Hi.

I am wondering why some of my photographs look like quality photographs and others look like they are newsprint quality when they are taken with the same lens, same (or very similar) focal length, same ISO setting and obviously the same camera.

From the airshow I had over 2000 pictures and many were binned straight away before I started whittling out the borderline ones. When I got down to the borderline pictures, many were binned because they just looked "wrong".

I don't think that it was focus, camera shake or the speed of the aircraft. The only thing that was different would be the actual and relative locations of the aircraft when the shots were taken and the light that hit them at that time. Some of my pictures look (technically) fine and yet a photograph taken half a second earlier (and another 200 yards away) doesn't only look smaller but looks very poor as well.

OK, if the aircraft is further away, its image is spread over fewer pixels and I should expect lower quality, but one of my better shots is of a Typhoon flipping over backwards at the top of a climb and therefore not only some distance away but high up where there is some thin cloud around and yet I am quite happy with it and I've just checked- it was taken at ISO 400 and I would say that there may be a little more noise, but the picture is still fine in my book.

I've given this some thought and I would have blamed shutter speed and yet I seem to have pictures of slower moving aircraft such as helicopters hovering and slow passes of jets taken at 1/1000th of a second at 300mm (480mm on APS-C) at ISO200 that still are not sharp and clear.

Am I still using too slow a shutter speed to be certain?? In that case, I really do need a fast lens for next time.

Can you post up some links to some of the photos in question? It's very hard to say what's wrong without seeing them for ourselves.

This is one of the most obvious ones. It was taken at ISO200 and at 1/1000th of a second at F5.0 while the Merlin hovered in front of me and rotated on-the-spot as it were. The "Royal Navy" badge is not sharp and to me, the picture looks a little rough. If you look at other pictures on Flickr (which are not full size) you will see that some are extremely sharp and good quality- even fast moving jets- so that would appear to rule out anything with the camera.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39717999@N07/3774781093/

The full size- not cropped or anything- JPEG (from RAW) is on the site.

RAW sharpness was defaulted to 3 and increased to 5. Brightness reduced by 0.33 and Colour saturation increased by 1.

I don't think that the picture itself looks that bad, I'm just having some difficulty in understanding why some look different to others for no apparent reason.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39717999@N ... 3/sizes/o/ This one (cropped a little and resized) looks sharp and fine to me and yet these two jets were panning across at a reasonable speed. The picture was taken at ISO320 1/1000th of a second but F9.0, but as the depth of field in both cases appears to be irrelevant, then I don't see an issue there, unless the focus was not correct.

Thanks for any help.

I've just had a quick peek, so this is first impressions only. I've not downloaded the images for a more critical look.

They look great to me. If anything the Hungarian jets are a little dark, but that's not difficult to fix. I can't see the problem you mention about the RN words on the Merlin. There's plenty of detail, it's nicely exposed, looks good to me.

*shrug*

Oops, my mistake.I should have made it clear that I meant the Royal Navy badge and flag on the cockpit. I've just had another look at it from the Flickr site and I don't know if you'll be able to see the detail that I mean.

I will isolate the areas that I mean and put them up as larger images so that it can be viewed.

I thought about whether some of my photos were too dark or light due to settings on my monitor, but I have visited a camera review site a couple of times the last two days and noted that their calibration scale on the site is fine.

Ah, I see.

If I'm honest, I'd not expect to see that level of detail anyway. Perhaps with a >20MP camera, but even then I think it would be pushing things a bit.

That said, I haven't seen the original RAW, so Flickr's Magic Make It Look Nice filter might be skewing things a little. Would it be possible to put a copy of the RAW file(s) somewhere we can download and inspect?

This is the area I am referring to specifically. To be honest, my suspicions have to lie with camera shake and that would be more than fair except that I would have thought that 1/1000th should be OK at that focal length for a reasonably stationary subject. http://www.flickr.com/photos/39717999@N07/3775040123/

I had, again, wondered about depth of field and the area that I was focussed on, but apart from the fact that the whole aircraft is the same distance from me (within a metre or two at most along it's length) and that fast lenses used for this kind of photography use large apertures, that doesn't really add up.

I guess that I can't show you some of the worst examples as I ditched them, but this Hornet photograph is far from being what I would have liked. It looks rough, again more like a newspaper picture and yet it was taken at 1/800th at ISO200 F13, so it should have been fine apart from the risk of camera shake which does appear to be absent in this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/39717999@N07/3765984881/

That's what I would say, but I have had that level of detail with my EOS300D with JPEGs straight off the camera. Some of the aircraft you can almost read the pilot's name written on the side of the cockpit- I can make out the abbreviation of "Wing Commander" on of the hawks.

I'm not sure where I could host the RAW files, but tbh, they look the same in RAW, JPEG and sized & cropped JPEG and they look the same on my PC monitor and laptop. I don't think the answer lies there, but we could sort something out.

Just a thought.
It's a helicopter.
They vibrate, a lot. Even at 1/1000th, you could still pick up a tremor at just the wrong moment. Unlucky, yes, but I guess it could happen. Add to the fact you're presumably some distance, on a long lens (so any motion at your end is exaggerated as well) and I think that's partially what's happening. It's the world out there, not the camera, perhaps.

There's confusion creeping in about which camera you were using and so on, I'm afraid. Remember it's the end of the week and I've not been my best today.

The cropped chopper shot certainly looks like camera shake when you see it this close up. There's also a small amount of colour fringing around the edges, which is the lens. Okay, remind me which lens/lenses were used again

I'd like to see an original RAW so I can inspect it at close quarters, though.

The latest RIAT photos were all taken with my EOS40D and (cheap) Canon 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 lens.

I am happy to believe that it is the cheaper lens, that's fine, but I want to understand why that happens, especially with certain pictures AND ensure that it can be helped by throwing money at better lens(es) rather than missing something basic.

I have had a quick scan through some of my RIAT pics from 2007 taken with the same lens and EOS300D and I can read very small writing on some aircraft- including to some degree the often scripted writing of the pilot's name, so I know that the 40D should be better.

There is ONE big difference between the last airshow and this this one. I normally keep my polarising filter on the end of the lens for rich blue skies and other enhancements, but I was aiming for high(er) shutter speeds this year and left it off- I don't think that I put a UV filter on. Is it that simple? I'm happy to accept that it is.

Okay, quality of lens will certainly have a bearing.

I have a "cheap" 28-300mm ƒ/3.5-6.3 Sigma (it was close to £400 which isn't exactly cheap by most standards). It's horribly soft at almost every point in the zoom. It's not irrecoverable, but it's not sharp and crisp without fiddling in software later. I have a feeling it would have struggled to hold the amount of detail you're seeing with your "cheap" Canon lens!

This shot was taken at 300mm with that lens. It's nice, but not as crisp as it could be. It also needed a fair amount of work in post to stop it looking like it midnight.

So, you can't beat quality glass. End of. It's the reason I'm hoping to get an expensive 70-200 Canon zoom at some point. Partly it's the ƒ/2.8 throughout the zoom, partly because it will work with a full-frame camera when I can afford one, partly the image stabiliser, but also because good glass stays with you.

I don't think, therefore, it's necessarily anything you've done wrong. The polariser would have made things marginally worse, I think, by blocking even more light. I think it's a combination of the lens, camera and subject shake. Just keep practising, and try not to be too hard on yourself when it doesn't quite work as expected. It's a continual learning process, and it's important to enjoy it while you learn!

Thanks, Heather.

I was principally concerned by the fact that the pictures don't seem to be much better than the EOS300D at times. I am still happy enough with many aspects of the EOS40D that are so much better that I don't regret the upgrade for similar quality. There certainly doesn't appear to be worries about quality in most general shots but I have been trying to get more pictures of caterpillars today and close-up results are pretty poor- my wife's Nikon compact is better. I am hoping to address this with a macro lens sooner, rather than later and better long lenses will follow when I can afford it.



That's reasonable. Something else to bear in mind. I have looked through some of the helicopter shots from other years and there is some similar shaking that could be explained that way.

Finally, piccy stuff that I'm (reasonably) qualified to comment on

There are 3 fundamental areas that affect the quality of a pic:

Firstly there's camera settings - Are you shooting manual, Aperture Priority (Av), Shutter Priority (Tv) or 'girly' mode (auto or sports). The first Merlin shot is at ISO200 which is perfectly acceptable on the 40D and 1/000th sec should be enough to 'freeze' any vibration or indeed camera shake, especially if the helicopter was hovering. So, regardless of whether Av or Tv was used the shot should have been sharp.

Now your lens is a fantastic 'bang for your buck' zoom lens but as with all lenses, you can get a good one or a bad one. At 300mm focal length this lens will be slightly soft especially at the aperture used and you will get better results coming down to around 250-260mm and cropping tighter. Next - your lens should have a 'sweet spot'. Find it and try and stick there - I would suggest F7.1 or F8. For helicopters I shoot Tv and around 1/125th to 1/160th sec.

Metering or Exposure. A minefield this one and one which should probably be changed to suit the conditions but I've normally got too much else to think about so I and my buddies who use the 40D shoot 'evaluative' or 'partial'. This seems to suit backlit subjects best. Remember though - you can adjust exposure compensation to let in more light or shut it out. Again I try and use at least +1/3rd - 2/3rds on a grey day.

Finally, in this first area of consideration, and as I'm keeping it simple , there's the autofocus. I set center point, especially when the aircraft are travelling at speed and make sure that you have AI Servo selected for anything moving - 'high speed/low speed or single shot drive modes are up to you.

Second thing that affects a pic is how you operate the camera. Panning is one of the dark arts and should be practiced daily as should squeezing the shutter button slowly. Smooth is the order of the day here so try and tuck your arms in to avoid camera shake. The other week some of the low-fly chaps were up at an exercise here. They were shooting Tornados landing at dusk at 1/40th second and under and getting the aircraft pin sharp with soooo much background blur it was just colour. I was at 1/250th sec and getting blurred shots...

Third thing is post processing. The darkest of the dark arts. Now you say "RAW sharpness was defaulted to 3 and increased to 5. Brightness reduced by 0.33 and Colour saturation increased by 1" - was this when you converted to jpeg from DPP or any other prog (Photoshop/Lightroom)? Reason I ask is because when I open my RAW files, I use Adobe Camera RAW which opens in photoshop. I set everything to zero, open the pic, then process in photoshop. The very last thing I do is sharpen and even then I do so in layers or create masks where I can go back and erase parts.

Now apologies if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs but here's what I think of the pics you posted. The first Merlin is fine - it just needs some levels/curves, contrast and some sharpening. Here is my attempt but don't forget this is from a pic you've already worked on - I would like a bash at the original.

Second pic of the Grippens just needs some curves to lighten up the undersides - perfectly good pic.

The Hornet is just the usual combo of bad panning (I don't mean that in a nasty way) and the wrong shutter speed. I would have come down to F8 and increased the shutter speed to 1/1250th so even at ISO200 you would have a sharp pic. Getting shots like this in brilliant sunshine is difficult enough but when you throw grey skies into the equation then it becomes problematic.

One final thing - the 40D is notorious for being 'not quite right' in the focus department. I'm struggling with mine and am going to send it away for calibration. My mate did this with his and the difference is out of this world - yes it should have been right from the start but calibration of camera and lens is generically set up using software in the factory. With all the variables concerned, it's no surprise that a few might be out...

HTH

Al

Thanks, Al. That all helps.

To be honest, post processing is one area that I am very weak in. I am planning on getting software this month (August) now that I am shooting in RAW as I should always have been. So far, I am just using the Canon software to correct brightness and contrast issues and occasionally boost colour a touch, but the darker arts are still beyond me. The only photography book that I have is firmly set in the film era and I do want and need to get something that belongs in the modern world. I am also now buying photography magazines- something that I haven't done since I started with 35mm SLR photography.

Re the processing that I did, Canon Photo Professional shows the sharpness set to 3 and I upped this. The other two settings were at 0 and I reduced the brightness a little and stepped up the colour 1 notch. Beyond that, I did nothing and at the moment, I am not sure that I have the ability to do much more with the supplied software. If I do have a lot more ability, then it's my own fault for not finding out about it yet- Again, My recent holiday to Florida and trip to RIAT are the first time that I have shot a considerable number of pics in RAW and then worked on them at all.

I see what you did with the picture- as noted, you have a previously shrunk and worked-on JPEG, but I see the improvement. I used that picture as an example of the issues that bothered me and I knew that there were issues with it. One of the things I need to work out is how to correct areas of a picture as I have more than one with excessively dark areas where the detail can be found. I'll look into it.

I am interested to know if your friend had his camera calibrated under warranty, or whether this was done at his own expense. Did he form his own opinion of the problem or was it independently evaluated?

Remember. Despite my experience and kit outlay, I am not that experienced in serious photography. Historically, my SLR and knowledge that I have helped me to take many better (and the odd cracking) shot which I would not have done with other cameras. I am only now trying to treat photography as a hobby in its own right and all advice and observations are welcome. Thanks.