X-T1: Mostly unsharpen pictures

[Jensano]

I need help with X-T1 and 18-55

I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family.
Camera has no special setting, no continues focus or anything else. I take pictures with Aperture priority with highest aperture (2,8-4.0) and the sun in my back so shutter speed is very high. Childs does not move. Sometimes I focus face and move the picture sometimes I focus face and don't move. In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen. In normal zoom you think everything is ok but when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others. Skin and eyes could be very sharp with X-T1 but that is very rare. Sometimes I shoot very fast because of time in which my childs went of but also in this situation camera says ok with focus.

What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

-Jens

 

[pcb_dpr]

Very difficult to answer without seeing images w/exif info. Either your shutter speed is too slow, or you're missing the focus point, or your camera/lens is defective. Most of the time it is user error, or user unfamiliarity with how the camera works. But without some images and data, there's not much concrete help we can give you.

...I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family...In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen...when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others...What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

 

[bowportes]

I need help with X-T1 and 18-55

I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family.
Camera has no special setting, no continues focus or anything else. I take pictures with Aperture priority with highest aperture (2,8-4.0) and the sun in my back so shutter speed is very high. Childs does not move. Sometimes I focus face and move the picture sometimes I focus face and don't move. In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen. In normal zoom you think everything is ok but when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others. Skin and eyes could be very sharp with X-T1 but that is very rare. Sometimes I shoot very fast because of time in which my childs went of but also in this situation camera says ok with focus.

What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

-Jens

Select Single Autofocus rather than continuous on the front of the camera.

Set the camera so that Focus has priority when you press the shutter (that is, so that even when you press the shutter, the picture does not snap until it's in focus).

Decrease the size of your autofocus area. If the little focus box is too large, it can easily focus on something behind the face you are selecting.

Turn off OIS on your 18-55 lens.

Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8

Set noise reduction to -2.

Let us know whether any of these help you.

 

[ryan2007]

I need help with X-T1 and 18-55

I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family.
Camera has no special setting, no continues focus or anything else. I take pictures with Aperture priority with highest aperture (2,8-4.0) and the sun in my back so shutter speed is very high. Childs does not move. Sometimes I focus face and move the picture sometimes I focus face and don't move. In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen. In normal zoom you think everything is ok but when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others. Skin and eyes could be very sharp with X-T1 but that is very rare. Sometimes I shoot very fast because of time in which my childs went of but also in this situation camera says ok with focus.

What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

-Jens

Manually set Dynamic Range to 100%

Manually set ISO

Manually set the Auto Focus Point to the center. Do not let the camera choose the auto focus point automatically.

Wait for focus confirmation

Use Provia or Astia for best skin tones. Velvia make things too saturated and not so "normal"

Use single AF not continuos.

 

[ryan2007]

I need help with X-T1 and 18-55

I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family.
Camera has no special setting, no continues focus or anything else. I take pictures with Aperture priority with highest aperture (2,8-4.0) and the sun in my back so shutter speed is very high. Childs does not move. Sometimes I focus face and move the picture sometimes I focus face and don't move. In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen. In normal zoom you think everything is ok but when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others. Skin and eyes could be very sharp with X-T1 but that is very rare. Sometimes I shoot very fast because of time in which my childs went of but also in this situation camera says ok with focus.

What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

-Jens

Select Single Autofocus rather than continuous on the front of the camera.

Set the camera so that Focus has priority when you press the shutter (that is, so that even when you press the shutter, the picture does not snap until it's in focus).

Decrease the size of your autofocus area. If the little focus box is too large, it can easily focus on something behind the face you are selecting.

Agree with the above.

Turn off OIS on your 18-55 lens.

Disagree with the rest:

I would not turn off OIS unless you are on a tripod/mono-pod

Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8

I disagree, Shooting wide open at 2.8 leave a narrower plane. If the subject moves an inch or two it will be out of focus. Stop down. Learn what the three things are that affect depth of field.

Set noise reduction to -2.

I would not do this either. Their is no cookie cutter setting. Adjustments like this are best for post editing.

Let us know whether any of these help you.

 

[Charles2]

Study some of the problem photos and try to decide: is some part of the image sharp (but it is not the point you wanted for focus) or is the entire image not sharp (several possible causes)?

 

[bowportes]

I need help with X-T1 and 18-55

I am in holiday and take pictures of my Family.
Camera has no special setting, no continues focus or anything else. I take pictures with Aperture priority with highest aperture (2,8-4.0) and the sun in my back so shutter speed is very high. Childs does not move. Sometimes I focus face and move the picture sometimes I focus face and don't move. In comparison to some rare very good shoots most of the pictures are unsharpen. In normal zoom you think everything is ok but when you zoom at the face (I set the focus on it) you can see the blurry skin in comparsion to some others. Skin and eyes could be very sharp with X-T1 but that is very rare. Sometimes I shoot very fast because of time in which my childs went of but also in this situation camera says ok with focus.

What am I doing wrong? Or why are so many pictures unsharpen?

-Jens

Select Single Autofocus rather than continuous on the front of the camera.

Set the camera so that Focus has priority when you press the shutter (that is, so that even when you press the shutter, the picture does not snap until it's in focus).

Decrease the size of your autofocus area. If the little focus box is too large, it can easily focus on something behind the face you are selecting.

Agree with the above.

Turn off OIS on your 18-55 lens.

Disagree with the rest:

I would not turn off OIS unless you are on a tripod/mono-pod

The OP said his shutter speed is very fast. There's nothing to be gained from OIS on the 18-55 lens in that case, and there's been some discussion of sharpness being reduced. You do as you like; my advice was sound given the conditions articulated by the OP.

Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8

I disagree, Shooting wide open at 2.8 leave a narrower plane. If the subject moves an inch or two it will be out of focus. Stop down. Learn what the three things are that affect depth of field.

You are apparently having difficulty reading. I told him to stop down from wide open.. Maybe you don't know that shifting from f2.8 to f/8 is "stopping down", and that it increases DOF. Sheesh!

Set noise reduction to -2.

I would not do this either. Their is no cookie cutter setting. Adjustments like this are best for post editing.

It gives the best detail in brightly lit, outdoor jpegs, which can increase the perceived sharpness. Who said the OP is interested in post-proceesing?

Rather silly points of disagreement, IMO.

 

[bowportes]

I disagree, Shooting wide open at 2.8 leave a narrower plane. If the subject moves an inch or two it will be out of focus. Stop down. Learn what the three things are that affect depth of field.

.

Ryan, while there are two things that affect exposure of the sensor and one that affects amplification, there is only one that really affects depth of field, that being the aperture. (You could add distance to the subject if you like.) We shouldn't inform people that there are 3 things affecting depth of field -- I don't see how that helps new photographers.

Depth of field previews on old SLRs and newer cameras use only the aperture to give a preview of thinness/depth of the focus field. Depth of field scales referenced only the f stop and camera-to-subject distance. What are the three things specifically tied to depth of field (not exposure) to which you refer?

 

[Jim Cassatt]

There are three things that affect DOF. These are well known. They are aperture, distance between the subject and camera, and focal length.

 

[slowhand73]

Set the camera so that Focus has priority when you press the shutter (that is, so that even when you press the shutter, the picture does not snap until it's in focus).

Decrease the size of your autofocus area. If the little focus box is too large, it can easily focus on something behind the face you are selecting.

Turn off OIS on your 18-55 lens.

Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8

Set noise reduction to -2.

Let us know whether any of these help you.

+1

 

[ryan2007]

I disagree, Shooting wide open at 2.8 leave a narrower plane. If the subject moves an inch or two it will be out of focus. Stop down. Learn what the three things are that affect depth of field.

.

Ryan, while there are two things that affect exposure of the sensor and one that affects amplification, there is only one that really affects depth of field, that being the aperture. (You could add distance to the subject if you like.) We shouldn't inform people that there are 3 things affecting depth of field -- I don't see how that helps new photographers.

Depth of field previews on old SLRs and newer cameras use only the aperture to give a preview of thinness/depth of the focus field. Depth of field scales referenced only the f stop and camera-to-subject distance. What are the three things specifically tied to depth of field (not exposure) to which you refer?

DOF is controlled by:

Aperture

Focal Length

• Wide angle lenses inherently have greater depth of field

• Telephoto lenses inherently have shallow depth of field

Camera to Subject Distance - How physically close the lens is to the subject matter and what the focal length is in combination with f stop.

The Fuji 14 mm 2.8 will not give a shallow DOF effect like the 56 mm at the same 2.8 aperture. You will need to be physically closer with the lens keeping the same aperture with the 14 mm to even begin to get a like effect you get with the 56 mm.

Take the same two lenses at f 8.0, again greater depth of field now take the 55-200 zoom at 200 mm at f 8.0, you will get a shallower DOF effect because of the longer focal length. Physically get closer to the subject matter and it is more exaggerated that shallow DOF.

The 55-200 type lens opened as wide as possible to F 3.5 ( I think is the widest), zoomed to 200 mm and as physically close to the subject matter give the like effect as the Fuji 56 mm prime at 1.2, BUT you can be further away from the subject matter.

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/05/31/3-ways-to-affect-depth-of-field-free-cheat-sheet/

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

 

[bowportes]

There are three things that affect DOF. These are well known. They are aperture, distance between the subject and camera, and focal length.

 

[bowportes]

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

"Shallowness" might have been better, or whatever word you prefer for the opposite of deep. Thin and shallow are normal, understandable English words. It doesn't have to be framed in technical photographic vocabulary. I thought it easy to grasp.

I told him to try using a smaller aperture rather than shooting wide open. It sounds like you agree with that, even though you initially said you disagreed.

 

[Jim Cassatt]

Agreed. One thing I have found with my 56 1.2 is that at wide apertures, focus and recompose often results poorly focused pictures. In this case using a focusing spot closer to the forward eye works better. Thus for OP it would be better if he/she were to focus on the forward eye instead of the face. At f4, this might not be an issue, but I know if I use my 56 1.2 at f2, and focus on the forward eye, the back ear and shoulder will be out of focue.

--
Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jcassatt

 

[bowportes]

Agreed. One thing I have found with my 56 1.2 is that at wide apertures, focus and recompose often results poorly focused pictures. In this case using a focusing spot closer to the forward eye works better. Thus for OP it would be better if he/she were to focus on the forward eye instead of the face. At f4, this might not be an issue, but I know if I use my 56 1.2 at f2, and focus on the forward eye, the back ear and shoulder will be out of focue.

 

[ryan2007]

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

"Shallowness" might have been better, or whatever word you prefer for the opposite of deep. Thin and shallow are normal, understandable English words. It doesn't have to be framed in technical photographic vocabulary. I thought it easy to grasp.

I told him to try using a smaller aperture rather than shooting wide open. It sounds like you agree with that, even though you initially said you disagreed.

Open the lens = let in more light = shallow DOF = small f stop numbers like 1.4

Stop the lens down = let less light in = greater DOF = larger numbers like f 16

This is what you said:

"Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8"

So 5.6 or 8 is a greater DOF to have more apparent sharpness = close the lens or stop the lens down= less light entering for greater DOF. Shallow DOF is not needed for many shots (whatever that means.)

Margin of error? If you are shooing at f 2.8 and if that subject matter moves an inch it is out of sharpness or what looks like focus.

If you shoot a head shot, focus between the eyes and set aperture at 2.8 the ears are not sharp, stop the lens down to f 8 all the facial features should be sharp.

 

[EricWN]

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

"Shallowness" might have been better, or whatever word you prefer for the opposite of deep. Thin and shallow are normal, understandable English words. It doesn't have to be framed in technical photographic vocabulary. I thought it easy to grasp.

I told him to try using a smaller aperture rather than shooting wide open. It sounds like you agree with that, even though you initially said you disagreed.

Open the lens = let in more light = shallow DOF = small f stop numbers like 1.4

Stop the lens down = let less light in = greater DOF = larger numbers like f 16

This is what you said:

"Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8"

So 5.6 or 8 is a greater DOF to have more apparent sharpness = close the lens or stop the lens down= less light entering for greater DOF. Shallow DOF is not needed for many shots (whatever that means.)

Margin of error? If you are shooing at f 2.8 and if that subject matter moves an inch it is out of sharpness or what looks like focus.

If you shoot a head shot, focus between the eyes and set aperture at 2.8 the ears are not sharp, stop the lens down to f 8 all the facial features should be sharp.

I think bowportes understands the concept. He is advising to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8. thought his message is also pretty clear?

You seem to be repeating what he states?

 

[Herbieo]

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

"Shallowness" might have been better, or whatever word you prefer for the opposite of deep. Thin and shallow are normal, understandable English words. It doesn't have to be framed in technical photographic vocabulary. I thought it easy to grasp.

I told him to try using a smaller aperture rather than shooting wide open. It sounds like you agree with that, even though you initially said you disagreed.

Open the lens = let in more light = shallow DOF = small f stop numbers like 1.4

Stop the lens down = let less light in = greater DOF = larger numbers like f 16

This is what you said:

"Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8"

So 5.6 or 8 is a greater DOF to have more apparent sharpness = close the lens or stop the lens down= less light entering for greater DOF. Shallow DOF is not needed for many shots (whatever that means.)

Margin of error? If you are shooing at f 2.8 and if that subject matter moves an inch it is out of sharpness or what looks like focus.

If you shoot a head shot, focus between the eyes and set aperture at 2.8 the ears are not sharp, stop the lens down to f 8 all the facial features should be sharp.

To the OP while it may be convoluted to get your answer I hope you are appreciating the discussion that is occurring in your post... This is yet another great example of how our brains rationalise things differently from one to the next, often based on experiences.

Now you've received the advice it's time to try out the recommendations and then cement the neural pathways in a way that makes sense to you. It doesn't matter how you do it, unless you ever have to try to explain it to others, than you need to go back to grass roots knowledge.

Let us know how you get on with noise reduction, aperture and image stabilisation adjustments as suggested. All in their way will have some effect and they're really quick to adjust as 2 of the 3 are physical controls that can be adjusted in the moment without taking the camera from your face.

I've learnt loads from this site and keep coming back for more. I think it helps everyone if you let us know what works for you after trying the adjustments.

Another great thread with mild friction but no arguments, I do enjoy this forum.

 

[Tirpitz666]

As already wrote by someone, try to swtich the OIS off when you are shooting with fast shutter speeds.

I've seen a lot of people report having blurring issues with the 18-55 and OIS on when shooting with speedy times.

 

[bowportes]

The term you use "thinness" is made up by you and not even a photographic term.

"Shallowness" might have been better, or whatever word you prefer for the opposite of deep. Thin and shallow are normal, understandable English words. It doesn't have to be framed in technical photographic vocabulary. I thought it easy to grasp.

I told him to try using a smaller aperture rather than shooting wide open. It sounds like you agree with that, even though you initially said you disagreed.

Open the lens = let in more light = shallow DOF = small f stop numbers like 1.4

Stop the lens down = let less light in = greater DOF = larger numbers like f 16

This is what you said:

"Consider shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. A thin depth of field is not needed for many shots. You have greater margin for error at f/5.6 than f/4 or f/2.8"

So 5.6 or 8 is a greater DOF to have more apparent sharpness = close the lens or stop the lens down= less light entering for greater DOF. Shallow DOF is not needed for many shots (whatever that means.)

Margin of error? If you are shooing at f 2.8 and if that subject matter moves an inch it is out of sharpness or what looks like focus.

If you shoot a head shot, focus between the eyes and set aperture at 2.8 the ears are not sharp, stop the lens down to f 8 all the facial features should be sharp.

You're still struggling with plain English. "Greater margin for error" means small errors in focus will not have as negative of an impact upon the photo precisely because smaller apertures (like f5.6) result in greater depth of field. "Less margin for error", on the other hand, at a larger aperture like f2.8, requires greater precision of focus. I did not say "margin of error"; you did.

From https://www.englishforums.com/English/MarginErrorMarginError/lpmrj/post.htm :

"When people use "margin for error", the word "for" indicates purpose. The word "margin" could usually be replaced with another word, such as "room" or "space", for example. So, when people say "margin for error", the words are generally being used more individually. If I said "He left us no margin for error" that would mean "He did not leave us any space/room/leeway to make any mistakes"."

Why do you keep restating the obvious when it's the same thing I said in my first post in this thread? I said exactly what I intended to say, which is the same thing you restate each time that you "disagree." That's why I said your disagreement was silly.