Softness issues...

[fishinchicks]

Suddenly, my Tamron lens is not playing nice with my Canon Rebel XT. About half the time all images come out noticeably soft, even when it looked clear through the viewfinder. I know it cannot always be my eyes, but I'm sure there could be a little user error. I have to upload the photos from the girl's horse show this weekend, where I used a couple of lenses, to see if it is just the Tamron that seems soft.

So, my question...can an issue develop over time that would need to be checked out by professionals? Does a camera's shutter speed slow with age and number of clicks?

[Jim Almquist]

Have you tried your setup on a tripod and taken a series of shots of something that is still just to be sure the autofocus is working properly ?

Was the horse show inside or out because there might not have been enough light for the ISO you were using.

Just a few thoughts to see if you can troubleshoot the problem.

[fishinchicks]

I just downloaded the horse show photos. They were inside, so I expected some to be too soft to use. I cheated and used the sports setting, because I couldn't seem to dial in the settings well enough. They were soft using both my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and my Canon 85mm 1.8. Even those taken in brighter areas.

The photo posted below was taken with my Tamron outside in the sunshine. I did have a filter on it to help prevent blow-outs on my daughter's blond hair and fair skin. It looks like it was focused on the trees in the background, but all the lens focal points were on her.

This next one is with my Canon 85mm 1.8. My daughter was in bright light, yet indoors. Again, all the focal points were on her. (She would not be happy if she knew I posted this...hehehe)

So, is this totally operator error, or a combo of problems? These are just a couple of my most recent examples. I have a ton from our vacation out west that were all outdoors, some were sharp and some were too soft to use.

[Dbl]

ISO, shutter speeds, aperture settings?

[fishinchicks]

I'll look those up. I had to spend a couple of hours in the combine harvesting oats as soon as I posted the photos, so I didn't take the time to include that.

[fishinchicks]

First photo: Portrait mode, f2.8, 1/800 sec, ISO 100, 42 mm, Pattern metering

Second photo: Action program, f1.8, 1/60 sec, ISO 400, 85mm, Pattern metering

[Dbl]

Thanks for the additional info. In the first you should have no issues with camera movement, but with the dark clothing your focus will have a tough time time trying to find enough contrast to lock on. The second with the small aperture and slow shutter speed is one that way to many things could have happened. At this point based on these two shots I would lean slightly toward operator and contrast errors.

My first step would be to take the filter off and re-shoot some shots using a single point on your focus. Make sure you have good high contrast subjects that allow your focus the best chance of working. Use high enough shutter speeds and I wouldn't worry too much about a tripod as long as you can stay on your subject! If you are not sure you can just put the camera on the tripod and shoot a fixed, high contrast subjects. Fire off a burst of shots and see what happens.

You are trying to eliminate the operator technique and the camera itself first. If you are still having problems then I would look toward hardware. Lets us know what you find and good luck!

[fishinchicks]

Thanks, Dan. When I am in a hurry, I tend to forget the little lessons that are buried far back in the brain.

I will take a closer look at my images from the 4-H horse show, and see what they look like. I know I used more than one lens that day as well, since I had a few error messages after switching.

[Steve Foss]

I pretty much agree with Dan on this one.

Some thoughts and techniques from my perspective:

I think at 1/60, subject and/or hand movement probably caused the softness. In a closeup, it doesn't take much movement to soften an image at that shutter speed. Also, since you were in sports/action program mode, the autofocus functions nonstop once you push the shutter button halfway down so it can track any motion the subject makes. That could lead to a bit of hunting for exact focus.

I will say that the skirt of the dress and/or the face in the first image offers plenty of contrast for the autofocus to lock on. And it's a very good idea with such subjects to always select the center focus point. It's the largest focus point on your camera, and offers more precise and faster autofocus. I'm of course making an assumption here. You could very well have been using the center point only.

I shot the Tammy 17-50 f2.8 on my old XT and on the 20D and 30D, and did notice more precise and faster focus using the center point only. It's very easy once one gets in the habit to use that focus point, lock focus and recompose before tripping the shutter, if one needs to recompose to get the shot they want.

Selecting our own focus point is just one example of this, but in general the more tasks we can remove from camera automation, the less chance the camera can goof something up. When I have clients out on excursions/workshops, one of the first things we do is switch to manual iso, center focus point, one shot focus mode, and usually Av mode. These changes give the camera a lot less to have to think about before taking a picture.

For both your photo situations I'd be in Av mode, with the aperture wide open and iso set manually based on available light to ensure I get a fast enough shutter speed. Center focus point selected, one shot focus mode, not Ai servo, so I can lock focus and recompose.

On the second image, if I had enough shutter speed, I'd probably stop down the aperture a bit to increase depth of focus, even if it meant bumping up to iso1600. That close to the camera at f1.8, even if it was a sharp image, the DOF would be so shallow that if the eyes were in focus the nose wouldn't be.

It's also a good idea when posting "problem" images or those for critiquing to not strip the exif data before posting. A photo with full exif data will give us all the information we need diagnose issues.

[fishinchicks]

Thanks, Steve. Sure wish I could have you and Dan standing behind me, reminding me of these lessons, when I am at an event.

I upload everything to flickr, which apparently strips the exif data from the photos when posted on other sites. Is there a different photo hosting site that preserves the data?

[Steve Foss]

I use Photobucket, and if I don't strip exif myself in Photoshop before uploading, it's still there. But now you can also just upload the basic jpeg (or knock it down in size yourself before posting) here using HSO's own system, so you don't any longer need a hosting site. Click on the fifth button in from the left on the toolbar that shows up when you make a post, and follow the directions. It's the yellow/orange sunset icon with the blue upload arrow.

[MN Shutterbug]

Flickr does not strip the exif but saving for web does.

[fishinchicks]

So when I upload my unedited photo, and hit the share button to get the photo's address, that is considered saving for the web? I don't use flickr much - mostly for posting to places like this - so I am not very smart when it comes to that site.

[Steve Foss]

Which post-processing software do you use?

"Save for web" or "Save for web and devices" is a Photoshop action that strips exif data in order to help keep the file size as small as possible.

If, when you are making your final save in Photoshop to upload to flickr, you simply choose "save as" and then select "jpeg" it won't strip the exif data.

Or you can just upload the original jpeg (if it's under the 3 Mb limit) using HSO's own upload feature. That's actually the best for problem solving, because we can see the whole original unedited photo file along with the exif data, and with both in hand we can usually narrow things down well.

If it's a bit over 3 Mb (some of your XT's original jpeg captures will be larger than that, some smaller, it's right on the edge), you can simply take the original image, rename it in Photoshop, save as a jpeg and select, say, level 8 or 9 to save it. That'll compress it under 3 Mb without introducing too many compression artifacts.

[bobbymalone]

unrelated, as I know less about photography than I do nuclear physics, but your daughter reminds me of a cowgirl version of blake lively in this picture.

[fishinchicks]

I'd tell her that, bobby, but she'd kill me if she saw this photo on here!

Steve, I dump all my photos into Windows Photo Gallery. The only time I use Photoshop is when I am editing for printing. Neither of these photos have been through any processing.

Here is a sample from the same horse show (bareback riding):

[Steve Foss]

No exif in this one, either, so it looks like Windows Photo Gallery is the culprit. You should be able to dig around and change some settings in there to preserve exif, but I've never used WPG and don't know anything about it.

I never use any kind of browser/library aid when downloading images. I pull the card from the camera and download using a card reader plugged into the computer. Photos from each subject go into their own folder on the desktop. I might label one folder "8-15-11 equine competition". for example, and drag all the photos from the card reader over to that folder. That way there's no other program that might do things to them.

Once all are moved over into their subject folders, I start using a browser to sort them for processing in photoshop.

Maybe you want to try that once, and after the images in the the folder, open one in Photoshop, rename it, use "save as" and "jpeg" and "level 9" and then upload it here.

[fishinchicks]

Our methods of saving are quite similar. The Photo Gallery is the default photo program that came with my computer. I never edit photos in it, just save them there until certain ones are targeted for Photoshop. This folder is named "Cannon Falls horse show" for example. Usually I put them in folders according to the month, or by special event.

I can read all of the data when I right click and look at the properties. I'll look to see if there is something else in there that won't allow the data to be viewed.

[Steve Foss]

Do you upload your photos for Web sharing straight from the WPG to flickr or HSO? If so, my bet is that WPG is stripping exif on its own. Those Windoze programs are notorious for doing so much of the thinking for the user that they can do more harm than good.

[fishinchicks]

The funny thing is, the data used to be readable by you and Dan when I first started using this computer in 2007. I'm not sure which update took that out. I can't seem to find where I can change those settings, either.

I'll have to try going through Photoshop and see what happens there. I have to get ready for our county Farm Bureau annual meeting tonight first. I haven't written my president's report or purchased one of the door prizes yet.

[fishinchicks]

I took this one just a few minutes ago. I intentionally had the focus very narrow, so this turned out as I had hoped.

Downloaded through Photoshop, then directly uploaded:

This one was saved just on my desktop before directly uploading:

[Steve Foss]

Interesting. No exif data for either one for me.

And both are VERY small files, only about 50 Kb, so they can't be the original captures.

[fishinchicks]

That's crazy. They were each close to the 3 mb size when I did the direct uploading. I'll try posting through photobucket and see what happens.

[fishinchicks]

Uploaded using Photobucket after downloading through Photoshop. Every photo, unless sent immediately to a desktop folder, gets automatically stored in Windows Gallery. However, even the ones in the desktop folder didn't show any info...

[Steve Foss]

This one shows full exif, but I'm on my way to bed.