Reading mode: Light Dark

HELP: Trees, Fall Color, Poor Focus

Go to last post
I think it can be a matter of trees not having high contrast for the camera to lock onto.

As for your sample, when ever you resize and downsample, you'll lose sharpness big time. Here is an untouched photo from my C3000Z. It seems quite sharp, at least in a realistic way.

http://www.pbase.com/image/6978339/large

Downsample it though like you've done without sharpening, and it will lose sharpness and look soft. That's the nature of downsampling. It's deciding which pixels to throw away, and sometimes will throw away the pixels that have the best information for things like edge detail. You always have to sharpen after you downsample. Just try and make the sharpening the last step.

Brianos 2.0
RichO said:
I went to Lost Maples yesterday, got there about 10 am...a bit
later than I planned. Only spotty color on trees, but some were
nice. I took a number of shots and all seemed really soft or
poorly focused. I know the sun was really bright and over head
most of the time, but even shots in the shade or away from the sun
were all poorly focused.

Gee...I think I know how to focus my C2100UZ by now, but this was
the first time I did shoot tree with reddish color...yet even the
green trees were not focused well.

Odd thing is that other than the moon, I have mainly been shooting
macros lately. This is the first time I have shot anything close
to a landscape in some time.

Anyone had this problem?

Here is a shot I took just before I got to Lost Maples...(note the
time on the image is wrong..should be 10am. - forgot to set for
Daylight Savings Time).

This one was taken at f/7, 1/500s, 16mm, ISO 100...sun was overhead
to the right. No filter other than UV. Outside temp

http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/large
http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/original



This is the best I got all day...with the exception of some close
ups...

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
--
'THE Graphic design directory'.... http://adigitaldreamer.com
-------------------------------------
My Portfolio: http://adigitaldreamer.com/photography/website/
-------------------------------------
http://www.thehungersite.com
 
The embedded image is only the medium version of pbase...see the link I included for the original size.

The image is straight from the camera with no downsizing at all.

Your image is better, but still not tack sharp on the leaves...what MP is the 3000Z?

How far away were the trees? What telephoto length did you use?

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
 
Rich,

I've been following this thread and it does seem some of the foliage shots you took are a bit soft but not too much given the lighting.

I do get better detail with my C-3000 than the UZI on landscapes and foliage, especially with a tripod, but I attribute that to the extra megapixel more than anything.

I haven't seen anything with most digital cameras that will rival a good 35mm with distant foliage. The pixel power is just not there.

I looked at some of my outdoor shots, taken with essentially the same camera settings as your EXIF showed, and some are sharper, some are not, depending on the lighting and how well I executed the shot. My best results are when I use Spot Metering and lock in on the brightest part of the scene as a general technique.

I'm definitely no expert at this, just a learner, but I appreciate this thread and the observations and information shared by all.
****:)

--
http://www.pbase.com/richardr/c2100uz_gallery
http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?portfolioId=19073
C-2100UZ&C-3000Z&D-340R
PBase Supporter
 
lol. You're right Rich. Of course like aways I sped ahead and missed the link to the out of camera sample!

I really do think that mps do factor in. The trees that are closer look sharper (I think anyways) because they have more pixel information to show the leaf. The trees way back, some of them have about 5X5 pixels to show about 5 feet of tree. Now take those 5 pixels X 5 pixels that have to make out the edge and contrast of that tree in that area. Have a camera with double the resolution (lets say 3200X2400 vs 1600X1200)

Now instead of having 25 pixels to define edge and contrast (5X5)
You now have 100 pixels (10X10) to define these areas.

This is only applicable in print though. Since monitors can only show 72 or 96 ppi on screen, there will always be a limiting factor for detail, especially when the image fits to the the screen for viewing.

Hmmmmm... I think I've talked myself in a circle. What was I trying to prove or not prove again Rich? LOL

Basically, many shots that I take have to be sharpened for screen viewing. I always set my sharpening to soft in camera. But this sharpening has more to do with making it look better on screen (which really is a limited medium for detail), and not in print.

Oh, and the C3000Z is 3mps.

Brianos 2.0
RichO said:
The embedded image is only the medium version of pbase...see the
link I included for the original size.

The image is straight from the camera with no downsizing at all.

Your image is better, but still not tack sharp on the leaves...what
MP is the 3000Z?

How far away were the trees? What telephoto length did you use?

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
--
'THE Graphic design directory'.... http://adigitaldreamer.com
-------------------------------------
My Portfolio: http://adigitaldreamer.com/photography/website/
-------------------------------------
http://www.thehungersite.com
 
OK - I give up, I just can't stay out of these threads - so my self imposed exile is over.

Two points Rich . . .

1 - What focusing mode are you using? When I follow the guard-rail along the side of the road, nothing looks sharp - but the leaves in the upper right do. Could that be the point the camera focused on?

2 - You're using the wrong tool for the job. There's an old horse racing term that comes to mind; "Horses for courses." Some horses run better on grass than on dirt, some better on a sloppy track, etc, etc. It's the same with cameras. The Uzi is a great camera, but it is NOT a great landscape camera. It's an adequate landscape camera and nothing more. A 5mp camera would definitely be better, but none of them are "great" landscape cameras either.

I know how seriously you take your photography, and I know roughly where you want to go with it and your writing. I also know that you've been influenced and are inspired by Ansel Adams. So my advice to you is a little "different" than it would be to others. Instead of buying another "wrong tool" for the job, go downtown (or onto eBay) and buy a cheap 4x5 field camera. That D60 you're interested in is a great camera, but it's not designed for landscapes either. A medium format would be good, but 4x5's and their lenses are very cheap. Take images with both cameras. Use your Uzi as a meter for the 4x5. Use your 2450 to scan in the 4x5 transparencies. 4x5 @ 2400 DPI will give you an image that's 9600x12000 pixels instead of 1200x1600. I don't know, what's that the equivalent of . . . a 120mp camera??? If you're careful, and shop around, you can probably get all the gear you need, including camera and a decent 90mm wide-angle for under $750. And I "KNOW" you'd actually enjoy that type of photography.

Cheers,
Bill
RichO said:
I went to Lost Maples yesterday, got there about 10 am...a bit
later than I planned. Only spotty color on trees, but some were
nice. I took a number of shots and all seemed really soft or
poorly focused. I know the sun was really bright and over head
most of the time, but even shots in the shade or away from the sun
were all poorly focused.

Gee...I think I know how to focus my C2100UZ by now, but this was
the first time I did shoot tree with reddish color...yet even the
green trees were not focused well.

Odd thing is that other than the moon, I have mainly been shooting
macros lately. This is the first time I have shot anything close
to a landscape in some time.

Anyone had this problem?

Here is a shot I took just before I got to Lost Maples...(note the
time on the image is wrong..should be 10am. - forgot to set for
Daylight Savings Time).

This one was taken at f/7, 1/500s, 16mm, ISO 100...sun was overhead
to the right. No filter other than UV. Outside temp

http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/large
http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/original



This is the best I got all day...with the exception of some close
ups...

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
--
Bill
http://www.goldenbcphotography.com
 
These are not my work, but it looks like the C2100 can do a good job.

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=380242
http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=375041

http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=377780 (it looks like a lot of sharpening added to this one)
RichO said:
I went to Lost Maples yesterday, got there about 10 am...a bit
later than I planned. Only spotty color on trees, but some were
nice. I took a number of shots and all seemed really soft or
poorly focused. I know the sun was really bright and over head
most of the time, but even shots in the shade or away from the sun
were all poorly focused.

Gee...I think I know how to focus my C2100UZ by now, but this was
the first time I did shoot tree with reddish color...yet even the
green trees were not focused well.

Odd thing is that other than the moon, I have mainly been shooting
macros lately. This is the first time I have shot anything close
to a landscape in some time.

Anyone had this problem?

Here is a shot I took just before I got to Lost Maples...(note the
time on the image is wrong..should be 10am. - forgot to set for
Daylight Savings Time).

This one was taken at f/7, 1/500s, 16mm, ISO 100...sun was overhead
to the right. No filter other than UV. Outside temp

http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/large
http://www.pbase.com/image/6937457/original



This is the best I got all day...with the exception of some close
ups...

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
--
Olympus D46OZ (5/01) and C21OO (5/02)
 
I suspect the 1/20 sec, handheld + wind contributed to that.
Isabel
BillyBoy02 said:
Isabel Cutler said:


I've never been satisfied with foliage from ANY of my 7 digitals!!!!
This photo was taken early one morning before the fall foliage
deepened in color. It was a dull day with a slight breeze. On
checking the EXIF info, the shutter speed was only 1/20 and f stop
5.6. The camera was brand new and I probably took it totally
automatically. I used a multiply layer and unsharp masking. I
think it's quite acceptable...of course looked slightly better not
resized and compressed so much.
Took some pics this mornign with the 2100. It was absolutely still
out...the foliage wasn't great.
I'm expecting the Sony back any day now. As soon as I have it I
will take some more leaf pictures...assuming there'll be some
left...they're falling fast.
Isabel
Click to expand...
--
Bill C
c-2100,C-700
Click to expand...
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipets/?yguid=11497599
 
I am out the door to try an afternoon/evening shoot. I have my Canon F1 with me load with ISO 100 Slide Film...just Ectakrome Elite...nothing special.

I will also take my tripod this time, and shoot some shots at soft and normal and one at TIFF.

I will report back tomorrow.

Thanks for the input and feedback here...this is what makes this forum special!

Thanks Bill for coming back out of exile!! LOL

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
 
I thought the leaves on this photos I took last Saturday with my uzi, be it far away turned out rather sharp
http://www.golfballs2000.com/tubmill2.html
RichO said:
I am out the door to try an afternoon/evening shoot. I have my
Canon F1 with me load with ISO 100 Slide Film...just Ectakrome
Elite...nothing special.

I will also take my tripod this time, and shoot some shots at soft
and normal and one at TIFF.

I will report back tomorrow.

Thanks for the input and feedback here...this is what makes this
forum special!

Thanks Bill for coming back out of exile!! LOL

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
--
Bill C
c-2100,C-700
 
Somewhere in this thread you were asking for shots of leaves at > 30ft or something like that. The detail in this one is pretty good I think. Far greater than 30ft, but with the assist of a lot of optical zoom. (Wish the Uzi could record when I have a telecon on ... I forget now if this was with the A200, B300, or "bare"!

(full size link is full 1600x1200)
http://www.pbase.com/image/6996325



Note that this is a zoom in at the same location of an image I just posted in another thread (lower right corner):

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3734767
 
Great shot...good detail.

On the original look at where the red color is the strongest and the green leaves to the left...see the blooming and spreading of the color? Almost like the leaves are radiating color...this is what I think causes part of the problem...the second is glare off the shiny leave illuminated by direct sunlight. I do not believe even the human eyes does well with this..

The UZi zoom with IS really helps when you can zoom in from a distance.

I do think my UZi is developing some focus problems.

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
 
Thanks Rich. I take that as quite a compliment. It's certainly better than pretty much anything else I can recall shooting. Maybe it means I've learned a thing or two in the past year vs things like this one from when the camera was new:

http://www.pbase.com/image/436381



Pretty colors but no sharpness and zero leaf definition.

Maybe this was a result of some super tune-up (or -78 firmware?) from mine's recent trip to the "Oly-Doc".

I'm not sure I see/follow where you're talking about the red blooming/spreading color though. I don't think I did anything too special for this, though I did shoot "soft" and hit it up pretty aggressivley with USM later, and I made it a point (and had enough light) to user aperture priority mode at the oft-stated "sweet spot" of F5.6.

"Newsflash"

I went and revisited some of those shots from last year... doesn't look like I was doing much processing on them at all. One to two shots of USM 500% 0.2 radius, 0 threshold helped a good bit. I also tried it on the image you posted at the top of the thread and it seemed to help some there too.

Care to try it on some of your others and let me know how effective it is?

Work them up according to your normal process but then hit them with that USM at the end. If the 2nd 500% USM pass is too much, try it at 300 or 200% .
RichO said:
Great shot...good detail.

On the original look at where the red color is the strongest and
the green leaves to the left...see the blooming and spreading of
the color? Almost like the leaves are radiating color...this is
what I think causes part of the problem...the second is glare off
the shiny leave illuminated by direct sunlight. I do not believe
even the human eyes does well with this..

The UZi zoom with IS really helps when you can zoom in from a
distance.

I do think my UZi is developing some focus problems.

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
Click to expand...
 
Inigo,

I use 500, .2, 0 all the time. Recently, I have begun to try a few other sharpening techniques to avoid the halo effect.

As to the "blooming/spreading"....look at where a bunch of red/yellow/green leave bunch together...it looks like there is not edge definition and worse the red color seems to irradiate like a light bulb...

The image posted above in my thread was only an example and without any post processing...it was straight from the camera.

Check this shot I took earlier in the year...mostly in the shade...leaves are clearly defined.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2176276



I am thinking more and more it could be my camera is having autofocus problems at certain distances. I have s77 or s78 in my more recent UZi (June 2002).

--
RichO :)
San Antonio, TX
http://www.pbase.com/richo/
http://www.richo.org/LearningCenter/digitalphoto/faq_olympus.htm
'Life is a dance, Love is the music.'
 
Hi Rich....

A little late in posting to this thread but it's been a very busy week and this is my first chance to catch up on the forum..

While you were out trying to get your first fall colour shots I was taking my first snow shots but thats another story...

I think that the problems you are having with your fall colour shots may not be all camera related but be the trees themselves, as part of the process that gives you the fall colours the leaves also tend to droop and and develop a slight edge curl which reduces their definition which is why the shots taken earlier in the year seam sharper. Also the fall colours tend to fall into the range where it is trickiest to separate colours of the same hue, I worked as a colour matcher for a couple of years and the orange-brown area was where most people failed the colour blindness test.

John Q

--
John Q....C-2100, C-180 and a lot of funny filters
http://www.pbase.com/john_q

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top