# Why my night shots are not sharp?



## aussiearef (Jul 1, 2012)

Hi guys,

I have taken a lot of night shots (long exposure) using a tripod and various apertures (from f3.5 to f22) etc but none of my photos are sharp. I have Canon 550D and this lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

samples below:

IMG_0008 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
IMG_0002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Thanks for any advice


----------



## manaheim (Jul 1, 2012)

Um those look way better than average to me.

Granted, F22 is likely to be less sharp overall on any lens, because the light will refract pretty heavily around the aperture blades.

I generally recommend somewhere around F8.  It gives you a good star effect on the light sources with minimal refraction overall.

If you search the forum for posts by me and look for Manaheim's Ultimate Night Photography Guide or something like that you'll find a pretty comprehensive guide on this stuff.

That said, seriously, these look very well done.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 1, 2012)

My suggestions would be:

#1 Dont shot at F22 for long exposures... especially at 1600 ISO. You will get both major noise and diffraction kicking in when doing that. Try using F8 or F11 max... with calculated hyperfocal distance focusing.

#2 If you have a filter on your lens, take it off!

The one shot at 1600 is noisy more than anything... that is why it doesn't look sharp.. that and diffraction. 

The one shot at 400 is actually a pretty nice shot.... but still some diffraction kicking in.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 1, 2012)

Keep the lens at f/5.6 or f/8. Drop the ISO to 100. Use a cable release. Your night shots should look perfect at those settings.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 1, 2012)

As charlie just said, it looks to me like you have UV filter installed on the lens, resulting in flare from the lights. The majority of this will disappear if you remove the filter. As for the clarity at F/22, as the rest said... it's diffraction. I'm not going to tell you to "never shoot long exposures at f/22." However, just remember that you are always going to have diffraction at that aperture, and you will never be able to avoid it. I shoot at that aperture(f/22) all of the time. However, I'm not expecting clarity in those photos when I do.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 1, 2012)

What does ISO have to do with diffraction? Also I've heard that you should turn off IS when using a tripod.

But i agree. these look sharp to me. Maybe OP is looking for pats on the back?


----------



## aussiearef (Jul 1, 2012)

Thanks guys
Sw1tchFX, if I keep the iso on 100 and aperture on say f8, then how long I will have to keep the shutter open for?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 1, 2012)

2x longer than at f/22, 1600 :er:

Depending on the camera's native ISO, it may be better to shoot at ISO 200. Check reviews at sites like dpreview for what ISO will give the best noise/dynamic range ratio.


----------



## KmH (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't see any lens flare, but I do see diffraction spikes from the many over exposed light sources. The diffraction spikes are caused where your lens aperture blades overlap, and using a small aperture.

The cityscape shot (#1?) my seem blurry to you because the lights are so overexposed adjacent pixels in the image sensor were saturated.

As your focus point gets more distant, you can open up the lens aperture while keeping the same DoF.

ISO has to do with diffraction by using an inappropriate ISO for the shot, which causes other exposure settings to also be changed in ways that diminish overall image quality.

Geez, I hate Flickr. I can't see the photo's EXIF data. 

Both of these were good candidates for blending 2 exposures, or using HDR, multiple exposure (3 or more) combining techniques.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 1, 2012)

aussiearef said:


> Thanks guysSw1tchFX, if I keep the iso on 100 and aperture on say f8, then how long I will have to keep the shutter open for?


I dunno how long...depends on what you're pointing it at.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 1, 2012)

KmH said:


> I don't see any lens flare



Keith, Look underneath the bridge and you will see a series of flares arching up towards the bridge starting from the second support beam at the base of the bridge. Then, if you continue your eyes right into the sky portion of the right side of the photograph (in photograph #1) you will continue to see that flare in the sky.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 2, 2012)

aussiearef said:
			
		

> Thanks guys
> Sw1tchFX, if I keep the iso on 100 and aperture on say f8, then how long I will have to keep the shutter open for?



I'd bet my hat you're looking at about 60s on ISo 100... 30s at 200.

Keep in mind you should also be shooting raw, expose to the right, etc.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 2, 2012)

it would be nice to ETTR at night when you need it the most, but in practice it's not really practical....


----------



## rokvi (Jul 11, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> aussiearef said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guysSw1tchFX, if I keep the iso on 100 and aperture on say f8, then how long I will have to keep the shutter open for?
> ...




Set your ISO really high until the levels at a faster shutter seem  right, then however many stops it takes to get to native 100 or 200 ISO  is how many steps you add to your exposure time.


----------



## BuS_RiDeR (Jul 11, 2012)

Try focusing manually and setting your focus to infinity or slightly shy of infinity. /shrug

Oh and turn "off" VR or IS...


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 11, 2012)

These photos could probably be shot at f/4 or less. Theres a huge distance even to the nearest subject.




unpopular said:


> What does ISO have to do with diffraction?


 Zip.

High ISO gives you noise on digital and less resolution on chemical film.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> These photos could probably be shot at f/4 or less. Theres a huge distance even to the nearest subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SolarFlare.... most lenses have a "Sweet Spot"... it varies per lens, but is usually around F8 to F11... which is why most of us suggest it.   Also, many lenses are wide open at F4.. definitely NOT optimal!


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 11, 2012)

Oh ok sorry. I'm now kind of used to my prime lens which is optimal at f/2.8 already hehe.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> Oh ok sorry. I'm now kind of used to my prime lens which is optimal at f/2.8 already hehe.



I had a 35mm 1.8 G...  and while it is more or less sharp at 2.8 (especially compared to wide open) it was still significantly sharper at F8 than 2.8!   Try it..


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

I bet it was as sharp as it gets at around f5.6. Most primes, be it f1.8 or f1.4 get sharper at f5.6. Zoom lenses are sharper starting around f8 in my travels and experiences.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I bet it was as sharp as it gets at around f5.6. Most primes, be it f1.8 or f1.4 get sharper at f5.6. Zoom lenses are sharper starting around f8 in my travels and experiences.



Good call, Tyler... it depends on the lens, but yes... in that area!    (But it still had CA) lol!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

CA FOR LYFE!


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 11, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Oh ok sorry. I'm now kind of used to my prime lens which is optimal at f/2.8 already hehe.
> ...


You sure that wasnt just your prejudice ?

This test (and I have a D5100, which has the same sensor as the D7000 used in this test) says the maximum sharpness is at f/4.0, which is hardly any better than f/2.8.

The resolution at f/5.6 is already softer than even f/1.8, except for the corners, and quickly deterioating even more at f/8 and f/11.

What you saw in "additional sharpness" was thus most likely the effect of increased depth of field.

(Not that I could actually see the difference between f/2.8 and f/11 visually, by the way. I just made a series of test pictures and I would call f/11 still perfectly sharp everywhere, while f/1.8 feels blurry)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...



SURE! My prejudice!!! YEP! Uh huh!!! ( I did GIVE that lens away... so I guess it wasn't a favorite!)

I always enjoy reading your posts... they are usually amusing!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> I always enjoy reading your posts... they are usually amusing!


They're also usually full of wrong information, or misinformation, rather.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

> You sure that wasnt just your prejudice ?
> 
> This test (and I have a D5100, which has the same sensor as the D7000 used in this test) says the maximum sharpness is at f/4.0, which is hardly any better than f/2.8.
> 
> ...



Okay, so you loose 9 points in terms of center sharpness going from f1.8 to f5.6. However you failed to note that you gain 85 freakin' points in CORNER SHARPNESS when stopping down your aperture to f5.6. 

Stop insinuating what you think other people have seen. There's a big difference between corner sharpness and increased DoF. Two weeks ago, you didn't even understand how aperture works, and clearly you don't know how to evaluate image sharpness. You make so many misstatements about cameras and lenses it is literally unbelievable. Unless there's some sort of "lenses are sharper wide open" narrative you are trying to project, I suggest you rethink your standing, as well as your level of photographic knowledge when compared to Charlie's or any other far mor experienced photographer than you. 

I am tired of correcting your posts and pointing out inaccuracies.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

KmH said:


> I don't see any lens flare, but I do see diffraction spikes from the many over exposed light sources. The diffraction spikes are caused where your lens aperture blades overlap, and using a small aperture.
> 
> The cityscape shot (#1?) my seem blurry to you because the lights are so overexposed adjacent pixels in the image sensor were saturated.
> 
> ...



On flickr, all you have to do is click on 'actions' and view EXIF data.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 11, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea.. that was kind of my point! But I was trying to be nice and not put it so honestly!


----------



## leeroix (Jul 11, 2012)

are you absolutely certain there is no camera shake? even on a tripod the wind can effect the outcome. i see the flag on the bridge blowing pretty hard. have you weighted the tripod to try and stabilize it? is it a quality tripod? are you using a remote trigger? or a timer? all those can play a role, and of course, everything else mentioned....


----------



## rickrange17 (Jul 11, 2012)

Those pics are pretty good but I agree with rest you should never shoot at f/22 If you get a nifty fifty lense and keep your ISO at 400 your pictures will come out even more awesome


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

rickrange17 said:
			
		

> Those pics are pretty good but I agree with rest you should never shoot at f/22 If you get a nifty fifty lense and keep your ISO at 400 your pictures will come out even more awesome



Why iso400? Changing your ISO is dependent on the shooting conditions.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 11, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> rickrange17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah, and 400 just seems like a random choice.  It's not good general advice (because there is no good single ISO to use) and it's not really particularly good advice specific to this situation either, with static subjects and a tripod you probably want to use base ISO even for night photos.  

I think the problem OP found here, even beyond shooting at f/22 and a high ISO, is that night photography that involves city lights, you run into a tough trade off.  The small points of light, if you expose for them, leaves everything else under exposed, and if you try to bring that up in post, you end up with a lot of noise.  However, if you let the city lights completely blow out, they tend to bleed into adjacent parts of the photo, which causes things to not look sharp.  Sometimes I will blend two exposures in a situation like that.  One for the general city scene, and one for all the lights that is exposed down down by a couple of stops to reduce some of the light bleed and give a sharper look.  Then blend the lights in with your base scene exposure in PP to taste and merge.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 11, 2012)

Wow, how have I missed all of this fun reading?

O Hey Tyler, even though you hate correcting solarflare, I enjoy reading your corrections because I learn a lot. 

In fact, I learn a lot through most of yours and Keith's posts. So, thanks!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 11, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:
			
		

> Wow, how have I missed all of this fun reading?
> 
> O Hey Tyler, even though you hate correcting solarflare, I enjoy reading your corrections because I learn a lot.
> 
> In fact, I learn a lot through most of yours and Keith's posts. So, thanks!



I do what I can, buddy! ;-)


----------



## KmH (Jul 11, 2012)

Perhaps a deeper understanding of what 'sharpness' is would help - Tutorials &#8211; Sharpness


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 12, 2012)

I have nothing to add *shrug* I linked the test in question and I said I cant see it on my own pictures, I see no difference in sharpness between f/2.8 and f/11 at all, even on a 200% crop on a computer monitor.

If something of that is "false information" then nobody pointed out why it would be.


----------



## Eddieenn (Jul 12, 2012)

Very rich hub with nice illustrations,thanks


----------



## Terenas1986 (Jul 12, 2012)

Focus to infinity with f/2.8 and you'll get infinite DOF (from 25meters)... that way you can use ISO100 and shutter speeds you can't even imagine with f/8+ which others suggested. DOF calculation is basic with photography when you come to low-light.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2012)

Stop spamming


----------



## Phototripper (Jul 30, 2012)

If you can shoot with the mirror locked up or shutter delay, that may help a little


----------



## JTB (Jul 30, 2012)

OK for my 2 cents worth, I would not shoot at night with long exposure anywhere near F22, I would use F5.6 or F8.  Having seen this shot in both the daylight and at night in person I do say that it is very sharp.  I would suggest to give it a try again using a different F stop.  Were you on the dock there or the street?

James


----------



## aussiearef (Jul 30, 2012)

I was besides a street. So for the next time (which will be when the weather is warmer. It's winter in Australia now!) I will be going to do these:

1- Use F5.6, F8 and F11
2- Remove the UV filter!
3- Use lens hood
4- Use shutter release

What else?


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 31, 2012)

Dont forget to also prerelease the mirror so you dont get vibrations from it.

You can use self-timer 2s or a remote control instead of a shutter release as well.


----------



## Theninjaseal (Jul 31, 2012)

heheh my EVIL doen't have a mirror

In response to the OP, make sure your tripod is nice and tight as well ;


----------



## Pav (Aug 7, 2012)

Hi all. New here and working through the beginner forum. Great source of info so far. Just this thread teaches a bunch. 

Gotta ask. While checking the photos in questions from the OP, I went back one on flicker. What are those blobby looking things directly left of the bridge (against the night sky). That's not lens flare right? 

IMG_0002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

thanks


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 7, 2012)

Pav said:


> Hi all. New here and working through the beginner forum. Great source of info so far. Just this thread teaches a bunch.
> 
> Gotta ask. While checking the photos in questions from the OP, I went back one on flicker. What are those blobby looking things directly left of the bridge (against the night sky). That's not lens flare right?
> 
> ...



A very dirty lens and/or sensor?


----------



## aussiearef (Aug 7, 2012)

Pav said:


> Hi all. New here and working through the beginner forum. Great source of info so far. Just this thread teaches a bunch.
> 
> Gotta ask. While checking the photos in questions from the OP, I went back one on flicker. What are those blobby looking things directly left of the bridge (against the night sky). That's not lens flare right?
> 
> ...



No they are rain drops


----------



## MK3Brent (Aug 7, 2012)

Timer delay shutter is a good way to get around not having a cable release, or remote. 
But honestly, depending on the ambient lighting... Sometimes, it's so dark that the first millisecond of the shutter opening is so dark that you won't see any blur from the act of pushing the button manually. Sometimes people go overboard with thinking all these tiny vibrations at the beginning of a dark exposure are going to matter. What matters is that nothing moves during the bulk of your exposure. Things like a solid tripod and low winds make this job easier. 

I only bring all this up because your solution to the original questions seems answered, no purpose beating a dead horse.


----------



## Pav (Aug 7, 2012)

aussiearef said:


> No they are rain drops



lol. Are there any umbrella/tripod combos out there?


----------



## aussiearef (Aug 19, 2012)

Thank you all for the recommendations. I did give it another try and the result was much better this time:  Neutral Bay NSW | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------

