Phrag besseae 'BBC #2'

[SlipperFan]

The softness of your image looks to me like very slight camera movement.

I thought of that, too. But if you look closely, the stem behind the flower gets sharper as the distance increases. To me, it looks like the plane of focus is off.

 

[gonewild]

I thought of that, too. But if you look closely, the stem behind the flower gets sharper as the distance increases. To me, it looks like the plane of focus is off.

I did look at the stem behind and actually it is soft as well. It appears more focused because it has so much less detail. The whole image is soft.

I wonder what resolution the camera is set on? Maybe low?

 

[SlipperFan]

It appears more focused because it has so much less detail. The whole image is soft.

The plane of focus doesn't work that way. I don't disagree that the whole image is soft. But the most out-of focus is the closest point, the pouch and staminode, and the sharpest point is more distant, actually the green just behind the dorsal sepal.

 

[gonewild]

The plane of focus doesn't work that way. I don't disagree that the whole image is soft. But the most out-of focus is the closest point, the pouch and staminode, and the sharpest point is more distant, actually the green just behind the dorsal sepal.

Zooming in on the image with photoshop shows little difference in the actual focus of the green area or the petal. It is the contrast of light that makes it look sharper. There will always be a zone gradient of focus for the DOF whether the image is sharp or not. The plane of focus could be off for sure, but since Lien said it looked crisp when he took the shot, something in the image should be in focus if there was no camera movement.

The light quality as a whole looks like it was a long exposure which would account for camera movement blur rather than an plane of focus issue.
Long exposure + open lens = blur

 

[SlipperFan]

Zooming in on the image with photoshop shows little difference in the actual focus of the green area or the petal.

That's because the petal is very close to being on the same plane as the green. The plane of sharp focus is parallel to the camera back, which is at an angle to the flower. That's why you can see down into the pouch. Anyway, I said it was the pouch and staminode that is the most out of focus (and that is the closest plane to the camera). I'm sure you must agree with that!

It is the contrast of light that makes it look sharper. There will always be a zone gradient of focus for the DOF whether the image is sharp or not.

Of course. That all has to do with the "circles of confusion" created by the aperture.

The plane of focus could be off for sure, but since Lien said it looked crisp when he took the shot, something in the image should be in focus if there was no camera movement.

That's why I think either his diopter is off, or there is a problem with the lens itself. The latter is less likely, as it is a Canon lens.

The light quality as a whole looks like it was a long exposure which would account for camera movement blur rather than an plane of focus issue.

That doesn't negate that the area just behind the flower is the sharpest. It's just not that sharp, so I agree that there is another issue as well.

Long exposure + open lens = blur

Not necessarily. I've made lots of photos with an open lens and long exposures that were tack-sharp on the plane of focus.
But long exposure + camera or object movement = blur

We never learned if he is using a tripod. If not, that could also explain everything. Something may look sharp, but without a tripod, he may have moved slightly forward when he snapped the picture, which would have thrown off the plane of sharp focus. That coupled with camera movement would do it. Every error is magnified in close-up photography.

How about it, Lien?

 

[gore42]

I've chatted with Lien about this a bit, and it turns out that he's been using his camera on Manual Focus sometimes. I suspect that was the case with this one, and consequently, it was just a bit out of focus. It also appears that there was just a touch of camera movement or maybe subject movement, but I think it would be pretty insignificant if the shot were in focus.

Lien, if you're still reading this thread, you might consider using the self timer or a cable release to get rid of that tiny bit of camera movement (assuming that you're using a tripod).

- Matt

 

[lienluu]

I've chatted with Lien about this a bit, and it turns out that he's been using his camera on Manual Focus sometimes. I suspect that was the case with this one, and consequently, it was just a bit out of focus. It also appears that there was just a touch of camera movement or maybe subject movement, but I think it would be pretty insignificant if the shot were in focus.

Lien, if you're still reading this thread, you might consider using the self timer or a cable release to get rid of that tiny bit of camera movement (assuming that you're using a tripod).

- Matt

I do use a tripod and a cable release so i doubt there is any camera movement.

 

[gore42]

Well, I guess that if there really IS any movement related softness in that photo, we can nail it down to movement in the subject. That sort of minor softness can be caused by very insignificant movement (when you're working close up)... like vibration from a fan, a light breeze, stereo turned up too loud, etc


- Matt

 

[gonewild]

That's because the petal is very close to being on the same plane as the green. The plane of sharp focus is parallel to the camera back, which is at an angle to the flower. That's why you can see down into the pouch. Anyway, I said it was the pouch and staminode that is the most out of focus (and that is the closest plane to the camera). I'm sure you must agree with that!

Yes I agree with that. I just don't see anything in sharp focus on any plane. If indeed there is a plane in focus the the lens must be wide open.

That's why I think either his diopter is off, or there is a problem with the lens itself. The latter is less likely, as it is a Canon lens.

Even the best of lenses can be off and that is always a possibility. I think if the diopter is off he would never see anything in focus. The diopter focuses the viewfinder itself not the image on the prism. Try it, take your camera and focus on an object, then completely offset your diopter adjustment and try to focus. Lien said it looked crisp when he took the shot.

That doesn't negate that the area just behind the flower is the sharpest. It's just not that sharp, so I agree that there is another issue as well.

Yes.

Not necessarily. I've made lots of photos with an open lens and long exposures that were tack-sharp on the plane of focus.
But long exposure + camera or object movement = blur

Yes, it will be tack sharp as long as nothing moves. Depending on the length of exposure when photographing a flower something is going to move. Vibrations, air current, heart beat, that is what I meant. With a long exposure there is almost always some movement somewhere, somehow. All it would take would be one slight movement to cause blur.

We never learned if he is using a tripod. If not, that could also explain everything. Something may look sharp, but without a tripod, he may have moved slightly forward when he snapped the picture, which would have thrown off the plane of sharp focus. That coupled with camera movement would do it. Every error is magnified in close-up photography.

Without knowing what he did when he took the image we will never be able to figure it out. All we can do is do what photographers do, argue about who is right. :clap:

How about it, Lien?[/QUOTE]

 

[gonewild]

I do use a tripod and a cable release so i doubt there is any camera movement.

Are you sure the flower did not move?
Do you remember what your shutter speed and aperature setting was?

And if you don't like us talking about your pictures tell us to shut the H up!

 

[gonewild]

Well, I guess that if there really IS any movement related softness in that photo, we can nail it down to movement in the subject. That sort of minor softness can be caused by very insignificant movement (when you're working close up)... like vibration from a fan, a light breeze, stereo turned up too loud, etc


- Matt

hey Mat....This is where I'm supposed to say "What do you expect from a Canon?". oke:

 

[gore42]

LOL... I guess I should have seen that coming

- Matt

 

[ScottMcC]

Lien, have you tried retaking the photos with the lens zoomed all the way out, macro mode, with the subject just a couple inches away from you? I saw you got pretty sharp results on your first trials, how did that translate into plant photos?

By the way, for the photography nuts, has anyone tried the Sony α? It's been getting really good reviews and the optical image stabilization sounds neato for those of us who strap these things on our heads and jump out of planes.

 

[NYEric]

As a professional shooter [weapons not cameras] I find that most people dont realize that their vision is off. If the camera is on manual the lack of precise clarity may be a result of his focus. I think the picture is fine.

 

[Sangii]

wowwww , wish some of mine could turn out just as nice as this one !!!!

 

[SlipperFan]

Even the best of lenses can be off and that is always a possibility. I think if the diopter is off he would never see anything in focus. The diopter focuses the viewfinder itself not the image on the prism. Try it, take your camera and focus on an object, then completely offset your diopter adjustment and try to focus. Lien said it looked crisp when he took the shot.

Yes, but if the diopter is off, he may think it looks sharp but the camera doesn't.

Anyway, it seems that he's solved his problem, because his next photo looked pretty good.

 

[Heather]

Um...besseae.


What were we talking about?

 

[gonewild]

Yes, but if the diopter is off, he may think it looks sharp but the camera doesn't.

Anyway, it seems that he's solved his problem, because his next photo looked pretty good.

I am curious about what you say about the diopter setting. I've never messed with them much, just always set it and leave it alone. When I set my diopter to be off focus I don't see anything ever in focus. I don't think if the diopter is off focus for your eye it is possible to ever see the image in focus.
Try it and tell me what you find out, I am not trying to argue the point, I'm curious now.

 

[SlipperFan]

I am curious about what you say about the diopter setting. I've never messed with them much, just always set it and leave it alone. When I set my diopter to be off focus I don't see anything ever in focus. I don't think if the diopter is off focus for your eye it is possible to ever see the image in focus.
Try it and tell me what you find out, I am not trying to argue the point, I'm curious now.

I did a little playing with the diopter setting on my Nikon this afternoon. The control is a little slider that has 8 or so settings. I had a set-up with objects at various distances. After focusing on an object about 10' away, I gradually changed the setting. What I noticed is that the distant object started getting blurry sooner than the nearer object. Of course, the more I changed the setting, the more blurry everything got.

My point here is that if the diopter is off a little bit, the unsharpness many not be so apparent as when it is off a lot.