717 Soft Focus

John Gaddy said:

I will just throw this out there...

I am well aware of the focus issues with the 717 but I have still
been trying to get past what I consider to be soft focus issues
with this camera. There are also many threads talking about how
maybe the 707 produced sharper images right out of the camera due
to more in-camera sharpening. I have yet to be able to get shots
with the 717 that were post processed as sharp as pics that were
right out of the camera from the 707. I have played with all the
levels adjustments on the 717 as well as post processing in PS7.

Does anyone else feel that the 717 is producing softer shots
overall even with post processing?

Has anyone confirmed that maybe this is related to the overall
focus issue on the 717 that will be addressed by the Sony fix?

Has anyone noticed this issues and found a way to get the same
sharpness as the 707.

Or, and I promise last, if none of the above ties in to my issue,
what operator error could be causing "soft" focus shots? Please
note, I am using every known device and technique to avoid camera
shake, etc.....What I am talking about is, without a doubt, not
coming from the camera moving...

Any ideas?

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

antoine said:

F717 produce sharper, deeper, more contrast image than F707. I did
very little post processing from F717 compare with F707.

Antoine

John Gaddy said:

I will just throw this out there...

I am well aware of the focus issues with the 717 but I have still
been trying to get past what I consider to be soft focus issues
with this camera. There are also many threads talking about how
maybe the 707 produced sharper images right out of the camera due
to more in-camera sharpening. I have yet to be able to get shots
with the 717 that were post processed as sharp as pics that were
right out of the camera from the 707. I have played with all the
levels adjustments on the 717 as well as post processing in PS7.

Does anyone else feel that the 717 is producing softer shots
overall even with post processing?

Has anyone confirmed that maybe this is related to the overall
focus issue on the 717 that will be addressed by the Sony fix?

Has anyone noticed this issues and found a way to get the same
sharpness as the 707.

Or, and I promise last, if none of the above ties in to my issue,
what operator error could be causing "soft" focus shots? Please
note, I am using every known device and technique to avoid camera
shake, etc.....What I am talking about is, without a doubt, not
coming from the camera moving...

Any ideas?

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

--
Antoine - F717, The Mirror Image
http://www.pbase.com/image/6381098

Antoine - F717, The Mirror Images
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291244987

Click to expand...

probepro said:

John, the only way to completely eliminate camera shake is with a
tripod. Maybe someone can offer a controlled test you can perform
and compare the results to a standard. The F717 is capable of
producing sharp images. The test will determine if there is
something wrong with your particular F717. In lieu of a standard
resolution test, you might start out with something that's easy to
focus on, and under good lighting conditions. If the cam cannot
produce sharp images under ideal conditions, then you should return
it if possible.

Chuck
--

Click to expand...

arra said:

When I look at Your's example it look rather soft like Nikons. But
when I look at other examples (for ex. Antoine) I see sharp pics
and lots of details. When I look at my pics I have mixed feelings,
maybe I've expected too much ;-). I saw lots of not post processed
galleries of 707 and see similar results. I think the problem of
Your's shot is underexpose and lighting, but I may be wrong.

--- Arra ---
Poland
Sony 717, Nikon 4500
http://www.pbase.com/717
http://www.pbase.com/arra

Click to expand...

John Gaddy said:

I think you commented on an earlier post when I posted these type
shots...I may be seeting the shot up wrong and even dealing with a
DOF issue. Or, I may not be realizing where I am actually locking
focus on my subject.

Here, take a look at this pic. Sharpness wise, I think this one is
better than most but still soft... This is right from the camera
with 0 sharpening.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6773128/original
and:
Here is the histogram of the shot before any PP. It looks like the
shot is under-exposed and I should have bumped the compensation up
on the flash. Looking at this histogram, do you feel that
under-exposed shots will lead to soft pics?
http://www.pbase.com/image/6773532

Or maybe the question I need to ask is how should this type shot be
setup in order to maximize foucus/sharpness prior to post
processing? Or do you think that is as good as it gets.

Thanks for your help as this has been one of the more frustrating
things I have been trying to get past.

Thanks!

antoine said:

F717 produce sharper, deeper, more contrast image than F707. I did
very little post processing from F717 compare with F707.

Antoine

John Gaddy said:

I will just throw this out there...

I am well aware of the focus issues with the 717 but I have still
been trying to get past what I consider to be soft focus issues
with this camera. There are also many threads talking about how
maybe the 707 produced sharper images right out of the camera due
to more in-camera sharpening. I have yet to be able to get shots
with the 717 that were post processed as sharp as pics that were
right out of the camera from the 707. I have played with all the
levels adjustments on the 717 as well as post processing in PS7.

Does anyone else feel that the 717 is producing softer shots
overall even with post processing?

Has anyone confirmed that maybe this is related to the overall
focus issue on the 717 that will be addressed by the Sony fix?

Has anyone noticed this issues and found a way to get the same
sharpness as the 707.

Or, and I promise last, if none of the above ties in to my issue,
what operator error could be causing "soft" focus shots? Please
note, I am using every known device and technique to avoid camera
shake, etc.....What I am talking about is, without a doubt, not
coming from the camera moving...

Any ideas?

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

--
Antoine - F717, The Mirror Image
http://www.pbase.com/image/6381098

Antoine - F717, The Mirror Images
http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291244987

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

antoine52756 said:

antoine wrote:
...But I also found that the Histogram lies most of the time.
You have to be really careful in using this. The best thing is...Do
alot of trials and errors, train your eyes with that LCD and pick
the best lighting! Good luck John!

Click to expand...

probepro said:

probepro said:

antoine wrote:
...But I also found that the Histogram lies most of the time.
You have to be really careful in using this. The best thing is...Do
alot of trials and errors, train your eyes with that LCD and pick
the best lighting! Good luck John!

Click to expand...

Actaully, the histogram cannot lie, because it is by definition a
graphical representation of what the camera sees. It is the only
reliable way of judging exposure, but you do need to understand
what it is telling you to use it effectively. The LCD is the least
reliable way of judging exposure because it does not have the range
or detail to show subtleties in luminosity. It is also viewed
under varying and often less than ideal lighting conditions, and
unlike the histogram which is objective, the LCD is subjective.

Looking at the histogram of the cat image you provided, the spike
at the left represents the dark background, as it should. The area
under the left peak is more than the area under the middle peak,
showing that the subject (the cat) occupies less than half of the
image (also true). The fact that there are no peaks on the right
shows that the image did not record any texture highlights. If you
were viewing the live histogram you could have examined the actual
scene to see if there indeed were textured highlights, and if there
were, then you would have known to let more light in, and how much.

The live histogram is a very useful tool once you know how to read
it. It's not that difficult, and after using it for awhile, you
will be able to recognize particular peaks at a glance.

Chuck

--

Click to expand...

arra said:

Here are 2 examples (no post procesing):

Data: 1/15s f/2.8 at 22mm

--- Arra ---
Poland
Sony 717, Nikon 4500
http://www.pbase.com/717
http://www.pbase.com/arra

Click to expand...

John Gaddy said:

Thanks

probepro said:

Todd Moore said:

antoine wrote:
...But I also found that the Histogram lies most of the time.
You have to be really careful in using this. The best thing is...Do
alot of trials and errors, train your eyes with that LCD and pick
the best lighting! Good luck John!

Click to expand...

Actaully, the histogram cannot lie, because it is by definition a
graphical representation of what the camera sees. It is the only
reliable way of judging exposure, but you do need to understand
what it is telling you to use it effectively. The LCD is the least
reliable way of judging exposure because it does not have the range
or detail to show subtleties in luminosity. It is also viewed
under varying and often less than ideal lighting conditions, and
unlike the histogram which is objective, the LCD is subjective.

Looking at the histogram of the cat image you provided, the spike
at the left represents the dark background, as it should. The area
under the left peak is more than the area under the middle peak,
showing that the subject (the cat) occupies less than half of the
image (also true). The fact that there are no peaks on the right
shows that the image did not record any texture highlights. If you
were viewing the live histogram you could have examined the actual
scene to see if there indeed were textured highlights, and if there
were, then you would have known to let more light in, and how much.

The live histogram is a very useful tool once you know how to read
it. It's not that difficult, and after using it for awhile, you
will be able to recognize particular peaks at a glance.

Chuck

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tim_M said:

-TimM

John Gaddy said:

Thanks

probepro said:

Tim_M said:

antoine wrote:
...But I also found that the Histogram lies most of the time.
You have to be really careful in using this. The best thing is...Do
alot of trials and errors, train your eyes with that LCD and pick
the best lighting! Good luck John!

Click to expand...

Actaully, the histogram cannot lie, because it is by definition a
graphical representation of what the camera sees. It is the only
reliable way of judging exposure, but you do need to understand
what it is telling you to use it effectively. The LCD is the least
reliable way of judging exposure because it does not have the range
or detail to show subtleties in luminosity. It is also viewed
under varying and often less than ideal lighting conditions, and
unlike the histogram which is objective, the LCD is subjective.

Looking at the histogram of the cat image you provided, the spike
at the left represents the dark background, as it should. The area
under the left peak is more than the area under the middle peak,
showing that the subject (the cat) occupies less than half of the
image (also true). The fact that there are no peaks on the right
shows that the image did not record any texture highlights. If you
were viewing the live histogram you could have examined the actual
scene to see if there indeed were textured highlights, and if there
were, then you would have known to let more light in, and how much.

The live histogram is a very useful tool once you know how to read
it. It's not that difficult, and after using it for awhile, you
will be able to recognize particular peaks at a glance.

Chuck

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

arra said:

Thanks, next time I will do it for sure
--- Arra ---
Poland
Sony 717, Nikon 4500
http://www.pbase.com/717
http://www.pbase.com/arra

Click to expand...