# Why aren't my photos getting that "crisp" feel to them?



## KBM1016 (Jun 18, 2012)

I don't know what it is but I don't feel like my photos are getting a very "crisp" feel to them.  I have seen a lot of great photos where they are sharp as a tack but for some reason I can't grasp it.  Anyone have any ideas on how to improve in this area other than monopod or tripod?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jun 18, 2012)

Post examples.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 18, 2012)

Post an example, preferably with exif data attached.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 18, 2012)

Good lenses, tripod/appropriate shutter speed, appropriate DOF/focus, and proper exposure are what you do in camera.

My guess is your problem is on the post processing side.  All digital files need to be sharpened...either you can let the camera do it through picture controls, or you need to do it manually in post processing.  Manual will get you better results.


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 20, 2012)

Ok here is my attempt to "sharpen" the image up.

Original

Canon MKII
f 2.8
1/100
ISO 2500
50mm




_MG_1406 by Autumnlightsphotos, on Flickr

The sharpened photoshop version



_MG_1406sharp by Autumnlightsphotos, on Flickr


My biggest fear is them wanting to blow one of these photos up and it just be so horribly grainy and not sharp.  Any suggestions would be awesome.  I am going to walk away from editing for awhile before I jump off a cliff.....


----------



## amandamartin (Jun 20, 2012)

Well, an ISO that high is most likely giving you some added noise issue, which will hinder your sharpness. I keep my own geenral rule of not going over 600 on ISO unless it's necessary and pitch black dark. 

 Getting good glass in a lens is crucial, too.  I am dealing with a crappy lens and going through a similar situation as well.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

amandamartin said:


> Well, *an ISO that high* is most likely giving you some added noise issue, which will hinder your sharpness. I keep my own geenral rule of not going over 600 on ISO unless it's necessary and pitch black dark.
> 
> Getting *good glass in a lens is crucial*, too.  I am dealing with a crappy lens and going through a similar situation as well.



Not with that body he is using. And the 24-70 lens is nice too, did you even look at the exif data?


----------



## amandamartin (Jun 20, 2012)

Well, obviously I did, or I would not have seen the ISO.  I don't know anything about the lens, but I do know that jacking up that ISO is bad.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 20, 2012)

amandamartin said:


> Well, obviously I did, or I would not have seen the ISO.  I don't know anything about the lens, but I do know that jacking up that ISO is bad.



Only if you don't use it correctly! Or if you don't have a body that handles high ISO, with low noise, well!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)




----------



## Mach0 (Jun 20, 2012)

I cant see the images that well since they seem small but the wall behind them looks pretty decent. What did you focus on? On the small image, it looks to be the wall.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 20, 2012)

Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 20, 2012)

your photos are "not ok to edit" so no one can show you how to help you.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 20, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.



How would a noise removal software make a picture sharper?


----------



## JG_Coleman (Jun 20, 2012)

KBM1016 said:


> My biggest fear is them wanting to blow one of these photos up and it just be so horribly grainy and not sharp.  Any suggestions would be awesome.  I am going to walk away from editing for awhile before I jump off a cliff.....



I looked at the largest version of the image that is available on Flickr (both the original and the sharpened), and it doesn't really look too bad.  I would make a 100% crop of one of them to show what I'm looking at, but I'm guessing that's considered "editing" so I'll hold off.   I'm looking at certain things like the crispness of the outline of the man's tux, the detail in the flowers, etc, etc... it _really _doesn't look too bad.  So, I'm not really sure how much sharper you want it to be...

Also, looking at a 100% crop of the sharpened version of the photo, it seems like you've sharpened the noise a bit.  As a result, the original version actually looks a bit better to me at 100%.

It seems like what is really bothering you is the noise.  As others have mentioned, the 5D Mark II is a great camera with good high-ISO capabilities.  But the fact of the matter is that ISO 2500 is _still_ ISO 2500, _no matter what camera you're using_.  Sure, using ISO 2500 on a 5D Mark II will produce a _much better_ picture than using ISO 2500 on a Rebel T1i.  Nonetheless, the fact remains that using ISO 2500 on a 5D Mark II will definitely produce a noisier photograph than using, say, ISO 200 on a 5D Mark II.  There's really no way of getting around that fact.

Given the high-ISO you've used, though, I really don't think that the noise level in this photograph is nearly as bad as you seem to think.  Nor do I think that the sharpness is nearly as bad as you think.  That's just my two cents after seeing the 1067x1600 versions on Flickr.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 20, 2012)

Yeah man.. dont be a pixel peeper.


----------



## KmH (Jun 20, 2012)

Sharpening is a fairly technical process. Experts recommend it be done in stages - globally and locally at Raw conversion, locally in photoshop, and then again at output based on usage.

The experts that wrote the sharpening software for Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) wrote this book - Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 20, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.
> ...



My comment was in reference to the noise discussion of the thread, not the sharpness.  Nowhere did I say it would make the image sharper....pretty sure I wrote...as you quoted  "It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues".....


----------



## KmH (Jun 20, 2012)

Noise reduction (heads) and sharpening (tails) are just the 2 sides of the same coin.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 20, 2012)

I thought they were closely related and had a push-pull affect.  I am still learning this part of it, so I didn't want to comment further on it, other than what I had stated, especially if I was wrong.  LOL.


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 21, 2012)

Let me take a look at it again.  The church was super dark to the high ISO was kinda necessary.  Maybe it is the noise that is just bothering me.


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 21, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> your photos are "not ok to edit" so no one can show you how to help you.



I am the type that learns by doing.  I would rather someone suggest how to fix it (through reading materials or software) rather than fix it for me and tell me how to do it.  That's the only reason they are marked don't edit.  I have gotten some great advice this way


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 21, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.



Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!  This tool just saved my sanity.....SOOOOOO much better.  Thanks!!!


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

KBM1016 said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.
> ...



I'm glad you like.  To me, it is indeed phenomenal.  There are sooo many options in there and it is way more powerful that what I use it for.  I've only had it a week so I still have lots of learning to do yet on it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 21, 2012)

I believe it that you are able to remove the noise.. not sure about "sharpness".  Let's see it.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

You can fix and affect sharpness with that tool as well, I just don't know how to do it yet as I'm learning it.  I have seen it done though locally.


----------



## yerlem (Jun 22, 2012)

I thought removing noise made the image less sharp.... I'm confused


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 22, 2012)

yerlem said:


> I thought removing noise made the image less sharp.... I'm confused



Not always, it's a fine balance...and at times can improve the overall appearance and sharpness of an image...as there are many things involved in a "sharp" image.  I can't really explain it better, but I have a small comprehension of it from learning on here and listening to people in person that talk about it.  

Maybe someone with extra time can give us all a lesson...ahem..not saying names...Keith...ahem.


----------



## KBM1016 (Jun 22, 2012)

I realized that part of the problem was I was getting this weird jagged edge appearing as if the pictures were pixalated from sharpening.  I was seriously getting frustrated.  I had to have my tech husband look and tell me what might be causing the jaggedness.  He said it looked like a compression issue (which then immediatly I realized he was right but don't tell him that).  Come find out, when I was cropping the image, it was compressing it at the same time!  Got rid of that, ran a few clean ups in PS then ran the noise reduction software and VIOLA!  Much better.  Sanity restored (somewhat).


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 22, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Do you have Imagenomic Noisware professional adding for photoshop?  It is a phenomenal tool for fixing noise issues...especially high iso noise.



OMG Thanks for posting this... I was about to say "was" a phenomenal tool because I thought they had abandoned the product.  I had Noiseware 4 which worked with Photoshop CS4, but when Adobe released CS5 it stopped working (and how here Adobe is with CS6) and users were fairly upset that there had been no updates even a year later.  

I see they FINALLY released Noiseware 5 which works with CS4, 5, & 6 and it claims it's a free upgrade for owners of Noiseware 4.  Maybe I can finally start using it again.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jun 22, 2012)

amandamartin said:


> Well, obviously I did, or I would not have seen the ISO.  I don't know anything about the lens, but I do know that jacking up that ISO is bad.




You can shoot that body at ISO 10000 without noise.  Go away or give better responses.


----------



## DScience (Jun 22, 2012)

amandamartin said:


> Well, obviously I did, or I would not have seen the ISO.  I don't know anything about the lens, but I do know that jacking up that ISO is bad.



You obviously don't have a body like the 5d mkII lol.


----------



## Kphipps (Dec 18, 2012)

Did you take these in RAW? If so, you can edit in ACR and help remove some of the noise and fix other settings. If you didn't, you could probably find a photoshop action that will help remove the noise or smooth it. I also have a photoshop action that adds crisp details in the image if needed. If you want to know what I use, you can shoot me an email or message. I'm not sure if I'm suppose to put links on these kind of forums or what the "rule" is.
Was it pretty dark in the church? Shooting with a high ISO will add grain. I have to give you props for not busting out your flash because you wanted to capture the beautiful lighting and details in the back. Lighting can be tricky but it gets easier with practice and knowing your settings. 
Overall I really love the image! I love how she is looking up at her husband just glowing. You captured a beautiful photograph and I think they will be so excited to see these.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 18, 2012)

The reason the picture you posted doesn't look "sharp" is because your subjects are darker than the background they disappear into. If you have to shoot in the church, shooting with a 70-200 from far away and a giant umbrella is a good idea, otherwise the image is just way too cluttered.


----------



## DSRay (May 19, 2013)

Canon MKII
f 2.8
1/100
ISO 2500
50mm

Well if you wanted to make it rough on yourself you couldn't use a better mix of settings.  ISO 2500, _really_?  and then throw it all away by shooting at f 2.8?????? with a 50mm lens?  The reason the background isn't sharp is most likely because you don't have the depth of field that the setting requires.

Probably taken in JPG and what method are you using to sharpen?


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 19, 2013)

In the example picture you posted, noise would be the least of my concerns. Color balance, exposure, proper lighting and composition all are more pressing issues here.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 19, 2013)

KBM1016 said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > your photos are "not ok to edit" so no one can show you how to help you.
> ...



Do you tear all the illustrations out of your manuals?
Not allowing people to edit your photos is like telling a dance teacher not to show you how to move. 
There are some things that are just too difficult, even impossible, to say with words that can be easily demonstrated with a picture.
There is no reason that you can't do it yourself - and it would actually be easier than trying to edit to a target that you haven't seen.


----------



## Overread (May 19, 2013)

Thread locked - its from last year and a spambot (now removed) probably brought it back up.


----------

