(more) Focus Issues
Discussion
Howdy.
Right, took some more photos tonight, ISO100, in my louge with the lights on. Camera was sat on the windowsil, with the controller about 1 foot away from it, using the kit lens, 18-55mm.
I used autofocus, and set a timer, so eliminating any camera movement.
as you can see, it is still not crisp.
Do you think the camera has a fault, perhaps in the software?
Annoying.
(CR2: www.dorkish.com/up/IMG_1401.CR2 )
-al.
Right, took some more photos tonight, ISO100, in my louge with the lights on. Camera was sat on the windowsil, with the controller about 1 foot away from it, using the kit lens, 18-55mm.
I used autofocus, and set a timer, so eliminating any camera movement.
as you can see, it is still not crisp.
Do you think the camera has a fault, perhaps in the software?
Annoying.
(CR2: www.dorkish.com/up/IMG_1401.CR2 )
-al.
Edited by Altrezia on Tuesday 14th November 23:08
The focus on the 'A' button looks ok to me (presumably that is where the focus was set?)
I think I am right in saying that depth of field dramatically reduces as you get close in to an object, which would explain the blurry joystick etc?
doh, bit late there.
When doing close-up shots for stock (
), I find that the f-stop number has to be quite high to preserve any detail either side of the focus point. Even doing that only increases it by a small amount.
I think I am right in saying that depth of field dramatically reduces as you get close in to an object, which would explain the blurry joystick etc?
doh, bit late there.
When doing close-up shots for stock (
), I find that the f-stop number has to be quite high to preserve any detail either side of the focus point. Even doing that only increases it by a small amount. Edited by Platinum on Tuesday 14th November 23:21
it's a 350D, sorry (my other post is here: http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topi )
it just doesnt seem that crips compared to other folk's photos on here.. :/
it just doesnt seem that crips compared to other folk's photos on here.. :/
graham@reading said:
SMALLER aperture
The numbers work in reverse.
The numbers work in reverse.
Doh! - Really showing my lack of skills!
Of course, I was just testing... Andy M said:
Looks fine to me.
A quick bit of processing results in:
Is this the look you're expecting?
A quick bit of processing results in:
Is this the look you're expecting?
Yes, much more like it - What did I do wrong then?
You just need to learn how to post process your images
Most RAW images need a little boost in saturation, sharpness, and some exposure tweaking.
If you don't already have some software, you may want to consider trying: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li
Most RAW images need a little boost in saturation, sharpness, and some exposure tweaking.
If you don't already have some software, you may want to consider trying: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li
I don't think there's anything wrong with the camera, and the lens seems quite good to me (for a kit lens).
You can clearly define dust on the controller, and so the lens isn't overly soft even when wide open - it could even be said that you may have a 'good' copy!
I think on this occasion you'll find it's simply a matter of needing some post processing.
You may wish to have a quick read of: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
You can clearly define dust on the controller, and so the lens isn't overly soft even when wide open - it could even be said that you may have a 'good' copy!
I think on this occasion you'll find it's simply a matter of needing some post processing.
You may wish to have a quick read of: www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff