# what's wrong with these photos?



## bivvyphoto (Oct 21, 2015)

I've been so confused lately about what I'm doing wrong. I'm be no means an beginning photographer. I've been shooting for over 3 years on full manual, so it wouldn't be some silly thing like out of focus, camera shake or something silly like that. it's not a dirty lens because i have cleaned my lens and am still having this problem. maybe i'm too close to the problem. so, if you would let me know what you think is wrong that would help so much. 

These photos have not been edited


----------



## Braineack (Oct 21, 2015)

wrong as in technically or mechanically?


----------



## Designer (Oct 21, 2015)

Which problem(s) specifically is troubling you?  

I see in the first one, very soft focus on the subject, and very low contrast, but the front edge of the fountain seems fine.

The second one shows the subject in motion, but I can't tell where the focus is.


----------



## bivvyphoto (Oct 21, 2015)

It's the fuzzy focus that is bothering me. The problem just started recently. I'm aware these photos aren't top quality, they're just examples.


----------



## oFUNGUSo (Oct 21, 2015)

have you tested your camera for focus issues with one of those fancy diagrams you can find online? Initially i thought they just werent focus properly, and that the shutter speed was maybe too slow on the second one.....but you say its not likely an issue with your focusing.....maybe back/front focus is an issue


----------



## bivvyphoto (Oct 21, 2015)

oFUNGUSo said:


> have you tested your camera for focus issues with one of those fancy diagrams you can find online? Initially i thought they just werent focus properly, and that the shutter speed was maybe too slow on the second one.....but you say its not likely an issue with your focusing.....maybe back/front focus is an issue



I was thinking it could be a problem with my camera. It currently has been around the block a few times and I tend to be a bit rough on my gear


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 21, 2015)

What camera do you have?  It may help just in case someone has knowledge with the same camera.


----------



## oFUNGUSo (Oct 21, 2015)

bivvyphoto said:


> oFUNGUSo said:
> 
> 
> > have you tested your camera for focus issues with one of those fancy diagrams you can find online? Initially i thought they just werent focus properly, and that the shutter speed was maybe too slow on the second one.....but you say its not likely an issue with your focusing.....maybe back/front focus is an issue
> ...



were it me (and im no expert by any streatch) i'd start with downloading and printing a focus test sheet. Set up the tripod and try to rule out a hardware issue that way. If you get good results, thats one thing eliminated. Or you might discover something needs adjusting


----------



## bivvyphoto (Oct 21, 2015)

Unfortunately, I have a Canon rebel t3i. I've been looking to upgrade for awhile now but keep going for lenses instead.


----------



## limr (Oct 21, 2015)

Ah, so this isn't actually a Darkroom issue. I'll report it to a mod who can move it to a more appropriate forum.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 21, 2015)

bivvyphoto said:


> Unfortunately, I have a Canon rebel t3i. I've been looking to upgrade for awhile now but keep going for lenses instead.



Sorry to ask so many questions, but what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO were used for each image you posted?

And what lens was used?


----------



## runnah (Oct 21, 2015)

Looks like slow shutter speed is the issue in both cases. The water in the fountain is blurred and so is the volleyball player's arm.


----------



## bivvyphoto (Oct 21, 2015)

first one: iso 100 f/ 5.0  shutter 1/125
second one: iso 800 f/ 2.o shutter 1/250


----------



## terri (Oct 21, 2015)

limr said:


> Ah, so this isn't actually a Darkroom issue. I'll report it to a mod who can move it to a more appropriate forum.


Thanks, Lenny!     This particular forum should serve better.


----------



## runnah (Oct 21, 2015)

Yeah slow shutter is the issue here. Add a little camera shake and you get blurry images.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 21, 2015)

2nd image in volleyball Your shutter is too slow and maybe aperture too shallow (large)
and you are at f/2.0

When I do sports (it varies) but for young kids under 10 I'm at 1/250 IF I want some foot/leg/ball blur.
If under 14 I'm at 1/320 or 1/400 for some slight blur
If I don't want blur I start at 1/640 and move up.

I know you were indoors thus the reason probably for the large aperture of f/2 and slow shutter speed to get enough light to balance the light meter.

But this is what happens sometimes.   I had this situation where it was waaaayyyy too dark.  But I figured I might as well try. I knew my shutter was too slow and aperture too shallow but it was the only way I knew to get enough detail to pull it out in Lightroom later .. at least for a few somewhat fuzzy pictures.

You should have tried to increase your ISO more to increase your shutter to freeze motion more.  But you did that to 800 to compensate, but it wasn't enough for your camera.  You can go more and introduce noise, or in LightRoom use the Shadow slider more judiciously which will also induce noise.

Sometimes you can't win unless you add light.

I had it looking like this outdoors - 1/250  @ f/4  ISO 6400 and it looked like this if you were watching.



LowLight examples-01 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr

but have to pull out Shadows to the max just to have it look like this. Blurry, shallow DOF too but at least they got some fun pictures.



LowLight examples-02 by Steve Sklar, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Oct 21, 2015)

First shot,. girl by fountain has good focus on her. Her hair is sharp at the individual strand level, and the links of her chain are definite and distinct. The REAL issue is the lens and how well it can handle being shot directly toward a bright light source. *I love the shutter speed!* it is giving a nice rendering of the water droplet movement, due to the 1/125 shutter speed. The f/5 aperture has ample DOF. Again, the real issue is the low-quality optical design and the poor anti-reflection coating quality of the lens, which I am going to guess is the Canon 50/1.8 EF-II: a lens I used to own, and which I gave away to my wife's nephew. That lens design simply does NOT resist flaring anywhere NEAR what a 50mm lens made in the 1960's to 1970's can do...it is an incredibly weeeeeeeak lens when shot toward the light. Inexcusably poor. If you look at the dPreview testing of the 50/1.,8 EF-II, or the Bob Atkins Tamron 28-75/2.8 zoom test, you would see that when shot toward the light, the Canon 50/1.8 "Nifty Fifty" tends to exhibit very strong ghosting or flare, that covers almost the entire width of the frame; the Tamron 28-75 zoom is remarkably better when shot toward the light than the "Nifty Fifty".

Some lenses are very poor when shot toward the light. A lens hood can often help, but there are times when a light source seen against a darker field (like this scenario...) will reveal a HUGE loss of contrast; this lens is one of the weakest modern lenses you will find for this. It is much worse than Nikon's 1970's economy 50mm 1.8 Series E lens, for example. Its performance is in fact, wayyyyy below what a "modern" coated lens should be expected to be able to deliver. (Nikon's 70-200 VR-1 is almost this bad in extreme cases, but only if the sun hits the front element directly, or at a glancing angle!)

The volleyball; shot is a 35mm f/2 lens shot wide open at f/2 at a very marginal speed of 1/249 second...volleyball needs 1/400 second minimum or so for good stoppage of the ball, and the lens is a weak lens at its widest open aperture setting...it's NOT a "crisp" lens, but again, it is a low-cost 35/2...wide-open is not the forte of that lens. Canon makes a pro-grade 35mm f/1.4-L lens, and has just released an updated new 35/1.4-L. There is some motion blur, but there is also an optical fault called *veiling* going on (also called *veiling glare*), which is an all-over-the-frame softening due to low contrast, a fault that many,many,many lenses from all manufacturers may suffer from at their widest aperture setting; the 35/2 at f/2 is showing this. It's actually expected.

MANY fast lenses, like 50/1.4, 50/1.2, 35/2, 85/1.4 have veiling at their widest f/stop and down about a stop or so, and after that the contrast goes up, fast. Veiling or veiling glare is VERY common in the 50mm f/1.4 lens designs from Canon,Nikon,Pentax,etc.. It can be used for creative effects.

The new *Adobe de-haze tool* is showing some promise for making these types of photos look ***remarkably*** better.


----------



## soufiej (Oct 22, 2015)

bivvyphoto said:


> I've been so confused lately about what I'm doing wrong. I'm be no means an beginning photographer. I've been shooting for over 3 years on full manual, so it wouldn't be some silly thing like out of focus, camera shake or something silly like that. it's not a dirty lens because i have cleaned my lens and am still having this problem. maybe i'm too close to the problem. so, if you would let me know what you think is wrong that would help so much.
> 
> These photos have not been edited





Following "Mr. Rain Cloud" is always a pleasure.  Kinda makes you want to take up macrame.  


I would rather agree the "problem" with these two specific photos is mostly the person behind the lens.  

If you were after a certain "look" to the fountain shot, you missed.  It's a tough shot to pull off and you simply made a few mistakes in the process.  Looking at your histogram before taking the shot would have shown you the problems existed.

I would guess you probably saw most of the problems with this shot before you snapped the shutter.  Changing your position relative to the light source would have made a large difference in this shot IMO.  The background is rather distracting as is and the shot could have benefited from a more selective angle on the subject IMO.  A lens hood would have made some difference if this was the only angle you wanted on this shot.

So, basically, wanting to exceed your camera/lens' inherent limitations is what I see "wrong" with this shot.

The 50mm lens isn't as bad, I feel, Derrel makes it out to be.  But it is an inexpensive lens and, despite its great qualities, it is built to a price point that can't be ignored.  In my experience, when you are dealing with "high value" goods, it's best to really understand your gear and to be prepared to work around set up issues that only demonstrate the weaknesses of the product.  In this case, you rather pointed them out instead of avoiding them.

Not a big deal at all, if this is not a consistent issue with you or the lens.  Just a missed shot, we all have them.    



The volleyball shot is mostly just bad settings on your part.  This, I would guess, is something you might have noticed in your review screen.  Guessing, I'd still say the histogram would have shown a decided lack of highlights suggesting you needed to push the shot a bit more. 

At times I find we are looking for something that isn't really best for a specific situation and it's difficult to get it out of our head that we need to change expectations.  The situation you've put yourself in here, indoor lights and fast action, isn't ideal for lots of keepers.

If you were close enough to the action, a flash unit would have given you some help but equally may have bothered the players.  In such situations its best (if there is such a thing as "best") to take a few practice shots to work out problems.

Upping the ISO value would have probably made a significant difference.  ISO seems to be a problem with a lot of photographers because the magazines have convinced so many people the only good shots are taken at ISO 100.  That's hardly the case today, even with less expensive cameras.

I surely wouldn't take either of these two shots as an excuse to buy a more expensive camera.  You'd need to invest a substantial amount in a new camera to overcome these very common limitations.  Software can deal with most of your problems in either shot.

The dehazing software Derrel mentions should make a considerable difference in your first shot.   Try a polarizer filter on this one in your software and see what that does.  IMO the second is just a missed shot.  Move on to better ones.



Are these the only two shots that you're having a problem with?

What results are you getting when you take more "conventional" shots?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2015)

The fountain shot speaks for itself--the 50/1.8 EF-II has horrible performance when shot toward a relatively bright light source. The entire image is suffering from flare, but soufie thinks I'm exaggerating how poorly it performs. Here...take a look at the poor performance against two zooms...the 50 is dead last against two consumer zoom lenses... including the old, Canon cheapie 28-135...with the sun up toward the corner of the frame, the Canon 50 washes out almost all detail in the Atkins flare test.  Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Review

I owned and used the Canon 50/1.8 untril I replaced it with a decent 50, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4...I call the 1.8 model the Iffy FIfty,.not the Nifty Fifty...it's way behind lenses designed in the 1960's and 1970's as far as being able to shoot toward the light. Its weakest area is contre jour...it sucks at it. The lens simply is not designed to the standards that were established in the 1960's even. I am guessing the edges of the elements have not been blackened, as a cost-cutting measure, because the degree of internal reflection that washes out an entire,whole frame points to a serious issue that is not an individual lens or "sample" issue, but is part and parcel of the design. Until the forty dollar Yongnuo copy hit, it was the industry's cheapest 50mmm lens.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 22, 2015)

When I first saw # 1 I looked at the fountain tiles and her lower which looked pretty good, as they were in shade.  I figured the rest of the issue was from shooting into the sun but I knew nothing of this lens.  It reminded me of the problems I had with a Nikon 35-70/2.8 lens shooting towards the sun.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> When I first saw # 1 I looked at the fountain tiles and her lower which looked pretty good, as they were in shade.  I figured the rest of the issue was from shooting into the sun but I knew nothing of this lens.  It reminded me of the problems I had with a Nikon 35-70/2.8 lens shooting towards the sun.



EXACTLY! "Some" lens designs are just not good performers when shot toward the sun, or other bright light sources! With those lenses the steps are to always use a lens hood, and with the worst performing lenses, to hold a black card or a baseball cap, whatever, out in front of the hood, to literally throw a shadow onto the lens. The 50mm 1.8 EF-II is known for its weak performance when shooting into the light. I know it has a deeply-recesed front element, and many people, including the dPreview review of it, mention that as a sort of built-in lens hood--bit it is NOT. Keep in mind, extensive anecdotal evidence shows that with its hood attached, the Nifty FIfty has an even higher incidence of snapping into two pieces when dropped, due to the added leverage the hood creates, and the unique way the hood is attached to the lens body.

I dunno...in the case of this photo, the #1 image in the OP, I don't mind the flare all that much, but then, I like flare, But if the OP had wanted a crisp, high-contrast shot, then this degree of flaring is not acceptable. I would get a lens hood for the lens, and be prepared to flag the lens additionally when shooting toward bright light sources, or, move to a lens with higher flare resistance. Flare resistance is normally not a critical factor--until you get into situations where flare resistance "is" critical. If a lens's actual DESIGN AND BUILD emphasize flare-resistance, then it's easy to shoot towards the light and not have the images flare much, or at all.


----------



## soufiej (Oct 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The fountain shot speaks for itself--the 50/1.8 EF-II has horrible performance when shot toward a relatively bright light source. The entire image is suffering from flare, but soufie thinks I'm exaggerating how poorly it performs. Here...take a look at the poor performance against two zooms...the 50 is dead last against two consumer zoom lenses... including the old, Canon cheapie 28-135...with the sun up toward the corner of the frame, the Canon 50 washes out almost all detail in the Atkins flare test.  Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Review
> 
> I owned and used the Canon 50/1.8 untril I replaced it with a decent 50, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4...I call the 1.8 model the Iffy FIfty,.not the Nifty Fifty...it's way behind lenses designed in the 1960's and 1970's as far as being able to shoot toward the light. Its weakest area is contre jour...it sucks at it. The lens simply is not designed to the standards that were established in the 1960's even. I am guessing the edges of the elements have not been blackened, as a cost-cutting measure, because the degree of internal reflection that washes out an entire,whole frame points to a serious issue that is not an individual lens or "sample" issue, but is part and parcel of the design. Until the forty dollar Yongnuo copy hit, it was the industry's cheapest 50mmm lens.





Exactly how many times are you going to assure the op her equipment "sucks"?  

Really, Derrel, if this latest is all because I don't feel the lens "sucks", give it a rest.

You can make the point the shot suffers because of the angle without taking three posts to drive the lens into the mud.  This is the lens some people have and the lens some people can afford.

If you want to buy everyone the gear you feel they should be using, that's fine.  Some people may take you up on that deal.  

Until then, keep in mind this is simply a hobby for many of us.  You do not get to spend anyone's money other than your own.  


"It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby."

I couldn't agree more.

Give it a rest, Derrel.


----------



## wfooshee (Oct 24, 2015)

I think you may be confusing motion blur with focus. The first image is at 1/125 shutter, so if the model was moving any at all, that would be enough time to show it. The second image was 1/250, so a pretty quick shutter, but it was wide open aperture, which always makes focus more critical, and there is significant very fast motion in striking the ball.

If you're after frozen action shots, you're going to need to be in the 1/2000 speed range, at least, to freeze that arm during a ball strike.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 30, 2015)

wfooshee said:


> If you're after frozen action shots, you're going to need to be in the 1/2000 speed range, at least, to freeze that arm during a ball strike.



I doubt it would have to be nearly that fast.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 30, 2015)

soufiej said:


> You can make the point the shot suffers because of the angle without taking three posts to drive the lens into the mud.  This is the lens some people have and the lens some people can afford.



It's also a lens which countless people have taken countless excellent photos with. It doesn't work well when you're shooting directly into the sun? Well, here's a crazy idea: Don't use it when you're shooting directly into the sun.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 30, 2015)

Shutter speed is too slow for the volleyball shot. There is movement in both, camera shake. The OP has ruled out that it is her as she has 3 years of shooting manual.  After 45 years I still get camera shake on slow shutter speeds. The t3i is a great entry level camera and in the right hands can produce great images.   It's not the camera, it's the settings used by the holder.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 30, 2015)

imagemaker46 said:


> Shutter speed is too slow for the volleyball shot. There is movement in both, camera shake. The OP has ruled out that it is her as she has 3 years of shooting manual.  After 45 years I still get camera shake on slow shutter speeds. The t3i is a great entry level camera and in the right hands can produce great images.   It's not the camera, it's the settings used by the holder.


Are you stating that it's the subject's fault.  The subject was moving too fast and was too close for the camera's shutter and aperture settings


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 30, 2015)

Well, when I read 3 years taking pictures, can't be something silly like camera shake or movement, and assuming the camera has no mechanical issues, then yes it has to be the subject, it's all that's left. This photography thing is so confusing to me at times.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Oct 30, 2015)

Perhaps if the OP posted some additional images it may also help with discovering what the issue is.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 30, 2015)

I think there's a need for a good bit more learning and practice, especially in more challenging situations like action in low light. It's camera settings and... framing and composing shots, noticing backgrounds when you're picking out a good vantage point, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 30, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > You can make the point the shot suffers because of the angle without taking three posts to drive the lens into the mud.  This is the lens some people have and the lens some people can afford.
> ...



It's always amusing to see fans who want to elevate a $99, plastic, pop-riveted-together Canon lens to the status of something like a Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summicron ASPH.

"Some" lens designs are very weak when shot toward the light. I also mentioned a very expensive Nikon zoom lens that is also quite poor when shot toward the light.

Shooting volleyball at slow shutter speeds wide-open with a lens that's not that good wide-open is gonna lead to substandard photos. Shutter speeds simply need to be appropriate to the shooting situation, and 1/250 is too slow a speed for many action situations.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 31, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Mr. Innuendo said:
> 
> 
> > soufiej said:
> ...



Not sure what "fans" you're talking about. I would think if I were a fan, I would have one. I just checked the Pelicans and, nope, still don't have one. 

I also don't quite see how making the statement that countless excellent photos have been taken with the lens (which is true) equates to me trying to "elevate" it to the status of a Leica 50mm. 

Your reasoning is nonsensical.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 2, 2015)

The lens isn't the problem with these pictures.


----------

