# Blurriness... Help!



## guest24 (Aug 18, 2012)

I have a Canon T3, and I would like to think I'm okay at using it... I just got it within this past year and I'm still learning.

The problem is, when I want to take quick snapsots of my child, I put it to Auto or another preset mode with auto focus, but they ALWAYS, without fail, turn out blurry!! His face is blurry or his arms are blurry or half of him is blurry. The thing is, on the camera screen they look GREAT, but then when I get them uploaded onto my computer, they are ALL blurry and I get so upset.

I don't risk taking pictures on Manual when I'm not practicing (I'll get there eventually), or when we are somewhere for a short period because I don't want to risk ruining a good picture, but the Auto isn't working either.

Can anyone help me? I can send a pic if needed.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 18, 2012)

Try using shutter priority and setting your shutter to about 1/250 and see if that fixes your problem. I am guessing that your camera isn't able to get enough light and is compensating by dropping the shutter too slow. It's an educated guess, but also a blind one not being able to see one of the images to truly diagnose. 
If your settings are blinking at you it means that the camera is not getting exposure and you will need to raise your ISO in order for it to get enough light.


----------



## guest24 (Aug 18, 2012)

Thanks for the feed back... I went into the settings of one of the pictures I took, and I think it explains it all. It was set to Auto but it was giving me terrible "Auto" settings... I kind of figured that on Auto it would act like a point and shoot..

Here's the settings of one of the pictures that was set on Auto:

f-stop f/4.5
shutter 1/25
ISO-3200
No flash

I still don't understand why the pictures looked fantastic on the screen - maybe because the screen is way smaller than the computer screen?


----------



## guest24 (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm going to try the shutter priority next time and see what happens!


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 18, 2012)

guest24 said:


> Thanks for the feed back... I went into the settings of one of the pictures I took, and I think it explains it all. It was set to Auto but it was giving me terrible "Auto" settings... I kind of figured that on Auto it would act like a point and shoot..
> 
> Here's the settings of one of the pictures that was set on Auto:
> 
> ...


The screen is very small with low resolution. It looks great in a tiny form. Make it equally as small on your computer and it will look the same, but blow it up where you see the full resolution and then you begin to see every imperfection. Kind of like looking at someone from a distance. You can't see their freckles and frown lines from across the room but up close you can see all kinds of things.

The only fix in that situation would have been to add light. You need to be at about 1/125 which is 2 1/3 stops. I am guessing your lens wouldn't allow you to go any lower in Aperture, which would have meant an ISO somewhere around 25600. You don't have it.


----------



## TCampbell (Aug 18, 2012)

If you post a picture, indicate which lens you were using and the settings (e.g. the EXIF data) and you'll probably get more specific advice.

Also... be aware of how the Canon auto-focus system works.  There are several possible focus points that the camera can use.  The camera will choose the focus point which is able to get a focus lock at the CLOSEST focusing distance.  E.g. if your subject is, say, 15' away, but there's something 10' away and one of the focus sensors gets a lock on it, then it'll focus at 10'.

Make sure the camera is actually locking focus on your intended subject.

In full "auto" mode you have no control over which point it chooses.  But if you're not comfortable shooting in Manual, consider usuing "Program" mode instead.  "Program" starts out like full-auto in that the camera picks the exposure... but then you can override it.  You can over-ride which focus point it chooses, you can find other "equivalent" exposures (e.g. if you want a faster shutter, etc.)


----------



## PhotoBrody (Aug 19, 2012)

The problem is that it's shooting 1/25! How old is your child? I ask because if it's a toddler like my 2 year old - they DO NOT sit still! So you need a faster shutter speed. Without knowing your shooting environment, I'd at least use a 1/200 at minimum.. With an iso of - well whatever needed in your lighting conditions. The 4.5 arp is probably ok.. 

If your cam is on auto and it's selecting an shutter of 1/25 and an iso of 3200 that means you have very little lighting. Remember, cameras work off of light.. 

Let us know how this works out for you.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Aug 19, 2012)

TCampbell said:
			
		

> In full "auto" mode you have no control over which point it chooses.



Am I wrong or - isn't the Rebel line provided with just one AF point? I know the t2i was.. Not sure about the 3 though...


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 19, 2012)

PhotoBrody said:


> TCampbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There were 9 on the T2i and T3i. Only one of which is cross type


----------



## subscuck (Aug 20, 2012)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, here goes; the rule of thumb for shutter speed is 1/focal length. If you're shooting with a focal length of, say, 50mm, you need a *minimum *shutter speed of 1/50. At 100mm, you need 1/100, etc. Every time you press the shutter button, you jiggle the camera a little bit. This is known as "camera shake". A fast enough shutter speed will negate this. As already mentioned, to negate *subject motion*&#8203;, you need an even faster shutter speed.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2012)

I have said, literally for YEARS, "*I am the world's greatest photographer on my camera's LCD screen...ALL my pictures look AWESOME there!!!!*" It's a joke I made up, and tell quite often when people tell me the same,exact story as your post talks about...pics look good on the camera, "_but when I get 'em back to the computer, they don't look so good._"

My bit of advice is this: NORMALLY, people make the fatal mistake of setting the ISO to the lowest setting available, because legions of internet knuckleheads have stated, "The lowest ISO makes the best pictures," so don't listen to those people, and instead, set your camera to ISO 400. Judging from the EXIOF information provided for this one particular shot, it seems to me like you might have been shooting in a coal mine???? Anyway...use the camera's ISO setting as a tool, to HELP you. For kid pics, use the built-in flash as on-camera fill light when the light is low, and poor.


----------



## hukim0531 (Aug 20, 2012)

subscuck said:


> Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, here goes; the rule of thumb for shutter speed is 1/focal length. If you're shooting with a focal length of, say, 50mm, you need a *minimum *shutter speed of 1/50. At 100mm, you need 1/100, etc. Every time you press the shutter button, you jiggle the camera a little bit. This is known as "camera shake". A fast enough shutter speed will negate this. As already mentioned, to negate *subject motion*&#8203;, you need an even faster shutter speed.



I've heard shutter speed rule of thumb before and your description matches what I have read elsewhere.  My question is, does that same rule of thumb apply equally to FF and crop camera?  I think I read somewhere that to compensate in addition for the crop factor, you should use 1/(focal length x 1.6) as a guideline.  Of course you should also account for IS (if available) and subject motion.


----------



## hukim0531 (Aug 20, 2012)

Even when kids are holding still for camera, a lot of times they are in some type of oscillating motion (up/down, side to side, rocking back/forth etc.).  I think you must keep that in mind when you are adjusting for shutter speed.  Shutter speed rule of thumb may not be enough and you may have ~50% keeper ratio or worse.  This is usually no problem outside but indoors...  It's probably good to invest in a flash.


----------



## PhotoBrody (Aug 20, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I Judging from the EXIOF information provided for this one particular shot, it seems to me like you might have been shooting in a coal mine???? Anyway...use the camera's ISO setting as a tool, to HELP you. For kid pics, use the built-in flash as on-camera fill light when the light is low, and poor.



lol couldn't agree more on this. 1/25 and 3200iso..also if the cam was on auto it should've popped the flash?


----------



## guest24 (Aug 21, 2012)

Thanks everyone for your responses! The lighting wasn't terrible which is why I was so surprised at the bluriness and the camera's auto settings... It was indoors, but it was inside an arena type thing where a children's event was being held (face painting, magic shows etc.) Since the flash didn't pop up I assumed the lighting was enough... it definitely wasn't dark.
My son is 18 months old, so yes he moves ALOT.
Lol @ Derrel - I should have known better than to trust that screen!! haha

I'll try out the Shutter Priority setting until I get comfortable with M and see how that works out - thanks again everyone! I'm sure I'll be back with more beginner questions  Hope yas don't mind!!!


----------



## subscuck (Aug 21, 2012)

hukim0531 said:


> My question is, does that same rule of thumb apply equally to FF and crop camera?  I think I read somewhere that to compensate in addition for the crop factor, you should use 1/(focal length x 1.6) as a guideline.



I guess in theory you need to accomodate the crop factor. That being said, I shoot crop and don't take the crop factor into consideration. The ROT was so ingrained in me back in the film days that 1/fl is what I use out of habit, and I don't have problems. As always, though, YMMV.


----------



## 3Ddeath (Aug 21, 2012)

To me it sounds like you need the 50mm 1.8 lens that's like only $100. 

F1.8 will make a huge difference in speed over F4.5 

That and some more light would be handy.


----------



## KmH (Aug 21, 2012)

The Canon 50 mm f/1.8 lens is cheap, and it has some decent optics in it. But, because it has only 5 un-curved aperture blades the bokeh the 50 f/1.8 produces is some of the worst available from a camera maker lens. The build quality also leaves a lot to be desired, but you get what you pay for.

The 50 f/1.8 really needs to be stopped down a couple of stops to produce nice sharp focus - to f/3.5 or so. Note that f/4.5 is only 2/3 of a stop away from f/3.5.

In short the 50 mm f/1.8 is cheap, but is cheap for several reasons that add up to some serious limitations making it's value questionable.


----------



## dashboard2003 (Aug 21, 2012)

Thank you for starting this thread, and to everyone for these replies.  

I have been having the same problem with blurriness.  I just moved from a point-and-shoot (which is all I've shot with for twelve years) to a Panasonic four-thirds.  My photos look great on the LCD screen, good in 800x600 or maybe even up to 1024px, but have been very poor for both large sizes or for cropping.

My camera also likes to auto-focus onto elements of the scenery, instead of the individual being photographed.  I'm working on using the touch screen to select the focus point, but haven't had a whole lot of luck with that method yet. 

I'll take this advice about ISO and shutter speed, and let you know how it works out.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 21, 2012)

dashboard2003 said:


> Thank you for starting this thread, and to everyone for these replies.
> 
> I have been having the same problem with blurriness.  I just moved from a point-and-shoot (which is all I've shot with for twelve years) to a Panasonic four-thirds.  My photos look great on the LCD screen, good in 800x600 or maybe even up to 1024px, but have been very poor for both large sizes or for cropping.
> 
> ...


  Change your focus to use only one focus point and you pick where it falls. If you let the camera use a bunch of focus points it gets to pick which one it likes


----------



## guest24 (Sep 4, 2012)

Okay I am SO frustrated. I used my camera this weekend using the tip of Shutter Priority... 
They still came out sub-par. I can take better quality pictures with a point and shoot.

They aren't super blurry but they just aren't CLEAR... if you know what I mean. It's almost hazy looking but out-of-focus hazy... Here is a picture of a play structure... I don't know if you can tell in this picture but I cna because I know what all my pictures turn out like... if you want one of a person, I can upload one.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 4, 2012)

guest24 said:
			
		

> Okay I am SO frustrated. I used my camera this weekend using the tip of Shutter Priority...
> They still came out sub-par. I can take better quality pictures with a point and shoot.
> 
> They aren't super blurry but they just aren't CLEAR... if you know what I mean. It's almost hazy looking but out-of-focus hazy... Here is a picture of a play structure... I don't know if you can tell in this picture but I cna because I know what all my pictures turn out like... if you want one of a person, I can upload one.
> ...



Poor lighting/exposure can cause issues. Do you have a better example?


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

That image looks fine as far as focus goes. 
Your settings are a little odd, but that is a knowledge thing. You are shooting at ISO 800 for no reason. Your camera will handle well at ISO 800 but it wouldn't be a first choice. 

Your issues are from lack of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with your camera. You have to gain some knowledge on how to use your camera to get any thing more than a point and shoot quality out of it. If you let it make decisions for you it will do exactly what any point and shoot does. It's not the camera that makes the quality, it's the knowledge behind the camera. My camera would do exactly what yours is doing if I put it in your hands today. However after you gain some knowledge you will be able to make it do what you want it to do instead of producing point and shoot images. 
You acted on a "tip" to use shutter priority and that probably kept you from having motion blur, but you don't even really know why it would help you or hurt you-because it can do both. You have to learn those things. 
Here are some awesome tutorials to start with that will help you a lot. Digital Photography Tips and Tutorials
Start at the beginning and keep going. Ask questions as you go and we'll do all we can to help you.


----------



## guest24 (Sep 4, 2012)

In this one, the lines are blurry... especially on the ball. It's in full sunlight so there is definitly enough light to get crisp lines, no?
Here's another one where the people are just "off".

I'm thinking I sound crazy, but I wonder if it could be the UV filter I have on my lens making everything look flat and kind of fuzzy? I can only upload small pictures here, so you can't see the full effect, but on my computer screen it's super noticable. 

Does the UV filter affect picture quality??


----------



## guest24 (Sep 4, 2012)

PS I'm not a 'photographer'... these are pictures and snapshots of my family... just in case anyone is like "Who would pay her to take pictures??"

I'm not trying to be amazing... I just want decent quality snapshots..


----------



## guest24 (Sep 4, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> That image looks fine as far as focus goes.
> Your settings are a little odd, but that is a knowledge thing. You are shooting at ISO 800 for no reason. Your camera will handle well at ISO 800 but it wouldn't be a first choice.
> 
> Your issues are from lack of knowledge. There is nothing wrong with your camera. You have to gain some knowledge on how to use your camera to get any thing more than a point and shoot quality out of it. If you let it make decisions for you it will do exactly what any point and shoot does. It's not the camera that makes the quality, it's the knowledge behind the camera. My camera would do exactly what yours is doing if I put it in your hands today. However after you gain some knowledge you will be able to make it do what you want it to do instead of producing point and shoot images.
> ...



Thanks... I will read that... I really do want to learn this and get better at it. I'm not trying to be a whiner - I was just frustrated - thinking I was doing everything I was supposed to then coming home to pictures that don't look the way I expected. 

Thanks for all your patience and help everyone!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 4, 2012)

guest24 said:


> In this one, the lines are blurry... especially on the ball. It's in full sunlight so there is definitly enough light to get crisp lines, no?View attachment 19357
> Here's another one where the people are just "off".View attachment 19358
> 
> I'm thinking I sound crazy, but I wonder if it could be the UV filter I have on my lens making everything look flat and kind of fuzzy? I can only upload small pictures here, so you can't see the full effect, but on my computer screen it's super noticable.
> ...



Yes, the UV filter will have an effect  on your image and if it is a cheap one it will really degrade the image. That's the problem in the first one.
However, the second one looks good at this size. I'd have to see it much larger to guess on it. 

If you want quality snapshots you probably would have been far better off with a high end point and shoot than a DSLR that takes the knowledge in how to use it properly in order to get what you are hoping for.


----------



## 3bayjunkie (Sep 4, 2012)

guest24 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feed back... I went into the settings of one of the pictures I took, and I think it explains it all. It was set to Auto but it was giving me terrible "Auto" settings... I kind of figured that on Auto it would act like a point and shoot..
> 
> Here's the settings of one of the pictures that was set on Auto:
> 
> ...



Holy cow! Was it night time when you took these? At that iso and f/stop that is a horrible shutter speed. Need more light for sure!


----------



## pgriz (Sep 4, 2012)

Two comments about the second image:  your settings were 1/125 sec f/22 ISO 400.  Given that you were in direct sunlight, you were probably better off with ISO 100, f/8, 1/250 sec.  At f/22, you get diffraction blurring of fine detail.  I also recommend you leave your ISO at the native level (100 in your case) unless you cannot get a good exposure otherwise.

The second point is that you are shooting the group with the light directly behind you - that leads to very flat lighting, as shadows help define shapes, and with flat lighting you have almost no shadows.

A third thought is that you should use only the central focusing point, and once you've acquired focus on the chosen item (shutter held down to half press), reframe the image without releasing the half press on the shutter.  Once you've got the right framing (and didn't move in distance), press the shutter the rest of the way to get your image.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 5, 2012)

guest24 said:


> I'm not trying to be amazing... I just want decent quality snapshots..



Go to Amazon and buy "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. It's written for the beginner and it will be the best money you can spend right now. Even decent snap shots require technical knowledge, and Peterson's book will give you that.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

maagokeep said:


> I figured it may be better to consolodate it all in one.


? Your advertising/spam link isn't working.


----------

