- This topic is empty.
Looking for help on quality of shots
-
I recently had my Canon 24-105L lens in with Canon UK for repair due to a front focusing problem. This was resolved (I think!), but since getting it back I cannot seem to get a reasonably sharp shot out of it, either with or without the Image Stabilisation on. I started off assuming it was myself, but dispite repeated attempts, I’m still unhappy.
I’d really appreciate the opinions of others on this, as I feel I may have to go back to Canon. I have some files below that I have on my Flickr account. They are direct RAW to Jpeg conversions with a resize to 2400×1600 to bring down their size – and Flickr reduces there size further. No other processing has been done on them – I’ve deliberately not sharpened them.
If you could, can you please review them regarding sharpness.
#1: Focal length=40mm, ISO100, 1/60s, f11, 0EC. There should be lots of detail here:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3378129637_8da364e870_b.jpg#2: Focal length=58mm, ISO400, 1/60s, f7.1, -1.3EC, on-board flash fired. This was really disappointing:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3378945716_f87e362068_b.jpg#3: Focal length=24mm, ISO200, 1/400s, f8, 0EC. Lots of detail
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3378932454_57f89e1142_b.jpg#4: : Focal length=73mm, ISO400, 1/125s, f7.1, 0EC. Looking for detail in the hair:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/3378933772_0c60101b7e_b.jpgI’m using a 350D. I’m conscious that when these shots are reduced in size they look better – but at full resolution, I’m just not happy. Do you think I’m miles off on my expectations – or can you see a problem with my technique?
Raw images will not be sharpened and when you resize them you should really sharpen after resizing. If they are a straight conversion as you say then you are not going to be happy with the shot in the majority of the time.
These images are what I would expect to see when taken from raw and converted to jpeg. Your camera will process these if you shoot in jpeg and add sharpen. I frequently find that raw images need some boosts such as saturation, contrast and finally sharpening.
But, as I don’t use a Canon I cannot relate directly with what you’ve produced.
By the way – if you place [img]and[/img] at either side of the links above you will embed images and people will respond faster.Alan.
Hi Brendan,
I would’nt be qualified to answer your questions but was compiling this reply in response to your Anyone? plea. I was moved by the fact that you had so many views and no reply.But well done to my fellow Wexford man, Alan, for responding.
John.I have found recently that I am getting super sharp images from raw
when I open them in Digital Photo Professional (Canon Software) which
I didnt really like up to a while back, But If I open the same raw file
in PS CS4 I need to do a lot of tricking around to get the same quality
image as previously opened in DPP.It seems that DPP recognises the in camera settings I have set up on my 5D
like sharpness, saturation & contrast but PS doesnt it seems to
take just the basic RAW file . . . ????????This doesnt probably make sense but it is definately recognisabe what is happening.
I recently downloaded a 30 day trial of Capture One 4 Pro which is a raw converter. When I was reading reviews of it, it did mention that ACR doesn’t do a good job with converting RAW files. It depends on which side of the fence you want to sit on – either you shoot raw and let a piece of software pre-empt your settings, or shoot raw and do it yourself in ACR. The reason I went looking at Capture One is that I set a custom WB for IR photography and imported into Lightroom but it wouldn’t import the custon WB with the raw file (that’s on the A700, the A100 is fine). Capture One gives you that option and in my opinion does a great job rendering colours too. It might be a good investment.
Alan.
Maybe Brendan this is a factor to try and nail down . . .
What software are you using?
I use DPP to convert to jpeg in the highest quality. Occasionally I use PS Elements 5 RAW converter, but tend to to a RAW batch conversion to a work folder through DPP and edit from there.
irishwonkafan wrote:
Raw images will not be sharpened and when you resize them you should really sharpen after resizing. If they are a straight conversion as you say then you are not going to be happy with the shot in the majority of the time.
Yep – sharpening is always the last part of processing. The question is really about the sharpness from the 24-105/350D combination.
irishwonkafan wrote:
These images are what I would expect to see when taken from raw and converted to jpeg. Your camera will process these if you shoot in jpeg and add sharpen. I frequently find that raw images need some boosts such as saturation, contrast and finally sharpening.
I tend to shoot RAW all of the time so I can correct exposure and white balance before processng in jpeg. It appears that with the 350D & 24-105L are not really up to giving pin sharp shots above A4 size unless lighting is superb.
irishwonkafan wrote:
But, as I don’t use a Canon I cannot relate directly with what you’ve produced.
By the way – if you place [img]and[/img] at either side of the links above you will embed images and people will respond faster.I deliberatly didn’t include the shots in the post as they would be large in data and size.
I find when I PIXEL PEEP at my images I wouldnt be happy
but you rarely print or show images at full resolution anyway.Maybe convert your file to say 18×12 or 16×10 kind of bigger than
A4 and see what they look like.I previously had 17-40 L / 28-70 L / 70-200 L sold them all
dont use any Canon glass now.I wonder does the camera have something to do with the problem?
Not a loaded question just throwing it into the pot for consideration.
Alan
At a glance I don’t see any major issues with the images posted… they’re certainly not soft and there are no glaring quality issues at the size presented.
All digital images require sharpening during post processing (assuming you want sharp images).
I’m pretty sure that it’s best practice not to apply any sharpening in camera instead controlling it yourself during post processing.
J
BTW: I am from Wexford too… so I’m really hoping for a pat on the back like Wonka.
Sharpness looks ok on the images posted. Mayne make up some 100% crop images and post those as well?
Rgds,
Dave.nfl-fan wrote:
At a glance I don’t see any major issues with the images posted… they’re certainly not soft and there are no glaring quality issues at the size presented.
All digital images require sharpening during post processing (assuming you want sharp images).
I’m pretty sure that it’s best practice not to apply any sharpening in camera instead controlling it yourself during post processing.
J
BTW: I am from Wexford too… so I’m really hoping for a pat on the back like Wonka.
The first line of nfl-fan’s reply is similar to what I was thinking as I viewed these images. Why did’nt I post these thoughts? I was’nt sure I was right & did’nt want to mislead Brendan.
And in response to the last line. Well done nfl-fan.Yes, crops at 100% would be a good way to tell-
reductions are pretty much worthless, you can’t tell much from them.If you have another lens, a good prime for example,
you should be able to make your own comparison with that too-joseph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
