 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006Sharpness
I have taken this picture with flash and not used long shutter speed. The camera: Nikon D2x, lens: Sigma 18+50 f2.8. This is a 100 % portion of the image. Even this portion is supposed to be the focused area of the picture, the olives are not sharp. Have I wrong focus or the camera is shaked under exposure? thanks, Mojtaba http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2dria03 > I have taken this picture with flash and not used long shutter speed. > The camera: Nikon D2x, lens: Sigma 18+50 f2.8. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > under exposure? > thanks, Either your camera has chosen to focus on the wrong thing or the lens isn't capable of focussing so close.  Signatureinvalid = com >>I have taken this picture with flash and not used long shutter speed. >>The camera: Nikon D2x, lens: Sigma 18+50 f2.8. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Either your camera has chosen to focus on the wrong thing or the lens isn't > capable of focussing so close. Even the backgroung is unsharp, so probably Your lens can not focus even that close. Your camera should warn You if it can not focus, were You focusing manually? Väinö Louekari > Even the backgroung is unsharp, so probably Your lens can not focus even > that close. Your camera should warn You if it can not focus, were You > focusing manually? It appears that there is a narrow plane of focus visible on the table top somewhere between the forks and the stainless steel background, but the posted picture is of such low fidelity it is hard to say. That lens is capable of focussing down to 28cm, but I believe that'll only be at the 18mm end, not the 50mm end, and I suspect he was using the other end. He probably needs a macro lens fo rthis type of shot, something capable of greater then 1:5 magnification. And he probably needs to focus manually, or at least learn how to get the AF to focus correctly in what appears to be low light, and also use a smaller f/stop, say f/16 to increase his depth of field. Rich >> Even the backgroung is unsharp, so probably Your lens can not focus even >> that close. Your camera should warn You if it can not focus, were You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >background, but the posted picture is of such low fidelity it is hard to >say. I can send the whole picture, if it helps. I don't know in which format I shall do that it shoews the focus problem. I can save and send in png and tiff. thanks for your attention >That lens is capable of focussing down to 28cm, but I believe that'll >only be at the 18mm end, not the 50mm end, and I suspect he was using [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >manually, or at least learn how to get the AF to focus correctly in what >appears to be low light perhaps you said it. I am used to manual focus Mogh > and also use a smaller f/stop, say f/16 to >increase his depth of field. > >Rich > I can send the whole picture, if it helps. Best not. Can't post binaries here and I don't really want a 8MP photo sent to me. :-) > perhaps you said it. I am used to manual focus So am I. Never got on with any AF systems and can focus pretty quickly manually. Signatureinvalid = com >> I can send the whole picture, if it helps. > >Best not. Can't post binaries here and I don't really want a 8MP photo sent >to me. :-) hehe, the original file is about 129 mb. but don't be afraid. I meant a small version to the same site as the cutted version not here nor to you. take care > >> I can send the whole picture, if it helps. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a small version to the same site as the cutted version not here nor to > you. How on earth do you get 129 MB out of a D2X? I would have thought that even as a 16 bit/color tiff image it would have been more like 73 MB. In any even for evaluating sharpness a jpeg does just fine and the file really does not need to be any larger then about 5 MB. Scott Scott >> >> I can send the whole picture, if it helps. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How on earth do you get 129 MB out of a D2X? I would have thought that >even as a 16 bit/color tiff image it would have been more like 73 MB. Sorry, I was not precise. You are right. The original RAW (NEF) file does not exceed 59 mb. The file I referred to was th econverted file (PSD) version. Tommorow I will send a JPG file to site. Mojtaba >In any even for evaluating sharpness a jpeg does just fine and the file >really does not need to be any larger then about 5 MB. > >Scott > >Scott >>>I have taken this picture with flash and not used long shutter speed. >>>The camera: Nikon D2x, lens: Sigma 18+50 f2.8. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that close. Your camera should warn You if it can not focus, were You >focusing manually? No, it was autofocus mogh >Väinö Louekari > I have taken this picture with flash and not used long shutter speed. > The camera: Nikon D2x, lens: Sigma 18+50 f2.8. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2dria03 At 2.8, it's possible this portion of the frame is simply beyond the depth of field (depth of focus) allowed at that aperture. You don't indicate if this is the portion of the frame you focussed on... If not, then I suspect it's a DOF issue. You also did not indicate the shutter speed... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.