have here a few examples of what I am experiencing, first is the original, downsized of course.

[IMG]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f396/Hannabella/MinesofSpain-119.jpg[/IMG]

I opened in Camera Raw and saved as a 16bit Tiff. Minimal PP just a tiny bit on levels a slight increase in red saturation and a tiny bit in highlights shadows.
I then changed to 8 bit and upsized to 300ppi using Bicubic Smoother.

But I dont think the problem lies in Photoshop. Its either me or the gear.

Here are 3 100% zoomed crops and as you can see, not very sharp.
The images were taken with K20d DA 12-24 lens at f14 at 1/60th Handheld

Opinions?

[IMG]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f396/Hannabella/crop1.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f396/Hannabella/crop2.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f396/Hannabella/crop3.jpg[/IMG]

Very difficult to say really, but I would start with trying some images on a sturdy tripod. See if those are sharp.

Also, don't forget that all digital images need some sharpening in Photoshop or whatever else you use.

I suppose I should use the tripod more at these shutter speeds, however regards sharpening I understand what you mean and am using Martin Evenings book and have been working through some of the techniques like unsharp mask and High Pass Filter etc. Howvere i have also read that stock agencies do not allow sharpening so have been avoiding this in case i ever go that route. So if they dont acept sharpening, when should you use it?

Thanks
Steve

Pretty much all lenses on DSLRs will be limited by diffraction from f11 onwards - the DA12-24 is no exception. You'll get the "sweet spot" for sharpness around f5.6, a slight (barely noticeable) drop in quality by around f8 and it'll start dropping off a proverbial cliff beyond f11.

I notice this was at taken at f14 so I'm putting two and two together here...

John is absolutely right about the tripod though - my DA18-55 on a tripod will kick my FA43 (one of the sharpest lenses ever made) all over the shop if the latter is hand-held at any speed much below about 1/500.

I may be wrong, but the Shake Reduction function can also affect the sharpness. Try switching it off and use tripod.

The ideal would be to make a large image and save it unsharpened. Then if you want to print it, sharpen before printing but don't save that version.

If you want a web image make it from your large original, resize and sharpen for the web.

In other words, do your "output sharpening" as the last thing before you do whatever you wish with your image.

Of course you might want to do capture sharpening and other creative sharpening, as per martin's book....

Hi Steve,
Are you supplying Alamy?
The first thing if you shoot in RAW you will need to sharpen
The final sharpen is for the output, but stock agencies will not know what that is, so they should look slightly soft as opposed to being over sharpened.
Also Bicubic sharper as you are upping the res Also alter DPI in 16bit mode not 8 then convert after

I have done A1 prints using the K20d, 24-50 hand held at f8 and 1/10th sec at iso 800 and they are sharper than the ones you have shown me, so the kit can do it, but a tripod does help a lot! Did you wait for the shake Resistance to kick in?

If you need more tech info PM me

Impossible to test for this photo now of course, but given that the depth of field at 12mm is enormous at any aperture you could happily follow hefty's advice and use f5.6 for maximum sharpness and maximum shutter speed.

I had nasty soft images from my beloved 50-135mm lens at an American football game recently. The contrast was so low from the back of the stands to the pitch that it had trouble getting a focus lock. Modern AF lenses will focus beyond infinity so just sticking it on manual and turning it all the way to the end doesn't work either. I had more luck with my M 200 F4. I kept wishing I had Richard's f2.8 A* 300mm and converters but I am not sure the stadium guards would have let me in with that monster.

Cheers, Kris.

It's worth also noting these points:
* My K20D was back focussing. Most lenses needed +2 adjustment, and some slightly different tweaks. The 12-24 was the most difficult to test and align, but it was still out. Might be an idea to check both near and far focus on a scene...

* SR can introduce a degree of softness. Certainly when using the 12-24 you generally don't need SR, and for a landscape like that a tripod and 2s mirror up release would be best.

* When shooting RAW you certainly need some sharpening. Silkypix does a great job of subtle sharpening. Stock agencies don't want you to apply output sharpening since they will sell at different sizes... but capture sharpening is something different (at least in my book ). Check out www.thelightsrightstudio.com - the PDF info on "Getting a fine edge on your sharpening skills" is helpful

* I find the 12-24 can have some CA - certainly looking at the trees shows what looks like Blue/Yellow CA. Again Silkypix is great at automatically pulling in the CA, but ACR has CA adjustments. Correcting the CA can produce a dramatic change to the sharpness

HTH!
Matt

Thanks for the input everyone.
Slightly concerned though if I cannot get a sharp image at anything smaller than f5.6, all I have ever read about landscape talks about f 16 & 22 for landscape dof. I realise many of these 'guru's shoot film or even large or medium format, but people must have success with digital at these apertures or surely there would be warnings about it??

Have to admit to being on a bit of a low about it at the moment.

There is no reason why shots even at f22 cannot be sharp to the eye. Look therefore at the kit for faults and the photographer for technique!

Why warn about it? If you look at the first shot you posted it looks acceptably sharp and at that size it's reasonably typical of an average size print at a normal viewing distance. This is, after all, what 99% of photographers are looking to achieve.

The softness that you see is only there when you view at 100% - unless you're printing at poster sizes (or selling to stock agencies) then these levels of "softness" are really irrelevant. As you are looking to sell stock then you either need to work within the limits of your equipment or invest in something more suitable.

As a rule of thumb, APS-C DSLR's are sharpest around f5.6, 35mm (and FF DSLR's) around f8, Medium Format around f11-f16 and Large Format around f22-f32.

If you took exactly the same shots (same field of view) with each format at its "sharpest" aperture you'd see that the DoF remains almost exactly the same in each case. It sounds like the stuff you've been reading was written by folks with 5x4 cameras so you'll need to take everything with a liberal dose of salt and do some sums to convert their figures to ones suitable to your equipment.

As Kris pointed out above, f5.6 at 12mm on a DSLR will give you a near-infinite DoF so there's no advantage to be had in going any smaller (unless you can afford a much bigger camera).

I submit to Alamy and do not apply any sharpening, 'capture' or otherwise, and have never had an image rejected due to sharpness. Note, this is just for the images I supply to them, if I'm printing or showing on the web that's a different matter.

I've found my DA16-45 gives me optimal results at f/9.5 - that's when overall sharpness (not just the centre) peaks, as far as I can tell.

I understood it was 'Smoother' when upsizing, and 'Sharper' when downsizing. Although I nearly always forget and just use Bicubic when going either way.

Dan

Well put!

I have been automatically going for a small aperture when shooting any landscape or anything thats not 'flat' or where I am trying to isolate a subject with a narrow DoF.
I understand hyperfocal distance and so can relate to what you say about wide angles and DoF. At 12mm f5.6 HD is at about 1.3m on the K20d so nearest point in focus is nearer than I am usually going to need. Even at 20mm its only 3.5m

So I guess combining tripod use( I had thought handheld was OK at 1/60th)with wider apertures will hopefuly see some improvement.
I shall try working this way from now on and thanks all for the helpful replies as usual. In particular Hefty and Mattmatic for such in depth information.

Regards
Steve