Sharpness in landscapes

[StormyOne]

Originally Posted by potterm

I think Andrew has a very good point about hyperfocal distance that noone seems to have picked up on - i.e. what you focus on and how far it is from your sensor, combined with what aperture you choose, will both interplay to determine how sharp your image is from front to back.

I thanked Andrew for providing the link he did, Martin, earlier in the thread. Yes, I agree he made a valid point, but as I stated I already focus a third of the distance in on those occasions the horizon extends far into the distance.

Calculating hyperfocal distance is fine if optimal depth of field is essential, but my personal view is that it's OTT and unnecessary when it's not. Even somebody with 20/20 vision is unlikely to distinguish the difference between a calculated optimised DoF and an estimated one in most situations.

I think a lot of these things reduce down to personal preference. I've seen examples of images from people who never ever calculate DoF that are as sharp as a tack, and conversely, those who spend time doing so whose images are on the soft side.

Originally Posted by ThingFish

I'll say it again as you chose to just ignore my last post in this thread in which I attempted to explain why you can't expect your image which was shot in RAW to be sharp out of camera without processing.

Your previous post was ignored because you're reiterating points that have already received a reply and I was a little puzzled as to why you deemed it necessary to paste your posts to me in PM.

I certainly can and do expect unprocessed RAW images to be acceptably sharp. I have at no point stated that I expect an out of camera RAW to be as sharp as either a processed RAW or a jpeg which has had in-camera sharpening applied, and that's because I don't.

I always shoot in RAW and have never chosen to shoot in jpeg. As I stated very clearly in my opening post, sometimes I get the results I desire, sometimes I don't. Now, if it was merely a matter of my expecting too much from a RAW file that wouldn't be the case and I'd consider every shot as not being sharp enough.

RAW does not translate to slightly out of focus.

There's only an extent to which an oof image can be improved by post sharpening. What sharpening does is use an algorithm to introduce dark and light halos around areas with sufficient contrast to emphasise the edges. As stated previously, you cannot sharpen what the camera hasn't captured and sharpen too much and you sharpen any noise that's present too making it more obvious, introduce unsightly colour halos and sharpening artifacts.

OK then ...it's the lens if thats what makes you happy.

As to your earlier comment above: I don't think it's the lens because that's what makes me happy, but because that's what the evidence suggests. It's a zoom lens, not a prime, and having looked at the difference in the exif between those images that are sharp and those which aren't; focal distance is playing a major role.

[inkista]

One of the other ways that focal length is probably playing a role is in exaggerating camera shake (and therefore camera shake blur).

The rule of thumb for eliminating camera shake blur from a handheld image is to shoot with a shutter speed of 1/focal_length or faster, so if you're at 100mm, you should be at 1/100s or faster. Some folks will throw in a crop factor as well. This is a rule of thumb, and it does to some degree depend on your personal ability to handhold, and how good your handholding technique is, and obviously, there's a lower bound to this (my personal one is around 1/30s), and it doesn't take stabilization into account.

But the general upshot is, the longer the lens, the faster your shutter speed needs to be to eliminate camera shake blur. When I shoot with a 400mm f/5.6 lens, I generally have to push the iso to 800 to get 1/500s or faster on a bright sunny day.

Because landscape photography often requires stopping down for DoF and sharpness, and you're probably at the lowest iso setting for image quality reasons, you're likely to be shooting at lower shutter speeds, which is why a tripod becomes indispensable.

Yes, your lens is definitely a factor here, mostly because it's a consumer zoom, and also because it's got a zoom range >3x; there are often compromises at spots in a zoom range to accommodate the larger focal length range. Most zooms typically do not perform their best at the extremes of the focal length or aperture range. If you have a prime lens, I'd recommend trying that and seeing if it gives you performance closer to what you want. A cheap 50mm f/1.8 might be worth looking into, as well as panorama stitching to cover a larger field of view (not to mention increasing your resolution).

[kencaleno]

Originally Posted by StormyOne

Just as anybody else who could be bothered to search the 'net for information about diffraction would have done. It's a very useful tool for those who want to sound as though they know what they're talking about.

However, whilst I initially wondered myself if diffraction alone was to blame further research suggests that's unlikely. A contributory factor, maybe. As somebody else pointed out earlier in the thread the lens I was using is oft complained about.

It's a shame because if your attitude was better you could have received a complimentary copy of my Book:

[potterm]

Originally Posted by StormyOne

I thanked Andrew for providing the link he did, Martin, earlier in the thread. Yes, I agree he made a valid point, but as I stated I already focus a third of the distance in on those occasions the horizon extends far into the distance.

Calculating hyperfocal distance is fine if optimal depth of field is essential, but my personal view is that it's OTT and unnecessary when it's not. Even somebody with 20/20 vision is unlikely to distinguish the difference between a calculated optimised DoF and an estimated one in most situations.

I think a lot of these things reduce down to personal preference. I've seen examples of images from people who never ever calculate DoF that are as sharp as a tack, and conversely, those who spend time doing so whose images are on the soft side.
.

Fair point. It's just that earlier in your thread you said you had been surprised because you'd got better results at wider apertures (counter-intuitive to the general advice to use a small aperture for getting a large DoF). This sounds like hyperfocal distance at play, and the point I was trying to make was that you can achieve large DoF at wide apertures and get sharper results.

In fact later on you say:

Originally Posted by StormyOne

It's a zoom lens, not a prime, and having looked at the difference in the exif between those images that are sharp and those which aren't; focal distance is playing a major role.
.

which further suggests that the issues you're seeing are related to hyperfocal distance and choice of aperture.

Focussing a third into the scene is an excellent rule of thumb, but many of us don't realise that you don't have to stop down the lens to get a large DoF (myself included until very recently).

All the best,
Martin.

[StormyOne]

Originally Posted by dgeer

What lens are you using and how clear was the air...

The lens in question is this one:

Nikon launches AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105MM F/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens: Digital Photography Review

When judging whether an image is sharp enough, I do take the atmospheric conditions into account.

Originally Posted by inkista

Yes, your lens is definitely a factor here, mostly because it's a consumer zoom, and also because it's got a zoom range >3x; there are often compromises at spots in a zoom range to accommodate the larger focal length range. Most zooms typically do not perform their best at the extremes of the focal length or aperture range. If you have a prime lens, I'd recommend trying that and seeing if it gives you performance closer to what you want. A cheap 50mm f/1.8 might be worth looking into, as well as panorama stitching to cover a larger field of view (not to mention increasing your resolution).

Thank you, inkista! Yes, I think you're absolutely spot on; what you've posted makes a lot of sense. The rule of thumb you mentioned earlier in your post is one I wasn't aware of, so I'll certainly apply that to hand-held shots in the future.

Originally Posted by kencaleno

It's a shame because if your attitude was better you could have received a complimentary copy of my Book:

Rofl!

Originally Posted by potterm

Fair point. It's just that earlier in your thread you said you had been surprised because you'd got better results at wider apertures (counter-intuitive to the general advice to use a small aperture for getting a large DoF). This sounds like hyperfocal distance at play, and the point I was trying to make was that you can achieve large DoF at wide apertures and get sharper results.

I understood your point, Martin, and agreed it was a valid one.

But, as I also stated earlier in the thread, with further research I discovered the lens I'm referring to has been complained about by many others for producing soft images and the more expensive of the two lenses I own gives consistently sharper results. As inkista pointed out the lens in question is a consumer lens, and it also has a minimum aperture of 3.5.

I would imagine we're all aware some lenses are sharper than others and the fact is that I agree with those who have suggested the lens is largely, but not solely, responsible for the problem. In all honesty I'd much prefer it if that wasn't the case and there was a solution that wasn't going to cost me anything.

I do appreciate the informed and valid advice some have offered, including yourself, but it's for me to decide which I believe is most appropriate.

Originally Posted by StormyOne

I thanked Andrew for providing the link he did, Martin, earlier in the thread. Yes, I agree he made a valid point, but as I stated I already focus a third of the distance in on those occasions the horizon extends far into the distance.

Calculating hyperfocal distance is fine if optimal depth of field is essential, but my personal view is that it's OTT and unnecessary when it's not. Even somebody with 20/20 vision is unlikely to distinguish the difference between a calculated optimised DoF and an estimated one in most situations.

I think a lot of these things reduce down to personal preference. I've seen examples of images from people who never ever calculate DoF that are as sharp as a tack, and conversely, those who spend time doing so whose images are on the soft side.



Your previous post was ignored because you're reiterating points that have already received a reply and I was a little puzzled as to why you deemed it necessary to paste your posts to me in PM.

I certainly can and do expect unprocessed RAW images to be acceptably sharp. I have at no point stated that I expect an out of camera RAW to be as sharp as either a processed RAW or a jpeg which has had in-camera sharpening applied, and that's because I don't.

I always shoot in RAW and have never chosen to shoot in jpeg. As I stated very clearly in my opening post, sometimes I get the results I desire, sometimes I don't. Now, if it was merely a matter of my expecting too much from a RAW file that wouldn't be the case and I'd consider every shot as not being sharp enough.

RAW does not translate to slightly out of focus.

There's only an extent to which an oof image can be improved by post sharpening. What sharpening does is use an algorithm to introduce dark and light halos around areas with sufficient contrast to emphasise the edges. As stated previously, you cannot sharpen what the camera hasn't captured and sharpen too much and you sharpen any noise that's present too making it more obvious, introduce unsightly colour halos and sharpening artifacts.



As to your earlier comment above: I don't think it's the lens because that's what makes me happy, but because that's what the evidence suggests. It's a zoom lens, not a prime, and having looked at the difference in the exif between those images that are sharp and those which aren't; focal distance is playing a major role.

Whatever....Perhaps it's the following sentence in your opening thread that causes the crossed lines communication. Quote"I'd rather attain that front-to-back sharpness I'm after at the time of shooting"Unquote
That statement made me think that you expect 100% sharpness from an out of camera RAW file.
But since you are so smart and know everything already why actually bother to post asking for advice and then attack those who give advice that does not correspond with what you want to hear?.

[Sime]

CLOSED.

Go play outside, children.