Why is this image not sharp?

[Retz]

This is a resized version of the photo. I'm specially concerned that there is not much detail in the flowers on the subjects head, even in this scaled down size. Camera settings were as follows: AF-S, single point (focused on her eye), Auto ISO "faster" shutter speed. Taken with the 85mm 1,4G lens.

 

[NearerNirvana]

Image too small to give a definitive answer, but most likely due to depth of field limit.

 

[Mystery member]

This is a resized version of the photo. I'm specially concerned that there is not much detail in the flowers on the subjects head, even in this scaled down size. Camera settings were as follows: AF-S, single point (focused on her eye), Auto ISO "faster" shutter speed. Taken with the 85mm 1,4G lens.

It's difficult to tell with this down-sized image, but the shot could be front-focused. The right-hand sleeve of the dress seems to be in better focus than the subject's face/flowers.

The shooting parameters look to be OK.

 

[jbcohen]

I would not worry about it as much you can increase sharpness in post processing. However that is something that you should aim to correct in the future.

 

[happysnapper64]

Maybe slight DOF issue with f/3.2, otherwise it looks ok to my eye.

 

[bobn2]

This is a resized version of the photo. I'm specially concerned that there is not much detail in the flowers on the subjects head, even in this scaled down size. Camera settings were as follows: AF-S, single point (focused on her eye), Auto ISO "faster" shutter speed. Taken with the 85mm 1,4G lens.

No point posting a 1.2MP image if you want a serious answer. At 1.2MP it looks fine. There are only two things that can really be wrong with it. One is slight misfocus, but impossible to judge at this resolution. The second is motion blur even at the shutter speeds you have used, this can be enough to cause some blur especially around the head and hair, which can move enough in 1/400 second to blur hair like details. VR doesn't help with this, because the problem isn't camera movement, it's subject movement.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

 

[Wally626]

This is a resized version of the photo. I'm specially concerned that there is not much detail in the flowers on the subjects head, even in this scaled down size. Camera settings were as follows: AF-S, single point (focused on her eye), Auto ISO "faster" shutter speed. Taken with the 85mm 1,4G lens.

As others have said a little small to say for sure, but your DoF is only around 2 inches for this image, depends on exact distance to subject. If the camera missed the focus just a bit, focusing on the nose instead of the eye, the hair is more than two inches back from the nose and would start to lose some resolution compared to the nose and eyes.

 

[hotdog321]

I can't tell a thing because the posted image is too small even at 100%, but it looks pretty good. The only tricky issue would be depth of field, but judging from the patterns on the dress DOF may be O.K., too.

 

[Alleg1]

This is a resized version of the photo. I'm specially concerned that there is not much detail in the flowers on the subjects head, even in this scaled down size. Camera settings were as follows: AF-S, single point (focused on her eye), Auto ISO "faster" shutter speed. Taken with the 85mm 1,4G lens.

No point posting a 1.2MP image if you want a serious answer. At 1.2MP it looks fine. There are only two things that can really be wrong with it. One is slight misfocus, but impossible to judge at this resolution. The second is motion blur even at the shutter speeds you have used, this can be enough to cause some blur especially around the head and hair, which can move enough in 1/400 second to blur hair like details. VR doesn't help with this, because the problem isn't camera movement, it's subject movement.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

I second your comments about motion blur, there appears to be some head movement. probably associated with the task the lady is performing.

The focus does look a touch off though...

 

[peterharvey]

The aperture has been stopped down to f/3.2.

Your exposure time is fairly quick a 1/400 sec.

The ISO must rise to 200 to compensate for both a smaller aperture and a shorter exposure time.

Two factors remain.

1) The subject distance - the longer the distance, the deeper the DOF.

2) The FL of 85 mm used - the longer the FL, the shallower the DOF.

As others have said, it seems just the head movement slightly blury.

 

[James Larsen]

With my eye, I really can't tell a problem.

Doesn't help that you downsized the image...

 

[Mystery member]

With my eye, I really can't tell a problem.

Doesn't help that you downsized the image...

The sharpest thing in the image is one of the uprights of the frame that the subject is working on, and even this rear part of the frame seems to be well in front of her face, and this supports my suggestion of front-focus.

I also think that 1/400s is fast enough to have avoided blurring due to subject movement.

Admittedly, downsizing hasn't helped, but the top of the post is sharp enough to be "jaggy".

 

[Retz]

Thanks for your responses, here is the full sized image.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Thanks for your responses, here is the full sized image.

Hair looks sharp - the silk(?) flowers may not have much of an edge or contrast to give the sharpness - could try increasing sharpness or increasing the micro contrast. Also the subdued and flat lighting does not help.

Though, I think it's rather a nice shot.

 

[James Larsen]

...

What softness? Thats pretty sharp to me.

 

[Roonal_Z]

Thanks for your responses, here is the full sized image.

Looks back-focussed to me.

Was there a pause between when you focussed and when you took the picture - if so then maybe in that time she moved (her head) towards you, or you leaned towards her, or both, or the camera/lens simply mis-focussed.

Looking at the image reminded me of something -

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I'm wondering when you focussed on her eye (did you use a single auto focus point - without (the Nikon version) of automatic focus point expansion?

Reason I ask is that the Canon White Paper written a few years ago for the Canon 1Ds Mark II era cameras states that choosing via custom function to have the camera expand the AF points - this happens when the camera can't get a lock using the user selected single AF point -

"... can sometimes cause critical focus to shift slightly ahead of or behind relatively large 3-dimensional subjects like human beings..."

 

[Retz]

Thanks for your responses, here is the full sized image.

Looks back-focussed to me.

Was there a pause between when you focussed and when you took the picture - if so then maybe in that time she moved (her head) towards you, or you leaned towards her, or both, or the camera/lens simply mis-focussed.

Looking at the image reminded me of something -

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I'm wondering when you focussed on her eye (did you use a single auto focus point - without (the Nikon version) of automatic focus point expansion?

Reason I ask is that the Canon White Paper written a few years ago for the Canon 1Ds Mark II era cameras states that choosing via custom function to have the camera expand the AF points - this happens when the camera can't get a lock using the user selected single AF point -

"... can sometimes cause critical focus to shift slightly ahead of or behind relatively large 3-dimensional subjects like human beings..."

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Thanks for your responses, here is the full sized image.

Looks back-focussed to me.

Was there a pause between when you focussed and when you took the picture - if so then maybe in that time she moved (her head) towards you, or you leaned towards her, or both, or the camera/lens simply mis-focussed.

Looking at the image reminded me of something -

I'm not familiar with your camera, but I'm wondering when you focussed on her eye (did you use a single auto focus point - without (the Nikon version) of automatic focus point expansion?

Reason I ask is that the Canon White Paper written a few years ago for the Canon 1Ds Mark II era cameras states that choosing via custom function to have the camera expand the AF points - this happens when the camera can't get a lock using the user selected single AF point -

"... can sometimes cause critical focus to shift slightly ahead of or behind relatively large 3-dimensional subjects like human beings..."

 

[Retz]

I had indeed focused on her eye. I didn't have this problem with this lens+camera before but recently I get (some) photos that are not sharp enough. Here is another one:





It's pretty soft even though the subject wasn't moving at all.

 

[Halina123]

Focal length, aperture combination. Shallow dof.