# 60d Producing Soft Images



## dandaluzphotography

Hey Guys,

I picked up a 60d about 2 weeks ago and have been using it extensively.  I have noticed that the camera is producing soft images.  They're no where near as crisp with my canon 17-40 lens as they are on my XSI with the same lens.  I know it can be sent to Canon to be calibrated somehow.  Has anyone had this experience with the 60D and/or having any body calibrated?  This is frustrating.  I was taking some shots of NYC today and using the auto focus with plenty of light and I view the images at 100% and they're soft.  

This sucks.

Thanks,
Danny


----------



## chaosrealm93

send it in for calibration. i dont think its a widespread issue..


----------



## Derrel

Is the in-camera sharpening set to OFF or a very low setting, Danny? Do you have a sample pix with intact EXIF that maybe we could use to diagnose the problem with??? Without an image it is hard to see, literally 'see' what the issue is, or how bad it is, etc.etc. Is the JPEG compression set to HIGH or something? A single photo with EXIF would help us a lot!


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Hey Derrel,

I'm just looking at the RAW file the camera has produced.  Before doing any processing at all the image looks soft almost to the point that it looks blurred. 

If I save a RAW file as a jpeg without doing any processing to it, is this good enough?  Then I can upload it to tinypic.com and post it here.  Will that be good enough?

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Actually, I figure you need to see it full size to see what I'm talking about.

hmm...


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Did you set up the exact same shooting scenario when comparing the lens on your other camera? Post the RAW to JPEG conversion with no processing and also a 100% crop. Do the same with the XSi on a tripod in the exact same situation.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

I didn't do that comparison.  I just know how the image looks on the XSI.  I plan to do this comparison tomorrow. If I post the 100% crop, will it be visible on this site?

Danny


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Yes it will be visible. It may not be exactly 100% the same as you see when viewing the full sized UN-compressed RAW file on your screen since you will be posting a compressed file that has been uploaded etc. but we will atleast have a rough idea and be able to rule out some other possibilities. We could also see how severe the issue is which is hard to gauge from words because everyone uses adjectives differently.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Here it is. I can email it if needed.  It's even more noisy than the XSI would have been as well.










Canon EOS 60D0.067 sec (1/15)f/13.027 mm1000 EVOff, Did not fireHorizontal (normal)240 dpi240 dpiAdobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh2011:06:25 23:29:42Manual2011:06:25 07:45:222011:06:25 07:45:224.04294967295 mMulti-segment818181sRGB5728.176796 dpi5808.403361 dpiNormalManualAutoStandardJPEG (old-style)UTF82011:06:2507:45:22303012Standard3 ScansAdobe XMP Core 5.0-c060 61.134777, 2010/02/12-17:32:0002011:06:25 23:29:42-04:00EF17-40mm f/4L USM231042949672950CR23sRGB IEC61966-2.1image/jpegxmp.did:01801174072068119161C91380DA3FD2savedxmp.iid:01801174072068119161C91380DA3FD22011:06:25 23:29:42-04:00Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh/from image/tiff to image/jpegxmp.did:01801174072068119161C91380DA3FD2D50CIE 19310.999%D65YCbCr


----------



## dandaluzphotography

The camera was tripod mounted, I used mirror lockup, remote shutter, etc...


----------



## Kerbouchard

Do you have your sharpness, contrast, brightness, etc set up the same on the 60d as it was on your xsi?

For Nikon, even when we are looking at the RAW file, a lot of our picture controls, white balance, sharpness, contrast, brightness, etc are automatically applied.  It could be that your settings aren't giving you what you are used to seeing.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

hmm...  I never touched that on the XSI.  First I am hearing of that even being an option.  I checked the menu on both the XSI and the 60d and couldn't find settings for contrast and brightness or sharpness.  Where would I find that.  I'll check the web.

Danny


----------



## Vtec44

I think the EXIF data you posted is missing the name column.


----------



## Kerbouchard

dandaluzphotography said:


> hmm...  I never touched that on the XSI.  First I am hearing of that even being an option.  I checked the menu on both the XSI and the 60d and couldn't find settings for contrast and brightness or sharpness.  Where would I find that.  I'll check the web.
> 
> Danny



I think Canon's menus were designed by a three year old, so I can't tell you where to find them(I'm a Nikon shooter), but I would recommend finding those settings and starting there before worrying about any bigger issues.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Kerbouchard said:


> dandaluzphotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> hmm...  I never touched that on the XSI.  First I am hearing of that even being an option.  I checked the menu on both the XSI and the 60d and couldn't find settings for contrast and brightness or sharpness.  Where would I find that.  I'll check the web.
> 
> Danny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny
> 
> I think Canon's menus were designed by a three year old, so I can't tell you where to find them(I'm a Nikon shooter), but I would recommend finding those settings and starting there before worrying about any bigger issues.
Click to expand...


I'm checking that out right now.

@ Vtech - I just noticed that the name column was missing.  Sorry about that.  I'll repost it.


----------



## Vtec44

dandaluzphotography said:


> @ Vtech - I just noticed that the name column was missing.  Sorry about that.  I'll repost it.



I'm not sure if it would show in Canon EXIF data, but it shows the contrast/sharpness/saturation level on my Nikon.  That's why I was going through and notice that it's missing the name column.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Those settings are called picture styles by Canon.  I have seen this and never touched it on either camera.  I just left it at standard.  Now if the standard style is different from XSI to 60d, I don't know for sure.


----------



## Kerbouchard

dandaluzphotography said:


> Those settings are called picture styles by Canon.  I have seen this and never touched it on either camera.  I just left it at standard.  Now if the standard style is different from XSI to 60d, I don't know for sure.



I couldn't say for sure, but in the Nikon line up, they are different.  Typically, towards the lower end cameras, you get more in camera sharpening, higher saturation, higher contrast, etc.  In the higher end, Nikon assumes you want to process it the way you want to and doesn't do all of that stuff for you.

In any case, I'm not sure how Adobe deals with Canon picture settings or if they even apply.  Might try adjusting some settings and see if it makes a difference.  Also, the 60D has more megapixels, so looking at your images at 100% is different.  It will require better lenses and better technique to get the same level of sharpness at 100% on the 60D than it would have on the XSI.


----------



## Edsport

With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...


----------



## KmH

The sample you posted should be noisy, because most of it is under exposed.


----------



## gsgary

Was there any wind ? 1/15 shutter speed is asking a lot even on a tripod i would use a higher speed


----------



## KmH

Edsport said:


> With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...


Those settings *are* applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.

A Raw file has to be converted outside the camera to be seen as an image. Each conversion application uses slightly different algorithms to convert the Raw file, so a Raw file converted using DPP will look different than a Raw file converted using ACR, which will look different from a Raw file converted using Aperture.

Another factor that relates to the sharpness one sees when pixel peeping is differences in the low-pass filter (anti-alias filter) that is in front of each camera models image sensor.

So there is little doubt the sharpeness would look somewhat different when comparing images made with a XSi to images made with a 60D.


----------



## Kerbouchard

KmH said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> 
> With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...
> 
> 
> 
> Those settings *are* applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.
Click to expand...


It's also what the histogram is based off of.  Lots of reasons to use those settings, even when shooting in RAW.


----------



## Derrel

Not sure what's going on, but earlier this AM, edsport's reworked image was MUCH larger, and I looked at it and thought the sharpness was satisfactorily high. Honestly, I am thinking that what the OP is seeing is just softer output from the 60D than he's used to with the Rebel body...maybe a difference in the realtive strengths of the anti-aliasing filters between the two bodies, and/or a pretty substantial difference between sharpening that's been or being applied somewhere within the Rebel's imaging chain.

I think it's absolutely normal to need to apply something along the lines of 300 to 500 percent sharpening at a very small radius, like somewhere between .20 and .35 pixel radius, on EVERY image coming off of a d-slr sensor, to counteract the blurring of the anti-aliasing filter; it is true, MANY d-slr cameras do output "soft images", in order to prevent aliasing. And many entry-level bodies often produce crisper, more-sharpened images than the more advanced or pro-level bodies. I think this might be the case here.


----------



## Drake

2 things to remember about:

The 60D is 18MP, the XSi is 12MP. Your lens captures a certain amount of details. When you use the 18MP sensor, all the details spread across more pixels. When you compare the 12MP and 18MP photos on a monitor, the 18MP one has bigger dimensions, which with the same amount of detail should result in a bit softer photo. So, in theory, when you resize your 18MP photo to 12MP and compare it to the photo from XSi, it should be of about the same sharpness. But that's just theory. In reality, the 18MP sensor will capture a little bit more details. However, if you view both pictures at 100%, the 18MP one has to be a little softer compared to the 12MP one.

Also, remember that the Rebel is an entry level camera. Camera manufacturers are known to be messing with RAW shots on these, so they are not exactly 100% RAW. Images are usually sharpened in camera. Often also the anti-aliasing filter is being weakened. Something to remember about when comparing images from the Rebel and a 60D.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

OK...

So i thought I had this figured out.  Maybe.

One definite difference I noticed was in the "standard" picture style.  The XSI's standard picture style was set by default to 3 out a possible 7 and the 60D's was set to 0 out of a possible 7 (I never touched either camera's).  I took several test shots with the sharpening bumped up at different settings and saw noticeable improvements in what the LCD was showing me.  I also played around with the contrast and saturation and the pictures definitely looked better... on the LCD. 

I think it was KMH that mentioned that this only only applies to JPEGs the camera produces and to the jpeg version of the RAW file.  I am in the process of downloading my pictures from the test.  Let's see.

Thanks for all the feedback on this Guys!

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography

gsgary said:


> Was there any wind ? 1/15 shutter speed is asking a lot even on a tripod i would use a higher speed



Zero wind, Gary.  What I do to see if there is camera shake is magnify the image on the LCD.  If there is any wind, the magnified image shakes on the LCD.  This has always worked for me.

Danny


----------



## dandaluzphotography

So...  The first pic looks nothing like what it looked like on the LCD.  It looks really flat with no life; the colors are bland with almost no contrast.  I would say the sharpness is the same as what I have been seeing.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Edsport said:


> With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...



Maybe my sharpening technique sucks.  I usually use a radius of about 1 to 1.5 and sharpen until it looks good.  I saw a post Derrel made about bringing down the radius to about .3 to .5 and applying between 300 to 500 percent sharpening.  I'll try this.

Thanks,
Danny


----------



## Big Mike

I'll echo what Derrel and Keith are saying.  It's pretty normal for all DSLR images to need some sharpening because of the anti-aliasing filter.  

And if you are concerned about how the camera preview, and even the RAW _preview_ looks, remember that this is only a JPEG that is embedded into the RAW file for previewing.  Your Picture Style settings will probably change how that preview looks, but not the RAW file.  Also, with little or no tweaks in the processing stage, images from RAW can look a little bland, especially when you're used to seeing images from P&S cameras or maybe even entry level DSLR cameras.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Your radius should typically stay below 1.0. Also, as KMH was saying. picture styles have no relevance on how your RAW file looks. Its simply for LCD viewing so yOu get a rough idea of a processed file. RAW files are always softer, and flatter.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Also, the 60D will appear noisier at 100% than the xsi due to the Sensor and increased resolution. Same issue when I went from T1i to the 7D ( which the 60D is closely related to.) And I was only going from 15mp to 18mp. I am sure someone else can explain the scientific reasoning for this, but lets just say its a bit misleading when pixel peeping.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

I called Canon and what they told me about the picture styles is that it will apply to jpegs and be locked in.  It will also be applied to RAW files as a tag for a baseline for processing.  They told me I should use their Digital Professional Software and I will see it.  I just tried to open a RAW file with a custom picture style applied and it looks awesome.  I don't know what the hell Lightroom (Camera RAW also) is doing, but it's making the pictures look like sh1t.

What do you guys think?

Danny


----------



## analog.universe

The Canon software is just creating a jpg on your computer the same way as it would be done in camera.  If you use lightroom, all those settings are your responsibility.  It's a lot more work, but if you put the time in you'll be able to get better results in a lot of situations.  It's certainly not as straightforward as just accepting a Canon preset however.


----------



## Derrel

Well, yeah, the Factory Default settings on some RAW image processing software are going to create very bland, dull images. If Lightroom is making the images look crappy, it's definitely due to the settings. Normally, when starting with a new RAW image processor, the user needs to "dial it in", and establish his/her own preferences in how the images are going to be "interpreted". Part of this is due to the fact that no two people want the same, exact type of file interpretation, and there are also multiple different ideas of what makes for the best interpretation of a RAW file.

There are some very,very advanced workers who believe that a RAW file ought to be developed as a rather flat image. One that preserves detail in the highlights and the shadows, but which has a very gentle tone curve. Some of these workers are people with extremely advanced technical backgrounds, and one of them is even the author of a kind of niche RAW development software application (his name is Iliah Borg). Other people want to "develop" the image quite fully, at the RAW converter stage, increasing sharpness, acutance,contrast, color saturation,etc.

So...different RAW converters will give different "looks" at their baseline settings. Some RAW converters offer a series of pre-determined "looks", usually with descriptive names. Camera makers often have a name like Picture Styles, which communicates the desired changes to the RAW data that the RAW conversion style will apply when making a JPEG or TIFF image from the RAW image data.


----------



## analog.universe

Also... read in depth about how sharpening works and the various ways to accomplish it.  There are no magic settings that always get the job done.  I've heard about keeping your radius well below 1.0, that's like saying keep your aperture above f/5.6....  maybe sometimes, there are no rules like that in photography though.  The radius and sharpening amount needed depend on how sharp the raw was, how large the image is that you're working on, how noisy, how much of it is in focus, which sharpening tool you're using (there are dozens), etc...

If I've got a full size raw, sooc, sometimes I'll use "unsharp mask" with a radius of 3 or 4.  If I've got something I've worked on already, and now I'm making a web sized version, maybe just using "sharpen" with a radius of .3 is fine.  There are no rules in photography, just variables.  You'll only be happy with your results when you understand what all the variables do.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Derrel said:


> Well, yeah, the Factory Default settings on some RAW image processing software are going to create very bland, dull images. If Lightroom is making the images look crappy, it's definitely due to the settings. Normally, when starting with a new RAW image processor, the user needs to "dial it in", and establish his/her own preferences in how the images are going to be "interpreted". Part of this is due to the fact that no two people want the same, exact type of file interpretation, and there are also multiple different ideas of what makes for the best interpretation of a RAW file.
> 
> There are some very,very advanced workers who believe that a RAW file ought to be developed as a rather flat image. One that preserves detail in the highlights and the shadows, but which has a very gentle tone curve. Some of these workers are people with extremely advanced technical backgrounds, and one of them is even the author of a kind of niche RAW development software application (his name is Iliah Borg). Other people want to "develop" the image quite fully, at the RAW converter stage, increasing sharpness, acutance,contrast, color saturation,etc.
> 
> So...different RAW converters will give different "looks" at their baseline settings. Some RAW converters offer a series of pre-determined "looks", usually with descriptive names. Camera makers often have a name like Picture Styles, which communicates the desired changes to the RAW data that the RAW conversion style will apply when making a JPEG or TIFF image from the RAW image data.



I guess I have a lot to learn about post (I knew that before this thread )...

Thanks for all the feedback.

Danny


----------



## Big Mike

Also, one of the first things you should do in Lightroom, is to go down to the bottom and choose the 'calibration' that you want.  It's essentially like the picture styles...I'm not sure, but you may even be able to use camera specific styles or settings.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

analog.universe said:


> Also... read in depth about how sharpening works and the various ways to accomplish it.  There are no magic settings that always get the job done.  I've heard about keeping your radius well below 1.0, that's like saying keep your aperture above f/5.6....  maybe sometimes, there are no rules like that in photography though.  The radius and sharpening amount needed depend on how sharp the raw was, how large the image is that you're working on, how noisy, how much of it is in focus, which sharpening tool you're using (there are dozens), etc...If I've got a full size raw, sooc, sometimes I'll use "unsharp mask" with a radius of 3 or 4.  If I've got something I've worked on already, and now I'm making a web sized version, maybe just using "sharpen" with a radius of .3 is fine.  There are no rules in photography, just variables.  You'll only be happy with your results when you understand what all the variables do.


I agree with you, but the OP should use the 1.0 as a good rule of thumb because in MOST cases going too far beyond that will begin to have adverse effects on the image (halos). If your images are extremely soft, the problem should be addressed in your hardware as well as your technique. However, in a generalized fashion, you are spot on about rules, and regardless, the OP should investigate and learn more.

As for the OP, it is my understanding that Canon's conversion software/algorithms are proprietary and Adobe has to attempt to come close with their own. So Lightroom and ACR do not convert exactly like DPP does. You can use many of the auto settings which many times will work, but the best thing to do is learn how to adjust things yourself so that you can control them better. If you learn these settings, 99.9% of the time you will turn the RAW file into a much better finished product than what any camera or auto setting can do.


----------



## Edsport

KmH said:


> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> 
> With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...
> 
> 
> 
> Those settings *are* applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.
> 
> A Raw file has to be converted outside the camera to be seen as an image. Each conversion application uses slightly different algorithms to convert the Raw file, so a Raw file converted using DPP will look different than a Raw file converted using ACR, which will look different from a Raw file converted using Aperture.
> 
> Another factor that relates to the sharpness one sees when pixel peeping is differences in the low-pass filter (anti-alias filter) that is in front of each camera models image sensor.
> 
> So there is little doubt the sharpeness would look somewhat different when comparing images made with a XSi to images made with a 60D.
Click to expand...


I'll stick to my guns that the settings is not applied to a raw file...


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Edsport said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edsport said:
> 
> 
> 
> With my canon i can choose picture styles but also i can set saturation, contrast and brightness etc but if you shot this in raw than those settings is not applied to the photo and a raw file is naturally soft and needs sharpening because no sharpening is applied to a raw file in camera. I sharpened it and it seems fine...
> 
> 
> 
> Those settings *are* applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file. That edited JPEG Basic is what is dislayed on the camera LCD.A Raw file has to be converted outside the camera to be seen as an image. Each conversion application uses slightly different algorithms to convert the Raw file, so a Raw file converted using DPP will look different than a Raw file converted using ACR, which will look different from a Raw file converted using Aperture.Another factor that relates to the sharpness one sees when pixel peeping is differences in the low-pass filter (anti-alias filter) that is in front of each camera models image sensor.So there is little doubt the sharpeness would look somewhat different when comparing images made with a XSi to images made with a 60D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll stick to my guns that the settings is not applied to a raw file...
Click to expand...

He didn't contradict that argument. He said its embedded in the file so that certain software can use it ( much in the same way that the camera uses it to display the processed file on the LCD.)


----------



## RacePhoto

Only quoted and answered because that's the first thing that came to mind. It's not the camera or lens, it's that the camera is capturing 25% more and now he can see the flaws that were not showing in the XSi images.

Same as people who get 5Ds and discover their lenses are soft or they see dust spots that the camera gets blamed for, when it's the sensor size and larger image size, displaying things, which were there but harder to see before.

I'd guess that the whole front/back focusing problem even when manual and the perception that the 60D is not as sharp as the Xsi are because the 60D is actually bigger and better.




Derrel said:


> Not sure what's going on, but earlier this AM, edsport's reworked image was MUCH larger, and I looked at it and thought the sharpness was satisfactorily high. Honestly, I am thinking that what the OP is seeing is just softer output from the 60D than he's used to with the Rebel body...maybe a difference in the realtive strengths of the anti-aliasing filters between the two bodies, and/or a pretty substantial difference between sharpening that's been or being applied somewhere within the Rebel's imaging chain.
> 
> I think it's absolutely normal to need to apply something along the lines of 300 to 500 percent sharpening at a very small radius, like somewhere between .20 and .35 pixel radius, on EVERY image coming off of a d-slr sensor, to counteract the blurring of the anti-aliasing filter; it is true, MANY d-slr cameras do output "soft images", in order to prevent aliasing. And many entry-level bodies often produce crisper, more-sharpened images than the more advanced or pro-level bodies. I think this might be the case here.


----------



## Edsport

He said "Those settings *ARE *applied..." stressing the word are which means to me he is contradicting what i said...


----------



## Drake

They are applied to the preview inside the RAW file you see on your camera's LCD or as a thumbnail in Windows once you install the RAW codecs, not the actual photo you develop with your RAW software - that remains untouched regardless of your incamera settings..


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Drake said:


> They are applied to the preview inside the RAW file you see on your camera's LCD or as a thumbnail in Windows once you install the RAW codecs, not the actual photo you develop with your RAW software - that remains untouched regardless of your incamera settings..



I played around a bit with Canon's Digital Photo Professional and the picture style you use in camera is applied to the RAW file as a baseline for editing.  You can remove it completely or change it any way you like.  This is what I was told by Canon and what I saw when I used it.

Danny


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11

Edsport said:


> He said "Those settings *ARE *applied..." stressing the word are which means to me he is contradicting what i said...



That is whats referred to as being "taken out of context." You did not finish reading the entire sentence before trying to comprehend what it said. His sentence was "Those settings *are applied to the JPEG Basic that is embedded in the Raw file."  *Which does not mean that it is APPLIED to the RAW and then displayed upon opening. It is applied to the JPEG Basic data that is embedded into the RAW file. Just like you can create a DNG file that has all of the original RAW file intact inside of the file still. That way if you WANT the RAW file, with the right software, you can dig it out of the file. Files contain tons of data, not every little bit is displayed. Think of Metadata for an example. When I open my RAW file, do I see "1/100 F/5.6 50mm Flash did not fire" plastered across my image? No. That is because that portion of data is not displayed in the image.


----------

