What's the secret?

[botty1963]

I have been keen on landscape photography now for a few years, but this applies to photography in general. I use a Canon 7D with L-series lenses, and a Manfrotto tripod; it is a travel tripod so a little less sturdy than some sort of heavyweights but I don't think that's the issue.

So, take yesterday as an example. I went to take some photos of an old abbey a few miles from where I live, light was good, very little breeze, camera set to manual with an ISO of 100, but although my photos were ok, they just don't seem to be as crisp and sharp as some I see on the internet. Maybe some I look at have had a lot of Photoshop (or similar) work to give them a 'wow', not sure, but mine never look that good.

So, "what is the secret?"

[Shanghai Steve]

Post some examples please, including exif if possible.

I would add that most modern "professional" images have been extensively manipulated from the original capture. See the recent discussion on the processing forum "PP or not to PP".

[Shadowman]

Consider time of day when image is captured.

[mastamak]

Hello Steve,
Here are a few tips that may assist you in getting a sharper image:

Set the tripod as low as possible. Don't extend the centre column, tighten all screws and weight the tripod with your camera bag,
Shoot in manual mode,
If using a long focal length lens, select the widest aperture your lens will allow as depth of field will not be an issue if shooting very distant scenes,
Select the fastest shutter speed possible. As a rule of thumb your shutter speed should be faster than 1/focal length,
Turn image stabilisation off,
Turn Live View ON which will also set the mirror into lockup position,
Use manual focus, magnify the live view and set the focal point at the hyperfocal distance - about 1/3 into the image,
Gently touch the end of the lens and see if there is and movement. The live view image should shake slightly but come back to the original position,
insert a cable release and wait a few seconds for the camera to settle
If all OK at this point shoot with the cable release or, if not available use the 2 second timer.

Hopefully some or all off these suggestions will help.
Grant

[xpatUSA]

I have been keen on landscape photography now for a few years, but this applies to photography in general. I use a Canon 7D with L-series lenses, and a Manfrotto tripod; it is a travel tripod so a little less sturdy than some sort of heavyweights but I don't think that's the issue.

So, take yesterday as an example. I went to take some photos of an old abbey a few miles from where I live, light was good, very little breeze, camera set to manual with an ISO of 100, but although my photos were ok, they just don't seem to be as crisp and sharp as some I see on the internet. Maybe some I look at have had a lot of Photoshop (or similar) work to give them a 'wow', not sure, but mine never look that good.

So, "what is the secret?"

If forced to use just one word, I'd say "contrast". If allowed two, I'd say "detail contrast".

As has been said, lighting is very important to get maximum detail contrast from a scene. Think about a row of gravestones, where you want the writing "crisp and sharp" . . where should the sun be? Would you shoot on an overcast day? In other words, both the angle and the quality of the lighting is important for good scene detail contrast.

Another issue is the lens setting, the aperture of which should be set within that magic area between those wide-open aberrations and the onset of visible diffraction. That would be between f/4 and f/8 for many lenses.

In post-processing, there are many "secrets". For ultimate crispness, one secret is to combine more than one radius of unsharp masking, say 3.3px with a low amount followed by 0.3px with a much higher amount. Another secret is to use a more advanced form of sharpening, such as de-convolution. One more secret is to use something like 'Contrast By Detail Level' (RawTherapee) where contrast can be adjusted separately according to levels detail size. And then there are those fancy sharpening plug-ins that many people swear by.

So as not to get disheartened, do remember that the "raw image" (sorry, George) out of most sensors is quite blurry and does need work . . . .

[george013]

If forced to use just one word, I'd say "contrast". If allowed two, I'd say "detail contrast".

As has been said, lighting is very important to get maximum detail contrast from a scene. Think about a row of gravestones, where you want the writing "crisp and sharp" . . where should the sun be? Would you shoot on an overcast day? In other words, both the angle and the quality of the lighting is important for good scene detail contrast.

Another issue is the lens setting, the aperture of which should be set within that magic area between those wide-open aberrations and the onset of visible diffraction. That would be between f/4 and f/8 for many lenses.

In post-processing, there are many "secrets". For ultimate crispness, one secret is to combine more than one radius of unsharp masking, say 3.3px with a low amount followed by 0.3px with a much higher amount. Another secret is to use a more advanced form of sharpening, such as de-convolution. One more secret is to use something like 'Contrast By Detail Level' (RawTherapee) where contrast can be adjusted separately according to levels detail size. And then there are those fancy sharpening plug-ins that many people swear by.

So as not to get disheartened, do remember that the "raw image" (sorry, George) out of most sensors is quite blurry and does need work . . . .

After it has been converted to a RGB-raster image

To ad to Mastamak's post, if available use mirror-up.

George

[DanK]

I'd start where Shanghai Steve did: post some images with exif, and if you can, include a link taking us to a larger size of at least one of the image. The most likely culprits are camera movement or poor focus, but one would have to look at the images.

You wrote:

I use a Canon 7D with L-series lenses, and a Manfrotto tripod; it is a travel tripod so a little less sturdy than some sort of heavyweights but I don't think that's the issue.

A fine camera and fine lenses. The tripod may or may not be a problem. How windy was it? I use a good travel tripod, and I have had some shots ruined by camera movement. As Grant noted, you can lessen this problem by weighting the tripod down. Mine has a hook for that purpose.

Re Grant's list of things that might help: I do some but not all. I generally don't shoot landscapes wide open because most lenses are not at their maximum sharpness until you close the aperture a few stops. You can look at reviews to find the sweet spot for your lenses, but in most cases, it will be at least two stops down from fully open. But I do avoid closing the aperture more than that unless I need to (for greater depth of field), to keep the shutter speed short.

Re mirror lockup: it doesn't make an appreciable difference unless the shutter speed is very slow. No harm in doing it, but I really doubt that is your problem unless you are using a very slow shutter speed.

Re image stabilization: with many lenses, particularly old ones, this is an issue. Leaving it on when using a tripod can induce blur. This isn't the case with most newer Canon lenses. I generally turn it off when I am using a tripod, but I often forget, and it doesn't seem to matter, which is consistent with what I have read about the particular lenses I am using.

Re shutter speed: Grant's rule of thumb is the traditional one for 35mm cameras, so with your crop-sensor camera with its narrower angle of view, the corresponding rule would be 1/(FL*1.6). However, that is a rule of thumb for avoiding blur from camera motion in hand-held shooting. If you are using a tripod, it doesn't really apply. In calm conditions, you can use slower shutter speeds. I've done tripod-mounted shots with shutter speeds as long as 10 minutes that have come out very well. (I do some night photography.) A more common source of blur when using a tripod is motion from wind (the camera may move a little, but the subject, say, leaves, may move a lot), and this rule of thumb won't necessarily be sufficient. I handle this by first selecting an aperture and seeing what the shutter speed will be at that aperture and at base ISO. I then will sometimes take a test shot and enlarge it on the lcd to see if I can detect problems of focus or blur. If that shutter speed is not sufficient to deal with motion blur in a particular situation, you have to increase the speed, either by opening the aperture more, by increasing ISO, or both. One of my cameras is a 7D, and I avoid much of an increase in ISO if I can.

However, I really think that Steve is right. The best place to start is with a few examples so that we can try to figure out what went wrong.

[ionian]

Lots of good suggestions here already. I'd also add that when viewing on the internet you are almost certainly looking at a down-sampled image, so comparing an unprocessed raw file at 100% is unlikely to be a flattering comparison! Good contrast and well-handled sharpening are likely to take you where you want to go.

[Manfred M]

As others have said, the issue is impossible to diagnose without being able to see your image.

Photography is all about the light, so unless your light was good, the photograph won't be good. When I look at others work, the most common reason where the images are not quite there is that the contrast is too low.

So rather than guessing, please post the problematic image so that we can have a look at it.

[Dave Humphries]

The secret seems to be the problem!

We can't see the problem, since it seems to be a secret

Please show us a shot or two Steve - you don't even have a web link in a signature we can follow.

Looking at your older threads, this is a common theme.

You may find this thread helpful:
HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?


However, if I were to hazard a wild guess, I'd say Ted is on the right track, for landscapes, architectural, etc., Local Contrast Enhancement (LCE) is a Post Processing Technique worth trying, although if you have PS or LR, the Clarity control offers similar benefits, although it is a bit "one size (doesn't always) fit all".

Beyond that; are you sizing and final sharpening your images appropriate to the method of display? (whatever they are, you didn't say)
If you're just pixel peeping inside an image editor and expecting to see your images look as good as those you see online, or in print books, then you are comparing 'apples' with 'oranges' and 'lemons', because those other images will have been optimised for their display media - not a fair comparison and one that will disappoint you. Possibly falsely so, it may be possible to get some of your images to look that good.

Dave

[inkista]

... although my photos were ok, they just don't seem to be as crisp and sharp as some I see on the internet. Maybe some I look at have had a lot of Photoshop (or similar) work to give them a 'wow', not sure, but mine never look that good.

So, "what is the secret?"

Full frame?

[ducks].

Srsly. It's not full frame. But it could be full frame + shooting technique + post-processing techniques + bloody minded determination that doesn't think anything of buying an airline ticket and hauling a 20+ lb. tripod up a hill/mountain in some exotic locale at 4am to be there by 6:30am. That kinda thing.

Sorry to say, the secret, as far as I know, is bucketloads of desire, vision, planning, experience, and effort. It's the whole enchilada: what you see as the shot, what gear you use, how you set up, what and how and when you shoot, and how you choose to post-process all together. If it were as simple as a single thing that everyone could easily duplicate, the internet would be a lot more gorgeous, and a bit less littered with fuzzy cat pics.

And full frame helps a little.

[Dave Humphries]

If it were as simple as a single thing that everyone could easily duplicate, the internet would be a lot more gorgeous, and a bit less littered with fuzzy cat pics.

Is that pics of fuzzy cats or fuzzy pics of cats Kathy?

[ccphoto]

Danced around a bit but never really discussed is the lens's sweet spot might well be the issue. I have a friend who just bought the Tamron 150-600. It's not my favorite lens in the world, but tied to a Nikon D800 she should have been getting nice, sharp images. Borrowing the lens for a series of shots, I soon discovered that at f/9 @600mm her shots were way more crisp than at at 8 or 11. At 150, the lens performed better at f/11. So while I would work all those other parameters into your solution (especially steadying that tripod if there's the slightest wind), I might explore where the sweet spot is for each lens you won...and yes, I know, in theory all the f'stops on good glass should be sweet....but even my primes perform better at certain f/stops.

Just another thing to toss into figuring out the why of the soft focus issue.

[rpcrowe]

SOOC images are not as sharp as some folks expect, even with a good camera (7D is certainly a "good" camera) and top-line lenses (L-Glass is usually great - unless there is a mechanical problem).

I would try the following:

1. Shoot in RAW at around ISO 100
2. Choose an f/stop about 2 stops smaller than the maximum
3. Mount the camera on a tripod without extending the center column
4. With most of the latest L lenses, you can leave the Image Stabilization on (if the lens is so equipped)
5. Doubtless, I shouldn't need to mention this but, your lens should be clean
6. Ensure that you are not using more than one filter and that filter should be top line and clean
7. Use a lens hood
8. Use a remote release - cable or electronic

Here's how my workflow goes:

I download my RAW images using Adobe Bridge

I open the RAW images in Adobe Camera RAW and do a minimum of correction. One thing that I like to do in ACR is level the image and also correct for some distortion is there is any. I turn off noise reduction in the camera and ACR because, if I need it, I will do the noise reduction in NIK Dfine

After selecting and opening an image I do a lot of my editing with NIK Software.

If I am shooting at a higher ISO (320 and over) I start my processing with NIK Dfine - usually globally but, occasionally, I select certain areas...

I then use the NIK Sharpener Pro - RAW Pre-sharpener

After that, I will use the various sliders in NIK Viveza (either globally or selectively using the control point system)

I can correct just about any image problems or enhance just about any image using the various sliders in Viveza.

My favorite sliders include structure and shadow but, I tend to use them all at one time or another.

Lots of folks like to use NIK Color Efex Pro and Analog Efex pro but, I seldom use these in my P.P.

When I want a B&W conversion I use Silver Efex Pro.

I will (especially when desiring to print my image) occasionally use the NIK output sharpener. However, for posting on the Internet, I most often skip this step.

I have had no problems with sharpness in any of my landscapes or any other imagery...

I chose this image as an example because it is sharp throughout an extended DOF

EOS 30D, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS at 24mm, ISO 100, 1/125 second @ f/5.6

The best thing about NIK is that it is now free

[xpatUSA]

SOOC images are not as sharp as some folks expect . . .

So good, we said it twice:

"So as not to get disheartened, do remember that the "raw image" <> out of most sensors is quite blurry and does need work"

[Shanghai Steve]

I've just had a thought. Many breath-taking landscapes have a palpable sense of scale, often with a difficult mix of sky and mountain and grassland etc. This kind of shooting is often extremely technical, requiring careful handling of dynamic range, tonal variation and greatly differing levels of detail. The use of wide angle lenses is a given in landscape photography, but they require careful handling too. Often beginners think "Well, I've got a tripod and a decent camera and a wide angle lens and what I can see in front of me is really beautiful, so what's gone wrong?."
As you now know, it is a lot more diffcult than it looks. Several of my friends have decided to 'have a go at street' and only then do they realise the difficulty involved.
I suggest you start small and work your way up. If there is a nice garden near you...or even a garden shed, I think it would be a good idea to try to capture the best shot of a garden shed that you can. If you are using a 28mm lens, get right in there with that lens so the shed literally pops right out of the LCD, possibly at an angle which emphasises the corner or some other aspect of the building. Make sure your tripod is absolutely level and the light is right behind you, in the morning or dusk. Take as many shots as you can, adjusting settings in a systematic way, micro-adjusting your focus each time. I remember doing some macro shots and realising that the final, crucial piece of focussing was best done with my D5100 not only in liveview, but using a magnifying glass to look at the individual pixels in liveview! I suggest starting settings of ISO 100, f/8, +0.3 Exp Comp, maual focus set at around 2/3 of the way to the end of your object, 10s delayed release and let the shuterspeed sort itself out.
Remember, the success of outdoor photographer's is dependent on their understanding of light, but this will take time; in fact, this will take a lifetime. Start small and gradually work your way up to bigger and bigger vistas. Don't try to "get it all in." If your photos don't look like they are 'of' anything, it is probably because they aren't. Looking back on the majority of my first 2 years or so of photography, I can see exactly what I was thinking: "Oh, there's a pretty girl!...click...oh, there's a bridge!..click" While these shots were properly exposed and in focus, there was no point to most of them. There was no attempt to create a relationship between any elements in the scene. Perhaps that is why I am a Street Photographer?



I hope this helps, but I really don't think we can say anything else until we see some of your shots.

[William W]

I concur - we need to see some example images with EXIF,

But, in the meantime and just shooting the breeze with a few thoughts based upon these words --- "Good light" . . . "very little breeze" . . . "ISO 100"

Assuming you've stopped that L Series lens down to around F/8~11, and assuming the "good light" means the scene is at about EV=14, then at ISO100 you're pulling around around 1/200s to 1/100s . . . if this is so then there is a more than reasonably chance that all the light weight branches and mostly all the foliage will show Motion Blur, even if the Tripod was stable and you used "Mirror Up" and you used a Remote Release and your focus and DoF were accurate and appropriate and your PP technique was solid.

WW

[Stagecoach]

Steve,

So, take yesterday as an example.

OK

I went to take some photos of an old abbey a few miles from where I live

Right, so an old abbey is not going to move so there should be little problem getting this sharp with the most basic of procedures as already covered, e.g tripod, release (cable/timed), and a couple of stops up from wide open, etc

light was good,

What does 'good' mean? The light is good at midday, as far as brightness is concerned but 'not good' for most photography when it comes to buildings and landscapes.

very little breeze,

As covered by Bill, this could affect any foliage but I'm sure you would have realised that when assessing 'sharpness' of your image overall.

camera set to manual with an ISO of 100,

I'm not sure of your reason for mentioning the exposure determination method used?

but although my photos were ok, they just don't seem to be as crisp and sharp as some I see on the internet.

Perceived crispness and sharpness can be very much be due to contrast and lighting. We need to see your image to assess these qualities.

Maybe some I look at have had a lot of Photoshop (or similar) work to give them a 'wow', not sure, but mine never look that good.

I did a google search on 'Old Abbey' images and to be honest only about 2% had that WOW factor (for me) and that was purely due to lighting, colours, framing, weather, camera position and FL used and of course PP. Sharpness was something I did not really take any notice of in determining what I considered a great shot.

So, "what is the secret?"

Lighting, subject, weather and PP

[William W]

. . . I did a google search on 'Old Abbey' images and to be honest . . . [for an image of 'an abbey' any wow factor] was purely due to lighting, colours, framing, weather, camera position and FL used and of course PP. . . Sharpness was something I did not really take any notice of in determining what I considered a great shot . . .

Yes. That's a really insightful comment to address the question of creating ANY image of 'an old abbey'.

Many (professional) 'Landscape Photographers' spend time to scout the best camera viewpoint and then once that is decided, simply wait for the light - which might take several days.

WW

[chauncey]

Has Elvis left the building?