PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[Borek]

I have a problem here:

Same prime lens (100mm 2.8L macro), same ISO, both pictures taken from the tripod standing in both cases in exactly the same position, with the same external flash, distance about 2 meters, ISO 100, 8.0/200 - the only difference is a body. One is 400D other is 7D. Both crops 1:1. "Standard" picture mode in both cases (which means slight automatic sharpening).

7D is much less sharper. I would say surprisingly less sharper. Does it mean it is defective? I have no idea how they should compare, but I don't like what I see. From the 1:1 crops Andre posted I felt like the image should be crisp sharp, but it is obviously not a case.

 

[Andre]

Yes that's clearly not good.

This is a 100% crop (albeit fully sharpened with dpp)

of this 1:1 shot with the 100mm non-L lens on the 7D.

For better benchmarking you could use the test pictures of dpreview,in any test, for instance:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGF2/page18.asp

Scroll down to the 4 crops with coins visible, select any camera you want in the pull down menu and compare. You can also download the full shot from that.

Incidently, the concept of this particular picture was "magnificent" or 'magnified cent'

 

[Andre]

Does it mean it is defective? .

Obviously the result is not right but it could be a focus problem. How stable is the tripod? I see that my tripod is not stable enough, so I shoot using remote control in the life view mode (using manual focussing), so the mirror is already up.

The problem could also be the image stabilisation fighting the tripod. IS should be off on the tripod. Furthermore, it could be a calibration problem of the focussing. make an oblique picture of a yardstick, noting the exact focus point and see if there is a shift in focus. The 7D allows for individual lens focussing adjustments (menu C.Fn III 5). One of the reasons why it's so expensive.

 

[Borek]

Obviously the result is not right but it could be a focus problem. How stable is the tripod? I see that my tripod is not stable enough, so I shoot using remote control in the life view mode (using manual focussing), so the mirror is already up.

1/200 sec and a flash, that shouldn't be a problem. But just in case pictures were taken with 2 sec self-timer to avoid shaking.

The problem could also be the image stabilisation fighting the tripod. IS should be off on the tripod.

And it was off, forgot to state it in the first post. But at short times it is not that important, it becomes an issue when taking tripod pictures with longer times, like 0.2".

Furthermore, it could be a calibration problem of the focussing. make an oblique picture of a yardstick, noting the exact focus point and see if there is a shift in focus.

That's the only thing that remains to be checked. DOF is about 8 cm in front of the books and 8.5 cm behind, book that lies flat is less than 2cm behind the fronts, so there is a little bit of error margin. I have spotted problem using other lens, so I am afraid it is not lens related (edit: or it will be a problem with all lenses). But I will check.

 

[Andre]

Right it's indeed beginning to look like a camera problem, although the focussing may be off for all lenses by miss management of the microadjust menu. But if that doesn't help to get something crisp and clear, then you run out of the options.

 

[Borek]

Microadjustments are just disabled.

 

[Andre]

Are you sure? After selecting the adjust, you enter the function with the info button.

 

[Borek]

I am sure - they were disabled, I have played with the settings, then cleared data and disabled again. Now I am trying to take a picture with focusing in live mode, from what I understand it focuses using max contrast, not phase detection, so should be more accurate for not calibrated lenses. Trick is, batteries in my flash are almost dead and it takes forever.

 

[Borek]

Wow!

 

[Borek]

Everything else as before, upper part - 400D, lower part - 7D with live focusing.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I have a problem here:

Same prime lens (100mm 2.8L macro), same ISO, both pictures taken from the tripod standing in both cases in exactly the same position, with the same external flash, distance about 2 meters, ISO 100, 8.0/200 - the only difference is a body. One is 400D other is 7D. Both crops 1:1. "Standard" picture mode in both cases (which means slight automatic sharpening).

7D is much less sharper. I would say surprisingly less sharper. Does it mean it is defective? I have no idea how they should compare, but I don't like what I see. From the 1:1 crops Andre posted I felt like the image should be crisp sharp, but it is obviously not a case.

Interesting. I found this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page21.asp

Which compares the 7D to the 50D. There is a clear difference in sharpness (the 7D comes out sharper), but it's not clear how much is due to in-camera processing.

 

[turbo]

Congrats, Borek! Nice outcome.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Since I've gotten my camera and my primary interest in photography is astrophotography, I thought I'd post some of my first astro images here. I do know that there is a thread in the Astronomy forum dedicated to Astrophotos, but I feel these are better here.

All of these photos were taken from my home, a small farm in south eastern Saskatchewan, where the skies are about a Bortle 3. The photos were taken with a non-tracking tripod, ISO 1600, exposure times from 10-30 seconds, with the Canon T2i Kit lens, 18-55mm.

No processing has been done on the photos either(other than what my camera does itself); I am not too good at stuff like that yet.

Very nice! I'm jealous of the clear skies and good seeing.

 

[Borek]

Interesting. I found this:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page21.asp

Which compares the 7D to the 50D. There is a clear difference in sharpness (the 7D comes out sharper), but it's not clear how much is due to in-camera processing.

Thanks, I have seen this comparison, I was just on able to find it fast (while playing with tripod/lenses/three cameras and two computers). That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

PS I have abused my superpowers and undeleted your post - it is perfectly on subject!

 

[Borek]

Here is a crop of the Mizar-Alcor system from the photo above.

I am no longer able to see them both with a naked eye. I am afraid of checking if I can see them in my glases

 

[Andre]

...That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

But is the focus problem with the phase detection solved now?

 

[Borek]

But is the focus problem with the phase detection solved now?

Not yet - so far I was just able to take a nice, sharp picture by other means, so at least I know sensor is OK. I will play with calibration later today.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Thanks, I have seen this comparison, I was just on able to find it fast (while playing with tripod/lenses/three cameras and two computers). That was one of the reasons I was so badly surprised by the low quality of the pictures.

PS I have abused my superpowers and undeleted your post - it is perfectly on subject!

:) I wasn't sure.

FWIW, I found it helpful to "go manual" for a while: manual focus, manual f/# and exposure selection, turn off all 'enhancements', etc. When I got my Sony, I realized how sloppy I could be with the point-and-shoots and still get good results. Going to a larger sensor and higher quality lenses really highlights user error.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I finally got a day to relax in the lab- here's some of what I got- first, some "things". I grew up calling them 'gumballs', they are fruit from Liquidambar styraciflua, and we would often throw them at each other for fun:

[PLAIN]http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8199/dsc4411a.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5416/dsc4414a.jpg

I like the texture of the images- the gumballs are very spiky, and the images bring that out (IMO).

A colleague lent me a video "shapes of the invisible"

http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7011568

and it gave me some good ideas. So, I went into the basement, dusted off my No. 5 jack plane and took some swipes of different woods: oak and maple.

Here's the endgrain of oak:

[PLAIN]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2425/dsc4421i.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/4786/dsc4429l.jpg

And here's the sidegrain:

[PLAIN]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/7426/dsc4433.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9330/dsc4436d.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/5373/dsc4441.jpg

Notice the shiny dots on the interior- I'm not sure what they are, but I was able to get some close-up shots on the microscope:

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/910/dsc4466m.jpg

[PLAIN]http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/5322/dsc4470.jpg

Here's a shot of maple, looking at a 'bird's-eye' defect:

[PLAIN]http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/9200/dsc4446.jpg

Most of these images were taken with the 63 and 25mm luminar and are full-frame, the microscope images were taken at 32X and 160X, and cropped in the center.

 

[turbo]

Nice, Andy! You might want to look at a very thin shaving of oak so see what you can find. Oak is pretty self-repairing. If a cell gets damaged, and the sap-pressure is lower than that of adjacent cells, the pressure difference forces a web of material in the inter-cell channel toward the damaged cell, and it forms a seal that becomes permanent. This is the reason that it takes a couple of years of seasoning to get oak dry enough to burn with its maximum heat content.

As a process chemist in a pulp mill, I spent what seems like years looking at microscopic samples of wood chips, and correlating chip moisture (feeding the Kraft digester) with digester yields. The upshot? Feed your digester fresh wood chips to maximize liquor penetration and yield. And if you're getting loads of oak, don't stockpile it - chip the logs and feed the chips ASAP for the best yield.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Good suggestion- I currently have a pile of shavings to look at.

Feed your digester fresh wood chips to maximize liquor penetration and yield.

Heh- I feed my digester fresh Wild Turkey to maximize liquor penetration and yield :)

 

[Borek]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.

To some extent this is comparing apples and oranges - L class prime lens and zoom (at 100mm), bottom left corner of the image, fully opened aperture. Still, I wasn't aware 18-200 performs that bad. Even my old 28-105 works better at 100 mm.

Sigh.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.To some extent this is comparing apples and oranges - L class prime lens and zoom (at 100mm), bottom left corner of the image, fully opened aperture. Still, I wasn't aware 18-200 performs that bad. Even my old 28-105 works better at 100 mm.

Sigh.

Wait- hang on. You were using different lenses the whole time? I thought you just swapped camera bodies?

Or did I completely miss the point... which lens/camera took which image?

 

[Borek]

I was comparing BOTH bodies and lenses. First it was about bodies (400D vs 7D with 100/2.8L macro), later it was about lenses (100/2.8L vs 18-200, with 7D). I see snapshots of the ongoing tests that I posted could be confusing.

 

[Andre]

Obviously it makes clear why some lenses costs a lot more. I was somehow expecting to see degraded performance of my cheap 70-300 as well on the plethora of pixels when I got the 550D but I was a lot more pleasantly surprised.

 

[Andre]

Anyway, the sunset of this evening at a little local lake, all made with the 70-300mm on the 7D.

Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

 

[Andre]

This is sad and costly, but I am sure now. I am limited by the lenses I have.

The sharpest you can get for a ridiculously low price is the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II. Nice for studio work. Also as said I'm quite happy with the 70-300. But it seems that there is some variation in performance in this lens.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Anyway, the sunset of this evening at a little local lake, all made with the 70-300mm on the 7D.

Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

I think my favorite one is the ducks- good color, texture, and composition.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

for some composition aesthetics

How was this attempted and is there a more expansive explanation for why it was?

 

[Andre]

...Maybe notice the attempt to use the rule of thirds for some composition aesthetics

How was this attempted and is there a more expansive explanation for why it was?

Ah certainly. the rule of thirds is maybe better explained here or here.

Note the description of the rule here by John Thomas Smith, 1797.

here is and example where I placed the musician's head in the upperleft "strong point" (1/3 to both sides) and his hands in the lower left. But that was the objective of the challenge in which it was entered

Here you can see how a bulls eye shot -subject in the middle, can be cropped that it obeys the rule of thirds:

So the first picture, that Andy liked the most, I placed the coots in the lower right strong-point, while in the others I sort of placed the sun close to one of the strongpoints, but that should be further refined by proper cropping.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Does this explain why this may be aesthetically pleasing?

According to the link given, Smith, an engraver, first wrote the term, quoting 'a 1783 work by Sir Joshua Reynolds, in which Reynolds discusses, in unquantified terms, the balance of dark and light in a painting.[6]. Smith then continues with an expansion on the idea, naming it the "Rule of thirds":'

And further according to your wiki link, “he does not discuss the now-common idea that intersections of the third-lines of the frame are particularly strong or interesting for composition.”

It has been referred to elsewhere as a “sloppy” version of the “golden section”,

e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0411195

and as related to Arnheim’s “centre”,

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/LEON_r_00064 .

It is probably not beyond many at a physics forum to comprehend the less "sloppy" versions.

Additionally, the rule of thirds has been used here as a guide to placing areas of focus at an intersecting “strong-point”, rather than as a guide to proportions.

However, this paper published showing empirical tests suggests the rule of thirds, without other considerations, is not a particularly aesthetically pleasing compositional guide, anyway.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~plab/pdf/PalmerGardner&Wickens-1.pdf

 

[Andre]

That's interesting indeed, thanks Fuzzyfelt.

Reading Palmer et al. I'm not sure if experiment one, figure one (page 424) is a valid refutation of the rule of thirds. If you present a symmetrical figure in a symmetrical frame, the aestical preference would logically be the point of symmetry, hence the middle. So that biasses the outcome, I would think. What if they presented an assymetric triangle, rather than a circle?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Was there an argument in favour of 'The rule of thirds'. Did you link to one? I don't see it.

 

[Andre]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

The “Rule of Thirds” one of the first things that budding digital photographers learn about in classes on photography and rightly so as it is the basis for well balanced and interesting shots.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

No new information there. But it's very interesting. I think about toying with those matters a bit. Maybe worth a new thread.

Also interesting to see that many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

Firstly, a query-

is the support for this claim

I see many professional photographers use the rule of third as fundamental basics;

really the quote of some guy who

“In November 2002, while working as a part-time minister, for an online department store, and as a casual laborer,[2] Rowse started LivingRoom.org.au, a blog about living in Australia, religion (mainly the emerging church movement), politics and other topics that he found interesting.[3]”

and whose“likes” include movies, photography and food?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Rowse

If so, he might have some interesting opinions on aesthetics, like most people might, and it makes my reference to, say, Arnheim-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Arnheim

“Rudolf Arnheim (July 15, 1904 – June 9, 2007) was a German-born author, art and film theorist and perceptual psychologist. He himself said that his major books are Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye (1954), Visual Thinking (1969), and The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982), but it is Art and Visual Perception for which he was most widely known. Revised, enlarged and published as a New Version in 1974, it has been translated into 14 languages, and is very likely one of the most widely read and influential art books of the twentieth century.”

seem a little OTT, but is the link in any way relevant to the claim about professional photographers?