How to take clear photos

[heathramos]

I took quite a few pictures on my last vacation and I'm not satisfied with how some came out.

To me, at least, it seems like they are not completely in focus and I want to know if it is a setting I'm choosing or my skill level.

The pictures look okay if you don't zoom in but if you do, you notice it.

I have taken pictures that are clear so it is possible for me to do.

Maybe it is just really hard to do if I'm zooming all the way (300mm on my lens)?

Or maybe I need a slower shutter speed?

Keep in mind that I'm using a single point for focus.

Here is a pic of a baby leopard that doesn't seem to be in focus when I zoom in:



The following picture seems clear even if I zoom in (different settings, lens and lighting though)



I usually just use shutter priority, take a pic and double check the histogram to make sure nothing gets clipped. I don't really put too much thought beyond that at this point.

I also choose single point focus to prevent it from focusing on something else, like a closer object.

Should I choose a different focus setting?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

on the first one you went with ISO 280 and F32. You could have went with a lower ISO and and opened up the F stop to like F11 or so and probably gotten better results. The second one a slower shutter speed and closed down the aperture some and gotten a little for DOF. A good place to start on shutter speed is the shutter speed to match the len length. At 300MM try to keep it at 1/320 sec or so but at 50mm try to keep it around 1/60. This is a starting point to keep from getting motion blur. Of course it will need to be faster it the subject is in motion.

Try the spot focus setting. Focus by holding down the button half way then reframe and shoot.

 

[heathramos]

I normally don't set my iso setting

I just leave iso on auto unless it is too dark

as for shutter speed, I set mine on 1/250 for the 1st pic. would 1/320 make that much of a difference?

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

No it would not. Set the aperture to let in more light so the ISO won't be so high. That high an ISO will cause it to be noisy

 

[aroy]

For the first picture
. Use lower F stop - F11 max, after that diffraction softens up the image.
. Use ISO 100. I always set the ISO, never in auto. Even in my D3300 there is noise at ISO 400 and I rarely go beyond that.
. Note that at 300mm most of the consumer lenses are soft, for sharp images, try to stay within 200mm unless you really need that reach.

In short for action shots instead of cranking up the aperture, increase the speed and maintain as low an ISO as feasible.

 

[egosbar]

dont forget shutter speed to focal length , and on the d5200 its a crop sensor so add half again , so at 300mm you should be shooting 1/450 minimum , i quote "maybe i should us a slower shutter speed" the opposite is true , the faster the shutter speed the better chance of tack sharp

i would never shoot auto iso , instead i shoot aperture priority and have my iso set to my rear scroll wheel so i choose the depth of field i want then i might increase iso up to 400 but on the d7100 i will shoot higher if i must , the only reason im increasing iso is to get shutter speed higher then focal lenghth plus half again for the crop sensor , i agree with above the 18-300 wouldnt be at its sharpest at 300mm , f8 or f11 will give you on most lenses the best chance of sharp
looks like pretty good light in pic one you could of easily shot at iso 100 , f8 or maybe a stop wider and a shutter speed of 1/450 or higher

single focus is the way to go with still subjects and focus on eye lock it and recompose , continuous focus for moving objects

when your zooming in for focus check just go to 100% and see , if you cant get shutter speed high enough get a tripod

 

[wornish]

I had this lens on my D700 and getting a tac sharp shot at 300mm was not easy unless I was in very good light and ideally on a tripod even then it was always a bit soft.
I agree with all the comments above, shutter speed makes a big difference when you are hand holding and @ 300mm on a D5200 you need to be at 1/450 sec to get the best chance.
You can improve the image in PP by adding a bit of clarity and also removing chromatic aberration.
For the first pic of the cub how big a crop is this picture I am guessing that you were quite a way away from the cub and this is a quite large crop which again works against getting the best results.

 

[nickt]

All tips mentioned will improve your shots. I suggest to practice shooting for sharpness. Set up a soda can or any product box at a typical wildlife distance and practice getting sharp shots. A small distant sign will work as well. Zoom in and see how well you can read the text each time. You can find your sharpest aperture at a given zoom level and learn at what shutter speed you start to show shake. Also work through the range of iso and see how it affects your image and how raising it may be needed to support a good shutter speed with a compromise in quality.

If you are not completely comfortable with the relationship between shutter, aperture, and iso, get yourself comfortable. Here is a start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8T94sdiNjc

 

[aroy]

some times, at least with the D3300 24MP sensor, a sharper image at lower focal length is better than a fuzzy at longer focal length. In my case I have the 70-300mm AF, a pretty bag lense at 300mm. Cropped images at 55mm of my kit lense are as sharp as from 300mm, which apart from loss of sharpness has a lot of CA.

 

[Woodyg3]

I don't understand how auto ISO would have given you 2800 ISO for the first shot, that's just crazy. Anyway, I would turn auto ISO off.

If my quick calculations are right, you should have been able to get the same exposure with settings of about 1/500, f/8 and ISO 200. That would have given you a lot less noise and likely a much sharper picture.

Did you have VR turned on? That can help with motion blur too, of course.

The second shot is great!

 

[Marcel]

A few things I did notice from your pictures. For the leopard, f32 is ridiculous because it induces a lot of diffraction which blurs things out.

Have you checked your camera sharpness settings (menu<picture settings<sharpness)? It's usually set a bit too low from the factory, bring it up to around 6 or 7.

Third, there are many ways to sharpen in post production. As a matter of fact, if you are using Raw files, they MUST be sharpened since the camera sharpness settings are NOT applied to the Raw files.

Maybe you are looking at your camera as a point and shoot, but it is not. There are many things you can adjust to make it perform to your personal taste. You just have to figure out what you want to do with it and make the proper adjustments.

Good luck and welcome to Nikonites.

 

[heathramos]

A few things I did notice from your pictures. For the leopard, f32 is ridiculous because it induces a lot of diffraction which blurs things out.

Have you checked your camera sharpness settings (menu<picture settings<sharpness)? It's usually set a bit too low from the factory, bring it up to around 6 or 7.

Third, there are many ways to sharpen in post production. As a matter of fact, if you are using Raw files, they MUST be sharpened since the camera sharpness settings are NOT applied to the Raw files.

Maybe you are looking at your camera as a point and shoot, but it is not. There are many things you can adjust to make it perform to your personal taste. You just have to figure out what you want to do with it and make the proper adjustments.

Good luck and welcome to Nikonites.

I didn't purposely choose the aperture or iso. I used shutter priority and had iso on auto. I assume that maybe the shutter speed I chose was wrong or I needed to be in full manual mode. I could have also set the iso on auto but put a lower max setting for it.

I will check that sharpness setting when I get home. Thanks for the info.

I am using raw files and I have Lightroom 5. Any PP tips? Lightroom can be overwhelming. So many things you can tinker with.

 

[Marcel]

I didn't purposely choose the aperture or iso. I used shutter priority and had iso on auto. I assume that maybe the shutter speed I chose was wrong or I needed to be in full manual mode. I could have also set the iso on auto but put a lower max setting for it.

I will check that sharpness setting when I get home. Thanks for the info.

I am using raw files and I have Lightroom 5. Any PP tips? Lightroom can be overwhelming. So many things you can tinker with.

When using shutter priority, you should always try to have a shutter speed faster than 1/1.5 x focal length. In the case of the leopard, since you were using a 300mm lens, the shutter speed should have been set to 1/500 minimum. 1/1000 should even have been better since animals can move pretty fast and you do want to freeze the motion.

As far as post processing, you can add clarity and sharpness in LR. But with the high iso you used that time, it could lead to some noise too. You'll know for next time.

 

[egosbar]

turn off auto iso , u need to know what it is doing and either compensate aperture or shutter to keep it reasonably low

 

[WayneF]

I didn't purposely choose the aperture or iso. I used shutter priority and had iso on auto. I assume that maybe the shutter speed I chose was wrong or I needed to be in full manual mode. I could have also set the iso on auto but put a lower max setting for it.

It is very puzzling to me why either Auto ISO or shutter preferred would have allowed bright sun to go to f/32 at 2800 ISO. That just does not seem possible without some additional help on one of those other settings. I would have expected more like ISO 100 at f/6.3 - if Minimum ISO allowed it that low. I think something we believe to be true, may not be true. Wish I could see the entire the original Raw Exif, thinking it might show something more?

I suspect the ISO might be the worst problem. If any Lightroom processing was done to hide the ISO noise, that would make the image less sharp. Or maybe camera shake. 1/250 second is not quite 1/focal length, but that is just a rough rule of thumb anyway, not always meaningful. And it is a VR lens, so not necessarily so bad, but it is not fail safe either.

I don't think f/32 is all that bad here either, since it is 300 mm. Airy disk diffraction depends on the actual diameter of the aperture (a second reason telescopes are so large - more resolution)... so all of these next combinations are the same physical diameter:

f/32 at 300 mm focal length
f/16 at 150 mm
f/8 at 75mm
f/4 at 37mm.

We don't get excited about most of those. But this is why long lenses stop down to f/32, and short lenses do not. The f/number is not the issue, the physical diameter is.

But... on every picture we take, the camera viewfinder shows us the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed that it will use. Photographers need to LOOK AT IT, and double check it... are these the values I actually want to use for this shot?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Well you have three options for controlling this, as is usually the case in photography so let's look at each one in turn.

Option A: You use a wider aperture... Or do you? A 300mm tele at full extension is what, f/5.6 or so? If it's a really fast piece of glass, say, f/2.8 or so you're in luck! This extra flexibility is precisely what you paid (out the wazoo) for. Then too if your glass was that fast you probably wouldn't be having this problem to start with. Also, going THAT wide (f/2.8 or so) you risk not having sufficient depth of field to get really good focus as deep as you need it, and this can not really be corrected for in post processing. Going that wide is also moot point if you're shooting a more typical 300mm tele that has a maximum aperture of something around f/5.6 or so.

Option B: You need to use a shutter speed *at least* one-and-a-half times as fast as the focal length with double the length being better in my opinion so that means you're looking at, say, 1/500 or so. Probably tough on a 300mm because the max aperture at full extension is slowing you down. You can opt to use the slower shutter speed and hope the stabilizers (VR, OS, whatever your lens calls it) get you a crisp shot, or use a tripod to keep things steady. You can also try removing any motion blur using Photoshop but the Motion Blur filter is sketchy in my experience, so again, avoidance is your best best which brings us back to hope or a tripod.

Option C: You use a higher ISO and risk digital "noise". Personally, I'd much rather have "noise" than motion blur. (Unintended) Motion blur ruins photos while a little too much noise makes them less than ideal. Also, "noise" is, in my experience much easier to remove than motion blur.

Photographer, pick thy poison.

.....