Focus problems

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 09:26 AM

Was out today, took some shots with the camera on a tripod using the remote with 3s delay. Liked one, but when I look at it properly the low bushes on the right of the island are far from sharp - in fact they almost look like there are two of everything in the original. The rest is fine and sharpened up well.

The original is a PEF, I used ACR & CS4, the psd is 15 bits, the last two steps were resizing to 1024 pixels wide and then converting to an 8-bit image so I could save a JPG to upload to Flickr.

This has me foxed. Camera shake should have affected the whole image. I have stuff in front and behind the blurry area in focus (I cropped the bottom of the image and there is stuff there that's clearly OK). It wasn't windy, plus there are no leaves on the bush and at this time of year it's all last year's growth that has hardened.

Lens issue? Camera issue? Sensor issue? Shutter blur? Anything other ideas? And what should I do to narrow down what the problem is with a view to fixing it? I might end up wishing I had stuck with my E510.

eddie1960 · 12-31-2010, 09:58 AM

other environmental issue (mist, haze) really it's kind of hard for me to tell at the size ond on a cheap work monitor. I do think it is an excellent image though. How does it look printed (which is where i usually make my final judgments on an image)

wlachan · 12-31-2010, 10:00 AM

If you did everything right and one side of the image is blurry, the lens is probably suffered from optical misalignment which cannot be fixed. Opt for a replacement if possible.

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 10:02 AM

Steady on, I only took it a few hours ago! Thanks for the compliments, yes overall it's worked well, but those bushes I suspect will look hideous printed.

It was actually RAW+JPG and shows clearly in the JPG from the camera so I could post a 100% crop of that if it would help.

BTW I'm very lucky, this is less than 30 minutes drive from home.

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

If you did everything right and one side of the image is blurry, the lens is probably suffered from optical misalignment which cannot be fixed. Opt for a replacement if possible.

I *think* I did everthing right. I did what worked with the E510. So, maybe I should talk to them next week - it came from a reputable UK supplier not that long ago. Would the misalignment show all the way down that side? This image really only has detail in that one area.

I guess this is where a test chart would be so, so useful...

wlachan · 12-31-2010, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by cats_five

I *think* I did everthing right. I did what worked with the E510. So, maybe I should talk to them next week - it came from a reputable UK supplier not that long ago. Would the misalignment show all the way down that side? This image really only has detail in that one area.
I guess this is where a test chart would be so, so useful...

Not sure what you mean by "all the way down that side". One way to detect optical misalignment is to take 2 identical shots, with 1 the camera being upside down. Then you can compare the 2 shots with identical details. Don't be surprised if there is slight loss of details, but if the difference is too much, redo the tests and also with different scenes. Also, don't fully rely on AF which is not that accurate with wide angles. The loss of detail is also more pronounced with scenery than test charts which are difficult to use well.

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 10:34 AM

What I meant was would misalighment show as an isolated patch or right down one side of the frame?

Focal length was 77.5mm (from the EXIF) so doesn't count as wide angle. I will see if I can have a go at the upside down thing, though the tripod doesn't lend itself to that.

Todd Adamson · 12-31-2010, 11:01 AM

This seems pretty obvious, but...ummm....were the bushes something that could have moved due to wind during the exposure, while the rest of the stuff didn't? It's pretty much impossible to say whether there was a problem without full EXIF available, as well as 100% crops, or better yet, the full size jpg.

wlachan · 12-31-2010, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by cats_five

What I meant was would misalighment show as an isolated patch or right down one side of the frame?

The whole side should be blurry, not just a patch. Some higher contrast targets like buildings would be more suitable for tests though as the tree branches aren't that static.

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-31-2010, 11:52 AM

As one way of eliminating some of the confusion, have you looked at the rocks around and to the right of the "fuzzy" bushes? If they are sharp, then the bushes are the problem, neither the lens nor your technique.

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 12:43 PM

The EXIF is all at Flickr: Exif | Bishop Hill from Burleigh Sands | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The basics are:
Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture f/8.0
Focal Length 77.5 mm
ISO Speed 100

There wasn't much wind. The gliding club is the other side of the Loch and it runs a weather station, and it was showing 5 knots tops during the time I was there which is really pretty gentle. Given there are no leaves on the bushes and they are all stiff old growth at present I would expect them to be static - I didn't notice the bush near where I was shooting from moving. In June when there are leaves and new growth then yes, even 5 knots will make them wave around.

Are the rocks OK? Good question, not as easy to answer as one might expect!

The JPG from the camera is 6MB, I can upload it to Flickr as I have a Pro account, not sure you would want to download the whole thing. A selective crop or two might be more useful.

Todd Adamson · 12-31-2010, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by cats_five

The EXIF is all at Flickr: Exif | Bishop Hill from Burleigh Sands | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The basics are:
Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture f/8.0
Focal Length 77.5 mm
ISO Speed 100

There wasn't much wind. The gliding club is the other side of the Loch and it runs a weather station, and it was showing 5 knots tops during the time I was there which is really pretty gentle. Given there are no leaves on the bushes and they are all stiff old growth at present I would expect them to be static - I didn't notice the bush near where I was shooting from moving. In June when there are leaves and new growth then yes, even 5 knots will make them wave around.

Are the rocks OK? Good question, not as easy to answer as one might expect!

The JPG from the camera is 6MB, I can upload it to Flickr as I have a Pro account, not sure you would want to download the whole thing. A selective crop or two might be more useful.

If you think a crop will help, put it up! But most of us have fast internet these days, so it would sure be easy to look at the full size file if you want to upload it.

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-31-2010, 01:01 PM

If you do a 1:1 crop of that particular area of the image, we might be able to see something. I suggest a crop of the bush out to the right edge of the image. We could then do our pixel peeking and see if we can see anything. We probably don't need the whole image.

bobmaxja · 12-31-2010, 01:17 PM

f8? for landscape? Where was your focus point?

cats_five · 12-31-2010, 02:12 PM

Focal point was somewhere around the island - the big tree is fine and it's almost the same distance away as the bushes. The background is all fine - the trees on the left sharpened up nicely.

I'll do a crop, do you want it from the PEG or the JPG?

12-31-2010, 09:26 AM	#1
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Focus problems Was out today, took some shots with the camera on a tripod using the remote with 3s delay. Liked one, but when I look at it properly the low bushes on the right of the island are far from sharp - in fact they almost look like there are two of everything in the original. The rest is fine and sharpened up well. The original is a PEF, I used ACR & CS4, the psd is 15 bits, the last two steps were resizing to 1024 pixels wide and then converting to an 8-bit image so I could save a JPG to upload to Flickr. This has me foxed. Camera shake should have affected the whole image. I have stuff in front and behind the blurry area in focus (I cropped the bottom of the image and there is stuff there that's clearly OK). It wasn't windy, plus there are no leaves on the bush and at this time of year it's all last year's growth that has hardened. Lens issue? Camera issue? Sensor issue? Shutter blur? Anything other ideas? And what should I do to narrow down what the problem is with a view to fixing it? I might end up wishing I had stuck with my E510.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can a manual-focus lens have back focus problems?	PocketPixels	Pentax DSLR Discussion	33	02-13-2011 05:37 AM
Focus problems	sherib	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	02-20-2010 06:37 AM
My 16-50 focus problems	qksilver	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	03-12-2009 12:16 PM
do you have focus problems with 16-45???	hll	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	04-11-2008 02:39 PM
Pentax K 10 Focus problems	Rick Woodward	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	11-04-2007 09:48 PM

12-31-2010, 09:58 AM	#2
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	other environmental issue (mist, haze) really it's kind of hard for me to tell at the size ond on a cheap work monitor. I do think it is an excellent image though. How does it look printed (which is where i usually make my final judgments on an image)

12-31-2010, 10:00 AM	#3
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	If you did everything right and one side of the image is blurry, the lens is probably suffered from optical misalignment which cannot be fixed. Opt for a replacement if possible.

12-31-2010, 10:02 AM	#4
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835 Original Poster	Steady on, I only took it a few hours ago! Thanks for the compliments, yes overall it's worked well, but those bushes I suspect will look hideous printed. It was actually RAW+JPG and shows clearly in the JPG from the camera so I could post a 100% crop of that if it would help. BTW I'm very lucky, this is less than 30 minutes drive from home.

12-31-2010, 10:04 AM	#5
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835 Original Poster	Originally posted by wlachan If you did everything right and one side of the image is blurry, the lens is probably suffered from optical misalignment which cannot be fixed. Opt for a replacement if possible. I think I did everthing right. I did what worked with the E510. So, maybe I should talk to them next week - it came from a reputable UK supplier not that long ago. Would the misalignment show all the way down that side? This image really only has detail in that one area. I guess this is where a test chart would be so, so useful...

12-31-2010, 10:10 AM	#6
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by cats_five I think I did everthing right. I did what worked with the E510. So, maybe I should talk to them next week - it came from a reputable UK supplier not that long ago. Would the misalignment show all the way down that side? This image really only has detail in that one area. I guess this is where a test chart would be so, so useful... Not sure what you mean by "all the way down that side". One way to detect optical misalignment is to take 2 identical shots, with 1 the camera being upside down. Then you can compare the 2 shots with identical details. Don't be surprised if there is slight loss of details, but if the difference is too much, redo the tests and also with different scenes. Also, don't fully rely on AF which is not that accurate with wide angles. The loss of detail is also more pronounced with scenery than test charts which are difficult to use well.

12-31-2010, 10:34 AM	#7
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835 Original Poster	What I meant was would misalighment show as an isolated patch or right down one side of the frame? Focal length was 77.5mm (from the EXIF) so doesn't count as wide angle. I will see if I can have a go at the upside down thing, though the tripod doesn't lend itself to that.

12-31-2010, 11:01 AM	#8
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	This seems pretty obvious, but...ummm....were the bushes something that could have moved due to wind during the exposure, while the rest of the stuff didn't? It's pretty much impossible to say whether there was a problem without full EXIF available, as well as 100% crops, or better yet, the full size jpg.

12-31-2010, 11:17 AM	#9
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by cats_five What I meant was would misalighment show as an isolated patch or right down one side of the frame? The whole side should be blurry, not just a patch. Some higher contrast targets like buildings would be more suitable for tests though as the tree branches aren't that static.

12-31-2010, 11:52 AM	#10
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	As one way of eliminating some of the confusion, have you looked at the rocks around and to the right of the "fuzzy" bushes? If they are sharp, then the bushes are the problem, neither the lens nor your technique.

12-31-2010, 12:43 PM	#11
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835 Original Poster	The EXIF is all at Flickr: Exif \| Bishop Hill from Burleigh Sands \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! The basics are: Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250) Aperture f/8.0 Focal Length 77.5 mm ISO Speed 100 There wasn't much wind. The gliding club is the other side of the Loch and it runs a weather station, and it was showing 5 knots tops during the time I was there which is really pretty gentle. Given there are no leaves on the bushes and they are all stiff old growth at present I would expect them to be static - I didn't notice the bush near where I was shooting from moving. In June when there are leaves and new growth then yes, even 5 knots will make them wave around. Are the rocks OK? Good question, not as easy to answer as one might expect! The JPG from the camera is 6MB, I can upload it to Flickr as I have a Pro account, not sure you would want to download the whole thing. A selective crop or two might be more useful.

12-31-2010, 12:52 PM	#12
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722	Originally posted by cats_five The EXIF is all at Flickr: Exif \| Bishop Hill from Burleigh Sands \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! The basics are: Exposure 0.004 sec (1/250) Aperture f/8.0 Focal Length 77.5 mm ISO Speed 100 There wasn't much wind. The gliding club is the other side of the Loch and it runs a weather station, and it was showing 5 knots tops during the time I was there which is really pretty gentle. Given there are no leaves on the bushes and they are all stiff old growth at present I would expect them to be static - I didn't notice the bush near where I was shooting from moving. In June when there are leaves and new growth then yes, even 5 knots will make them wave around. Are the rocks OK? Good question, not as easy to answer as one might expect! The JPG from the camera is 6MB, I can upload it to Flickr as I have a Pro account, not sure you would want to download the whole thing. A selective crop or two might be more useful. If you think a crop will help, put it up! But most of us have fast internet these days, so it would sure be easy to look at the full size file if you want to upload it.

12-31-2010, 01:01 PM	#13
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	If you do a 1:1 crop of that particular area of the image, we might be able to see something. I suggest a crop of the bush out to the right edge of the image. We could then do our pixel peeking and see if we can see anything. We probably don't need the whole image.

12-31-2010, 01:17 PM	#14
bobmaxja Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Laval, Quebec Canada Posts: 2,171	f8? for landscape? Where was your focus point?

12-31-2010, 02:12 PM	#15
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835 Original Poster	Focal point was somewhere around the island - the big tree is fine and it's almost the same distance away as the bushes. The background is all fine - the trees on the left sharpened up nicely. I'll do a crop, do you want it from the PEG or the JPG?