Super-sharp and clean images

I've come accustomed to shooting fully Manual as I found Aperture Priority a bit dicey (most likely my lack of using it effectively enough) and use the in-camera evaluative metering as a guide then adjust to my interpretation.

As I shoot Manual, exposure compensation doesn't come into the equation. I monitor both Luminance and RGB histograms and check that highlights are either not blown or mostly recoverable depending on the scene. I also keep the highlight flashing alert on.

The venues I shoot at are small to medium where lighting isn't usually that generous; obviously this will impact available ISO range, shutter speed and especially aperture for dof, but I don't think this is the cause of my troubles given exif data on some images. I put it more down to my lack of pp skills.

Anything else I can help you with, info wise?

I thought about that actually... so here's an example. Posted here is what the original out-of-camera image looks like. Subject matter is Junior Marvin, in case anyone has misgivings :)

Basic EXIF:
Exposure 1/160 sec at f/4.0
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Did not fire
Exposure Program Manual
Metering Mode Pattern
ISO Speed Rating 1600
Focal Length 70 mm
Lens EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

I've also made available the 'original' file for download. 'Original' meaning it's the Canon CR2 RAW file converted to DNG. This may be a little more accessible to any interested parties.

Download 'original' file here.

I can be a bit of a numpty when it comes to web things, have just tried downloading the file and it downloads as 'IMG_0282.dng.txt' - so just chop off the .txt extension at the end, obviously.

Thanks for the response Dan, and compliments on your pic there. You mention one key point here:

"The keys to clean, sharp images are focus and exposure. Everything else can be adjusted."

As some surveys go, I 'somewhat' agree. But knowing how to apply the adjustments in post processing is part of it all. It's what'll turn an OK capture to a cracker. Or turn it out as an OK result. I know my posted example has potential. But I've not found it yet.

The DNG file is at your disposal, if you have the time or inclination I'd be interested to see your take on processing it. Want to see it jump out :-D . No pressure though, only if you're game.

I hear what you say that it's slightly soft. One of the first things one learns is that the microphone has a habit of 'always' being sharp (hehe, grabbing the limelight huh) instead of where you'd want the focus to be, which is usually the eyes or the plane of the eyes... so no I wasn't focusing on the mike! And pixel peeping will reveal the softness, as would huge prints, but for general purposes I'd say we're good to go.

If anyone else is out there especially Lightroom users, feel free to have a go too. Might be worth my reposting in the Requests & Challenges section.

But this thread isn't about dissecting one of my images.

I'd like to know what people do (esp in Lightroom) to achieve eye-popping results. I don't use CS2 or 3 so if you (not you Dan, all y'all) spend hours retouching every image with layers and dodging/burning/masks etc then that'll be in another lesson.

As I said, some of the effects like sharpening are mostly arbitrary to me beyond the visual (I do zoom in to 100% and apply the mask to better see the effect) but still. And the same clean pop I got in Canon DPP I've not been able to reproduce in LR.

I have a love/hate relationship with auto focus. I always manually select the AF point (cameras are Canon 40D/20D) as I find that auto selection more often than not doesn't cut it, given the environment we work in, with continuous movement and lights of changing colour and intensity. Similarly, AF servo sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Hence I would choose my focus point - similar to what you were saying Walter - according to framing and subject matter.

A bit fiddly sometimes with timing & whatnot, so sometimes I grab the nearest one, focus and recompose.

In the above pic, the active AF point was actually the centre far right one, on his dreads. I reckon I probably tried to get the top right one (or diagonal top/right one from centre) but settled on this one, focused on his cheek if not on the shades themselves and recomposed then shot. Those four 'diagonals' are the hardest to pick, I don't like the round robin option (i.e. the controller picks each one in sequence) - if I need to switch from far right to far left, say, I don't want to pick my way through them all in sequence, I prefer to hit the controller 4 times and get there without fuss.

I find that manual focusing is sometimes better and more practical; at one time I went through a phase of shooting only manual as the AF was too slow or was getting lost (kept hunting), or wasn't accurate enough (non L lenses at the time btw). Luckily my eyesight is good so I got just rewards. I bought the EF-s (high precision matte) focusing screen for the 40D for manual focusing. Used it to good effect last weekend actually. But microphones? Jeez God love em, always causing trouble! lol

Walter - I chose f4 for more depth of field, the idea being to include hat, hair and some torso (this was a conscious decision I recall). 800 was the max usable (IMO) ISO on the 20D - 1600 was abysmal - and I'm pleasantly surprised by the handling of the 40D at 1600, so use it more often. Still, 800 seems to be some kind of threshold, as 800 holds (as you also say) more detail. I'd prefer to shoot at 800 but sometimes ya gotta chop & change. Similar to yourself, my 'base' or 'datum' is f2.8 on 800 and 'see where we go from there'. I do appreciate what you say about spot metering and might give it a lash this weekend actually (thank you).

Swings and roundabouts then it is. And lots of practice. But I'm still certain that I'm missing out on a few tricks or methods in pp!

Appreciate the discussion folks.

As with most things in photography, changing factors will determine how effective manual focus or auto-focus is in a given scenario, and the well worn mantra of 'practice practice practice' fits well and I use it all the time.

Putting aside shooting environment for a moment, subject matter is one aspect - auto-focus would generally be more _reliable_ if you're at a metal concert with a lot of movement, whereas a more sedate recital would allow more time for focusing manually. Two extremes, obviously, but I hope it illustrates the core point. Anticipation is part of it too, so that the subject comes into focus as you press the shutter release, rather than moves out of focus.

As auto-focus is technology that you control, your choice of it plays a big part. I've used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (with all the trimmings...Asp, DX etc) which is a very clean lens but it focuses quite slowly and can be noisy at times (like in theatre stage work I'd notice it), it also gets into trouble in low contrast as well as backlit high contrast situations and either hunts, or doesn't locate completely 100% so my images were sometimes a little soft.

I started experimenting with 2 things; namely how to focus to get the AF to work better, as well as manual focusing. This took a lot of practice. I've much better kit now so rely more on AF but sometimes switch to MF. Should do it more often really, I enjoy it.

AF will lock on to something with contrast, so if you can't get the eyes, there might be a nose stud or jewelry or something providing a glimmer or an edge _on the plane of the eyes_ i.e. at the same distance from the lens as the eyes would be, to ensure that the eyes are sharp. AF might be fooled if there is backlighting or flare as the info feeding back to the AF point is distorted or interrupted by the extraneous light (good reason to always use a lens hood, esp with lights above or to the side of the stage).

Manual focus will depend on how reliable the image you see through the viewfinder is, and your skill at determining at exactly what is in focus. The image may not be bright enough, for example an f/2.8 lens would give a brighter image through the VF than an f/4 lens. You may need to adjust the diopter setting if your eyesight needs it. Or the viewfinder is cramped, like in some 1.6 crop factor cameras (I've no idea about Nikons - used a D70 ages ago - but 20D is pretty small, and 40D is larger and therefore more comfortable in use). To help matters, you could invest in a brighter focusing screen (I did - it's great).

Determining what is in focus takes a lot of practice, patience and concentration. Don't know how else to describe it. I would focus on what I want to be the primary point, whether it's the eyes or the bridge of an instrument or whatever, then slightly back-focus. Personally I find this gives better results than just focusing on the primary but it might be my eyesight that I'm compensating for.

Overall, I find that music photography takes a _lot_ of concentration, fitting together the jigsaw puzzle and being critical in observation. Almost micro-managing observation, being hyper-aware. I'd imagine the same in sports/action photography.

On the technical front, the higher the ISO the more noise of course. The lower the ISO the more limitations in exposure as you've said. I don't know what equipment you're using, technology is moving on and recent cameras are using processors with much better algorithms for resolving noise and colour. Per thread above, my Canon 20D (issued 2004) was almost unusable at 1600. Both Nikon and Canon have some gems out there today by comparison. The camera will also determine AF point accuracy and sensitivity, having different types of AF sensors at different parts of the screen, so find out which ones are better for your composition. The centre one will always be the most accurate one, as a general rule. You'd have cross type, horizontal and vertical sensors; cross type being usually in the centre and sensitive to both horizontal and vertical planes; meaning it'll focus on most things regardless of orientation. As the names imply, the H and V sensors will be more successful focusing on a subject in their plane. You'd need to read up on the configuration of the AF sensors in your camera, which might help you in getting more out of your AF.

And yes, good exposure has a lot to do with it too. You literally lose detail if channels are blocked (shadows) or blown (highlights). An over-exposed green jacket would be a solid green mass without any texture and an under-exposed image would leave areas of no detail and lots of noise in it's absence. Software can help you rescue some of this, but only to a point. A good exposure will read the levels correctly and help in achieving sharpness in your image. But as I keep coming back to it... tricks in good post processing will really bring out the best. I'm sounding like a broken record here!

Another waffle. Plus we're moving to the right of the page making it look a lot longer than it is! Anyway hope it helps.

Lots of practice.... and learning from others by discussing stuff.. Don't think I'm getting very far with my original thread here. Oh well, interesting discussion anyway - thanks.

..but I'm having a crack at the impossible :)

Thanks Dwight, you're very lucky to be in that situation. Given my current level of skill and ability I'm not sure how significantly a 1DIII would improve my results over using a 40D, though L glass has certainly opened things up somewhat for me - and not a hope in finding a venue and LD rolled into one like yours :) So miracles are out for the time being.

But there are also tips & tricks in post processing. Lightroom has never given me the same crisp clear images that DPP was able to produce, though LR outweighs DPP in many other ways, so it stays. However I've recently plugged in LR/Mogrify that gets me closer to my aim with its unsharp mask. It's a long struggle, I see that others aren't too keen on sharing their insights, so I'll just keep plugging away.