Comments on: 8 steps to sharper photos

By: Paul Pacurar

Paul Pacurar — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:33:40 +0000

Nice article, some good tips. But this guy is TOTALY wrong when says to underexpose. He doesn’t understand how the image is electronically saved. The lower exposure is, the lower the quality. The correct answer is to shoot at HIGHEST exposure possible, and if it is important, to save some highlights. Remember that shooting in RAW gives you about +1 stop flexibility. So, if you want to avoid highlights, expose them in the maximum exposed area (+2 or even +3); then subexpose the picture in post processing. Even if you have a night scene, or a dark subject, make the exposure as high as possible. You will thank me for such greater tones… Of course, is easier to do all these things on MANUAL mode (Aperture priority is an AUTOMATIC mode) and spot metering, but we don’t speak for idiots, do we? They don’t read photography tips…

By: When RAW is not enough :: Photocritic photography blog

When RAW is not enough :: Photocritic photography blog — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:28:47 +0000

[...] to shoot in RAW. There’s many obvious reasons for why this is a good idea. The final result can be sharper, you have better control over white balance, you get wider dynamic range, you can do HDR [...]

By: jenskie

jenskie — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:33:52 +0000

thanks for the info. I’ve been wondering how to make my photos look sharp. i am new to photography, in fact i’ve been exploring my new SLR for just 2 weeks
and not yet satisfied with my shots. this is really helpful for a beginner like me.:)

By: PeachTree Candids

PeachTree Candids — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:27:49 +0000

I really appreciated this article, I found it to be very helpful, thank you.

By: Digital Picture Zone

Digital Picture Zone — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:36:22 +0000

great guide my friend! that’s a very informative article!thanks….ill keep all these in mind.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:12:25 +0000

at the risk of duplicating info..

above someone asked if RAW compresses into jpg.. yes it does UNLESS your camera offers the option of saving the picture in RAW file format. Why doesn’t everyone do this? I’m guessing the top reasons are

1) space. a RAW file can take up multiples of the space a jpg file can. If you have little memory, you might be concerned. I use a Canon xsi which at its best offers RAW+.. this saves a RAW file AND a large uncompressed jpg fiile for each shot – about a 15+ meg per shot usage. My solution? Buy a larger SD card! (or whatever memory type you use) My 16 gig card ($35) can save 700+ shots at this highest resolution!

2. Some graphics programs or photo retouch software can’t handle RAW format. This is getting to be less and less of a problem.

So – unless you KNOW you’ll never ever need the higher res, better color, etc of RAW – use RAW (or RAW +) every time.

By: RAW usage up massively, JPEG bites the dust. by Photocritic

RAW usage up massively, JPEG bites the dust. by Photocritic — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 00:42:14 +0000

[...] of reasons for using RAW instead of JPG when you’re taking photographs. Your photos will be sharper, you will be able to unlock your camera’s full dynamic range, and you have a better [...]

By: Beaten by Dance Photography by Photocritic

Beaten by Dance Photography by Photocritic — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:03:28 +0000

[...] given that I always shoot RAW (one of the tips here, remember…), I finally found the point where the 450D meets the wall; It only has a 5-frame [...]

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:53:43 +0000

Good article with some interesting info – added you to my feeds and blogroll..

Great website.

By: San Diego Photographer

San Diego Photographer — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:15:34 +0000

I believe smart sharpen only sharpens areas of the photo that are somewhat sharp to begin with. So it won’t try to sharpen the entire image, even blurred backgrounds caused by a shallow DOF. Whereas USM sharpens everything, which can lead to noise, when you sharpen something that is OOF already (blurred background etc).

Personally, my less than sharp photos are always caused by me using too wide of an aperture, in an effort to get that really shallow DOF. I tend to make it too shallow some times. ; )

By: eva

eva — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:53:17 +0000

This may be a dumb question, but don’t you usually wind up compressing photos to JPGs on your computer even if you shoot in RAW? So won’t you wind up with noise from compression no matter what?

I guess I’m asking, is there an advantage to making the JPG on your computer vs. letting the camera compress to JPG, aside from the white balance, etc, modifications RAW lets you make after the fact?

By: charlie

charlie — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:37:09 +0000

Any news guys?

By: Corey

Corey — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:57:23 +0000

In regards to stopping down, the higher you go the more sharpness you will LOSE. Pinhole cameras especially. This is due to diffraction. This is not really relevant for most DSLR sensors up to f/16 or point and shoot sensors up to about f/8. Stopping down past those points results in a noticeable loss of sharpness due to diffraction.

Two additional tips I’d like to add:

1) Focus. If your photos aren’t in focus, they aren’t going to be sharp. If you can, frame you shot before you focus and don’t move the camera after you’re focused. Obviously this won’t work for everybody or everything. If you have to focus and then frame your shot be sure to move the camera as little towards or away from the camera as possible.

2) Lighting. If you light with a softbox from near the camera, you’re not going to introduce very much contrast into the scene. If you light with a bare reflector from 90°, though, you’re going to have a very contrasty shot and the perceived sharpness will increase.

Great article BTW!

By: Peglar

Peglar — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:36:15 +0000

truly amazing. i am a complete beginner who is starting out with a 2nd hand EOS 20D just tried raw iso 100 f8 compared to raw iso400 f4.5 massively noticable difference.

i can see me visiting this site more in the future!

By: Britton

Britton — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:26:08 +0000

Nice article.

I would add the following:
- Have a good quality lens. Great cameras can produce mush with a poor lens.

By: Rosh

Rosh — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:59:08 +0000

Good list. Some of these I’ve not even thought of in a while. I don’t like using a tri-pod, thus giving the other tips more importance. Still have to love “Smart Sharpen” in photoshop.

Rosh

http://www.newmediaphotographer.com

By: Chris Bergman

Chris Bergman — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:55:45 +0000

I remember the first time I used a remote. I have really shaky hands (lots o’ coffee!) and it was like someone had just given me gold.

By: Craig Wilson

Craig Wilson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:56:30 +0000

Lots of good advice here, some times I find the most difficult aspect can be getting a razor sharp image when you really want one!

A sturdy tripod is essential for me..

By: photohelp08

photohelp08 — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:21:15 +0000

When I started using a tripod, and the camera’s self timer, it made all the difference in the world.
Don’t forget, it’s the Photographer, not the Camera.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:49:24 +0000

I have to disagree with point #6. With digital, it’s much better to overexpose by a stop or two than to underexpose. The argument of losing data applies to both ends of the spectrum. If there’s not enough light in an area because it’s underexposed, it’ll be black no matter what.

However, because of the way light works, there is an advantage to exposing more of your image in the lighter tones. For each stop, your camera can record twice as much information as the stop below it. That means that as long as you’re not all the way to the right of the histogram, you’ll have more levels of light, and thus more detail, in the lighter tones, and less noise. A more detailed explanation is at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml.

By: patpro

patpro — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:05:24 +0000

You will have to take your screen into account too!
I have too computers, a tower with a CRT monitor, and a laptop (LCD). The CRT displays pictures in a smoother way than the LCD. Sometimes, if I sharpen a picture on my CRT, the result will look bad (too sharp) on the LCD.

By: Tobin

Tobin — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:58:57 +0000

Great article, thanks. Definitely all things to keep in the back of the mind when shooting — I’d say it’s pretty rare to say “damn, that photo was too sharp”.

The only point that might have a caveat is the “stop down your lens” tip. While technically true that lenses are sharpest when stopped down, often images will *appear* sharper when the aperture is wide open enough to throw the background nicely out of focus. The large “sharpness contrast” makes the subject seem sharper than it perhaps is. It’s a psychological/visual thing, rather than a technical thing. This is probably more effective on a naturally sharp lens like a good 50mm prime lens than a softer zoom.

Anyway, just thought that was worth thinking about. Great blog!