Am I giving good advice?

[Tronhard]

My spouse's brother is an artist and is currently creating a coffee-table book and calendars that concentrate on images of huts in the backcountry, along with their immediate environments. The feedback he has had from his editor/publisher is that the quality from his 18-55 is really getting pushed for the quality they want. Hence his question.

He wants to increase the quality (in particular the resolution) of his images but HE HAS VERY LIMITED FUNDS! Currently he is using a Canon 550d with the standard 18-55mm lens. He has advised that he needs to get panoramic images and can effectively stitch them together using Photoshop. While he is very smart, his technical photographic experience is limited. He has a tripod and release cable. These pix will be in the rugged wilds of Scotland and he will be using public transport, then cycling and walking so lightness and compactness are also important to him.

First PLEASE don't suggest a different body: he can't afford it!

So we are down to the lens. The way I looked at it is that, as he wants to do panoramic shots that are wider than conventional image proportions, to get the field of view he could go for a wide angle lens, but then crop lots of the vertical dimension, and one usually has to deal with significant distortion. Also the image would be limited to the width of one shot.

Alternatively he could use a more normal-mild telephoto lens that is likely to render more neutral distortion to take a series of images and join them together in panorama mode, thus offering more pixels across the field of view.

Rather than go for a wide-medium zoom I suggested going for a fixed focal length lens to get the best image quality and reduce cost. Almost and zoom is a compromise because of the relatively complex structure of lens elements compared to a prime and they usually cost more. Based on his limited funds, and the fact he is using an APSC-C sensor, I suggested the Canon 40mm STM (effectively 65mm on his APS-C) because it is super light and small, great sharpness and minimal distortion.
It offers a more normal focal length than the 50mm equivalent, and FOR THE COST it is supposed to offer really good quality images. The fact that is mildly telephoto may make it easier for him to stitch the images together.

So what do you think of this suggestion, and if you have a better suggestion I would welcome it.

NOTE: while it is interesting to know what gear you use, the critical issue is what will work for HIM

[Manfred M]

I'm not a fan of the shoot wide angle and crop the image technique. You throw away a lot of pixels and these are far more important in print than when viewing on a computer screen. I see nothing wrong with the lens he has now, and Photoshop has had pano functionality that is quite good for quite some time. The lens correction algorithms (in camera for jpegs and in Photoshop for raw) are quite good at cleaning lens issues.

The stitched panos often use a medium to medium-long focal length, so distortion from an ultrawide lens need not be an issue. Most of my panos are shot on a full-frame camera, with my 24-70mm lens and I've done a few with the 70-200mm as well. The 18-55mm lens focal length range on the crop frame compares well with the

Generally panos like this are shot using an "L-bracket" that holds the camera in a vertical orientation on a tripod. The tripod needs to be level and if there is subject material that needs to appear without distortion close to the camera, a long focus bar that allows the camera to rotate around the lenses no-parallax point might be required as well. One also has to determine where the non-parallax point is for the various focal lengths on a zoom lens.

I also hand-hold panos when I don't have a tripod with me. They tend to require a bit more trimming because of "shooting errors", but can work quite well, especially for landscapes. What is important is to disengage all auto functions (focus, white balance, shoot on manual) so that the frame to frame matches work well.

The L-bracket and long focus bar that I use are from Kirk Enterprises and are not cheap. I suspect there are more than adequate cheap knockoffs available on e-Bay or Amazon.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

Thanks for your prompt response. I think we are singing from the same songbook regarding wide angle lenses for this application. The feedback he has had from his editor/publisher is that the quality from his 18-55 is really getting pushed for the quality they want. Hence his question.

For his purposes a lens with the quality of a 24-70 or a 70-200 is way beyond his reach financially. I forgot to mention also that he will be using public transport, then cycling and walking so lightness and compactness are also important to him. I suggested the Canon 40mm STM (effectively 65mm on his APS-C) because it is super light and small, great sharpness and minimal distortion.

With regard to the panorama: He has a good, light tripod and knows the importance of getting it level throughout the panoramas - note these are not likely to be even 180 deg. I have told him to set the camera on manual and take a range of meter readings across this field of view then use the same settings for the whole thing. Normally I choose to underexpose and fix it later. He will be shooting RAW, so he has lots of potential to tweak later.

[Shadowman]

I'm not familiar with the tax code in Canada but if he can expense the item, consider renting one or two lenses for the shooting assignment.

[Tronhard]

hi John:

My brother-in-law actually lives in Scotland. He has a disability and not able to do regular work, but he is determined to help himself and he is artistically very talented . For him say, 50GBP is a huge amount of money, nevertheless your idea is still intriguing! : ) I think his assignment will take some months but that might still work for him anyway... I shall give him that feedback and see what he says...

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred:

The feedback he has had from his editor/publisher is that the quality from his 18-55 is really getting pushed for the quality they want.

I find this a bit surprising; while the lens is an inexpensive kit lens (I own the Nikon equivalent) it should deliver fine images if used properly (shoot in the f/8 - f/11 range). Add the inherent higher quality one gets out of a pano image shot at low ISO using a tripod and I doubt the publisher will have anything to quibble about.

The light tripod; that could be an issue, but there is no way of knowing until he tests the technique. A 4 shot pano will give him the equivalent of a 36 - 50 MP image (depending on the overlap). That should stand up to the publisher's scrutiny.

[William W]

. . . an artist and is currently creating a coffee-table book and calendars that concentrate on images of huts in the backcountry, along with their immediate environments. The feedback he has had from his editor/publisher is that the quality from his 18-55 is really getting pushed for the quality they want.

I find the enlarged section of the bolded and underlined statement very difficult to swallow.

Who (which person) actually came to the lens as being the problem and how exactly was that articulated?

My best advice is to establish EXACTLY, from the EDITOR what are the TECHNICAL issues that the Editor has with the image files that are being supplied by your Brother-in-Law.

WW

[William W]

Addendum: What Manfred wrote too, we were writing at the same time.

BTW, but relevant - I have sold images to "fussy" Editors of Glossy Publications, that I made with the first iteration of the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 Lens used on an EOS 20D - I now use those images as examples to Students who believe that they 'need' very expensive gear.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:
From what I have seen, I think the lens is one of the very early 18-55 units - the camera itself if no spring chicken! He bought it second hand and (allowing for the fact that I am about 8,000km away) it may have some issues. In any case the info he is sending to me is that the 18-55 will not stand up to muster. For general purposes the kit lens may be fine, but this is a book whose focus (excuse pun) is the images. So... based on that lot, and the fact that it seems illogical to buy another 18-55, we arrive at where I am. His tripod is light but seems to be very good quality (he was gifted it by a friend).

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

I have no direct contact with the editor. As I understand it, these are issues with photos.
1. The photos are soft at the sizes the editor wants (these would be a minimum 600mm x 400mm), to be printed on hard, heavy weight photo paper. Some images will be in the realm of 900mm by 600mm.
2. The editor wants the photos to be able to render cropped detail images apart from the full landscape, these would be in the realm about 450x300. He wants the detail to be extremely clear for both the building and its surroundings.
3. He does not want distortion to be noticeable, the object is to faithfully render the building in its surroundings. Now if you are going to be more specific I have to go back and ask more questions.

With regards to the lens being the issue:
My B.I.L. tried a non-L series lens belonging to a friend and found that the image were much better - again, according to his editor friend. He does not have access to such a lens on an on-going basis. He cannot afford a significant lens upgrade, and if the body does not seem to be the issue I want to avoid a conversation with those for whom money is no object who suggest he gets L series lenses and expensive bodies.

[William W]

Clarifying and first source documentation substantiating my previous:

. . . an artist and is currently creating a coffee-table book and calendars that concentrate on images of huts in the backcountry, along with their immediate environments. The feedback he has had from his editor/publisher is that the quality from his 18-55 is really getting pushed for the quality they want.

He wants to increase the quality (in particular the resolution) of his images but HE HAS VERY LIMITED FUNDS! Currently he is using a Canon 550d with the standard 18-55mm lens. He has advised that he needs to get panoramic images and can effectively stitch them together using Photoshop. While he is very smart, his technical photographic experience is limited. He has a tripod and release cable. These pix will be in the rugged wilds of Scotland and he will be using public transport, then cycling and walking so lightness and compactness are also important to him.
. . .
Based on his limited funds, and the fact he is using an APSC-C sensor, I suggested the Canon 40mm STM (effectively 65mm on his APS-C) because it is super light and small, great sharpness and minimal distortion.

Assuming that the “standard 18-55” is the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 IS, then I think that you should look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=4

In any case there are about 8 iterations of the 18 to 55 and all are quite sharp and have good resolving power at F/8, but the newer models are a tad better.

WW

[Saorsa]

The problem is likely to be from trying to make highly detailed images with a single shot. The following images are from a blog post of mine in regard to the MS-ICE program. Many other packages facilitate stitching so this isn't a recommendation, just an example. https://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com/201...posite-editor/

Personally, stitching panoramas to get more detail is the way I go. Here is an example from a panorama I shot from edinburgh castle. I dont' recall how many shots are in it but I just stood on the ramparts and rotated from the hips trying to follow the horizon shooting handheld with a kit 18-105mm on a Nikon D300.

Here is the stitched pano


It is possible to pull incredible detail from such an image. This is cropped from the full sized pano, not one of the original images. This is the tower above the bridges about 1/3 in from the right side.



It is possible to get discontinuities in a stitched image and I found a couple in mine looking at them very closely. Here is one of them.



The key is to shoot at the telephoto end to get the detail. I often shoot in vertical format.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred:
From what I have seen, I think the lens is one of the very early 18-55 units - the camera itself if no spring chicken! He bought it second hand and (allowing for the fact that I am about 8,000km away) it may have some issues. In any case the info he is sending to me is that the 18-55 will not stand up to muster. For general purposes the kit lens may be fine, but this is a book whose focus (excuse pun) is the images. So... based on that lot, and the fact that it seems illogical to buy another 18-55, we arrive at where I am. His tripod is light but seems to be very good quality (he was gifted it by a friend).

If he is getting edge softness, the first thing that pops into my head is that he is using too large an aperture (assuming he is shooting well, from a technical standpoint). At f/8 to f/11, most lenses perform extremely well, without the edge softness that tends to be seen when shooting wide open nor the diffraction softening that can be noticed at f/16 and smaller apertures.

The 18-55mm zoom range was selected by the camera manufacturers as the kit lens because they can produce high quality lenses at low costs, regardless of the vintage of the lens. The problem certainly does not sound like a camera issue.

If might be useful if you could post a high quality image that is problematic so that we don't have to guess.

Photo books are actually printed at lower resolution than images coming off photo printers; my understanding is that we are looking at the 100ppi to 130ppi range.

[William W]

Trev,

I have no direct contact with the editor. As I understand it, these are issues with photos.
1. The photos are soft at the sizes the editor wants (these would be a minimum 600mm x 400mm), to be printed on hard, heavy weight photo paper. Some images will be in the realm of 900mm by 600mm.
2. The editor wants the photos to be able to render cropped detail images apart from the full landscape, these would be in the realm about 450x300. He wants the detail to be extremely clear for both the building and its surroundings.
3. He does not want distortion to be noticeable, the object is to faithfully render the building in its surroundings. Now if you are going to be more specific I have to go back and ask more questions.
With regards to the lens being the issue:
My B.I.L. tried a non-L series lens belonging to a friend and found that the image were much better - again, according to his editor friend. He does not have access to such a lens on an on-going basis. He cannot afford a significant lens upgrade, and if the body does not seem to be the issue I want to avoid a conversation with those for whom money is no object who suggest he gets L series lenses and expensive bodies.

OK Thanks. That’s very useful to supply some more advice:

I suggest that it is going to be difficult establishing what exactly is/are the issue(s) without using the lens and directly speaking to the Editor.

It may be that the lens is damaged: but as noted by the lab tests in the link, the 18 to 55 (at 35) gives adequate (arguably better) resolution than the 40mm Lens. Obviously it’s assumed that either lens would be used at around F/8 for this type of work.

*

My comments to address the Editor’s issues as you understand them:

1. The photos are soft at the sizes the editor wants . . .

It is impossible to determine the issue(s) that cause "softness" without interrogating the images and probably the lens, too.

I can however state with absolute confidence that very few of the “soft” images which I have interrogated are actually caused by an inferiority issue of a (modern) lens.

Areas that I suggest be thoroughly investigated:
> the TRIPOD quality and rigidity
> the HEAD quality and rigidity
> if a light weight tripod – the securing and weighting (sandbagging) of the tripod
> the typical shutter speeds used
> the typical apertures used
> the general shooting technique (best practice?)
> the Post Production KNOWLEDGE and SKILLS – especially knowledge, skills and experience in sharpening files for ‘print ready’

*

2. The editor wants the photos to be able to render cropped detail images apart from the full landscape, these would be in the realm about 450x300. He wants the detail to be extremely clear for both the building and its surroundings.

I understand this to mean that the Editor wants to crop 450 x 300 from up to 900 x 600 original.

That’s using only 25% of the original.

The 550D has 18 Megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor and DIGIC 4 processor, if that is cut that to 25%, then we are using, effectively, about a 4MP Camera.

I don’t know of many Editors that would accept image files from a 4MP Camera, so, with all due respect to an Editor whom I have not met: the request seems beyond the realms of possible.

Noted Brian's comments post #12: "The problem is likely to be from trying to make highly detailed images with a single shot."

*

3. He does not want distortion to be noticeable, the object is to faithfully render the building in its surroundings.

‘Distortion’ (when used by an Editor or Art Producer) can often be vague and non technical in meaning.

If the Editor is referencing specific shots that you Brother-in-Law has already provided to him, it could be that BARREL DISTORTION is being referenced. That might be simply because the kit lens is being used at around FL = 18mm.

Another possibility is the word the word 'distortion', when used with 'building' and 'surroundings' might be referencing Keystone Distortion or Inverted Keystone Distortion, neither of which has anything to do with the Lens that your Brother-in-Law is using, but rather all to do with the Shooting and Post Production Techniques which he employs.

(Caveat: Keystone distortion has much to do with the Lens and sometimes the camera also which is used: but for the merits of this conversation, Canon TS-E Lenses and/or Cameras with Movements, are assumed beyond the scope of the implied budget.)

Again to identify these issues, access to the Image Files and specifics regarding exactly what is the meaning of the word “distortion”are necessary to establish a satisfactory outcome.

*

My main concern is that you stressed your Brother-in-Law is not cashed up: and in any case, my experience tells me that often spending money on a new lens or camera is NOT the answer to the attaining of better quality images.

Best of luck.

WW

[Loose Canon]

Hi Trev!

Along with the above expert suggestions I might add:

Have BIL use mirror lockup. Remote shutter release or timer. Fast enough shutter speed, the usual.

But…

And this is where it may make a huge difference:

A good workflow incorporating proper sharpening techniques in post to his RAW files always makes the difference. Aside from the proper sharpening techniques making sure the images have proper contrast, both globally and locally, will add to insuring his images look their tack sharpest. This can have to do with the lighting on-scene as well as other environmental elements as well.

Since BIL is already producing in Photoshop (pan stitching), there is no reason that he can’t get acceptable shots in-camera that can be polished up in post to standards using the available equipment and software.

Are you absolutely sure it is an equipment/software issue that is keeping BIL from the goal?

[Tronhard]

Hi Terry!

First of all LOVE your nom de plume! :-))

To answer your last query first... Being in BC Canada and he being in Edinburgh, Scotland I cannot be definitive on anything as you can probably imagine. I have tried to pin him down but I am hampered by his lack of experience, and his condition it's er... not physical, and I shall leave it at that...

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE those trying to help him at his end (apparently experienced users - interpret that as you will) are confident that it is the lens: I did ask the same questions as you have. I suspect that he has been a bit rough with it - again his condition, so I cannot be critical. He has got SOME Photoshop experience but not in great enough depth to do more than do his panoramas and some simple tweaking.

I think we all agree that a stitched set of images offers far more pixels to play with and most likely less distortion (and I mean barrel/pincushion) than one wide-angle lens shot.

I am not convinced that the 18-55mm is better than the 40mm fixed lens. I have played with both and believe the general guideline that a fixed focal length lens should be better than a zoom of the same quality range.

With regard to the issue of perceived quality by the editor, I am trying to get my head around this as well, I agree that print form is often less demanding than other output options. My BIL has produced large prints for framing with this editor and I am wondering if this person is being a bit demanding. However that is not in my control and he has his mind set to get the lens. IF he is determined to go out and get a lens I am trying to limit the cost for him. I have offered to give him one of my lenses but he won't have it.

Hi Trev!

Along with the above expert suggestions I might add:

Have BIL use mirror lockup. Remote shutter release or timer. Fast enough shutter speed, the usual.

But…

And this is where it may make a huge difference:

A good workflow incorporating proper sharpening techniques in post to his RAW files always makes the difference. Aside from the proper sharpening techniques making sure the images have proper contrast, both globally and locally, will add to insuring his images look their tack sharpest. This can have to do with the lighting on-scene as well as other environmental elements as well.

Since BIL is already producing in Photoshop (pan stitching), there is no reason that he can’t get acceptable shots in-camera that can be polished up in post to standards using the available equipment and software.

Are you absolutely sure it is an equipment/software issue that is keeping BIL from the goal?

[William W]

. . . I am not convinced that the 18-55mm is better than the 40mm fixed lens. I have played with both . . .

For absolute clarity, my previous was not implying a broad comparison and contrast between and of the two lenses: but it was a narrow C&C using the 18 to 35 at 35mm and at F/8 and the 40mm at f/8. These would be the reasonable expectations of how the lens would be used, for the job described.

Apropos the resolution of the lenses, which was the question, the test charts in the link should be considered accurate and of a credible source.

*

. . . [I] believe the general guideline that a fixed focal length lens should be better than a zoom of the same quality range.

Others do not have that expectation, a couple of examples which quickly spring to mind are:
EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L MkII USM vs. EF 24 F/1.4L USM and vs. EF 35 F/1.4
EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L and F 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII vs. EF 200 F/2.8 L

WW

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

Can you give me a couple of links to the specific reviews you have in mind please?

[William W]

. . . With regard to the issue of perceived quality by the editor, I am trying to get my head around this as well, I agree that print form is often less demanding than other output options. My BIL has produced large prints for framing with this editor and I am wondering if this person is being a bit demanding.

Maybe not ‘demanding’. Maybe technically inarticulate explaining the issues in PHOTOGRAPHY TERMS, this, combined with your BIL’s lack of expertise in the specific genre of shooting and preparing image files as 'print ready'.

*

However that is not in my control and he has his mind set to get the lens. IF he is determined to go out and get a lens I am trying to limit the cost for him. I have offered to give him one of my lenses but he won't have it.

That is an entirely different set of circumstances which were not disclosed in the Opening Post.

IMO, those facts place you between a rock and an hard place regarding providing advice as to what lens to buy.


My advice to you is to firstly try and establish IF the (18 to 55) lens is damaged. Otherwise if you can't do that, then maybe to give NO advice pertaining to what lens to buy but make other suggestions, in line with all the advice about the best practice for making the image files which have been presented here, in this thread.


An example of how your advice to buy a new could backfire: IF the 18 to 55 is not damaged - then it is likely that any expense on a new lens will reap:

> no increase in Resolution,
> no better General Image Quality;
> no ability to crop severely;
> no reduction of “Distortions”.

and if such is so, then where does that place you at the end of it all?

WW

[William W]

Hi Bill:

Can you give me a couple of links to the specific reviews you have in mind please?

Post #11 contains the link to which I referred and which is pertinent to this thread: it's not a review, it a lab test specifically regarding resolution, which is one of the issues that were mentioned to be of concern.

WW