Focus issues

jonnydark

Hi, I am new to still photography though I have quite a bit of knowledge in videography as I have 12 years experience in the latter. I have trouble getting pin sharp images with my D3200, especially landscapes. I have tried right up to f/16 for a shallower depth of field with a tripod, and I have tried with numerous settings but none are what I would call pin sharp. I also tried live view focus, thinking that would get me better results, but it didn't. I have seen images taken with the same camera as mine and they look better than mine (at least on the internet). Is my idea of pin sharp wrong? Am I expecting too much? Any advice would be much appreciated as I am getting very disheartened. Thank you.

ohyeahar

Upload one of your shots somewhere and share the link so we can see.
Also share what lens you’re using and your exposure settings.

bruto

I just wrote a long comment which my computer seems to have eaten!

I will try to make it shorter this time. Make sure your camera is set for optimal sharpness.

If you're using the kit lens, set it at f/8, ISO as low as possible, active D lighting off, normal color, RAW image save. Make sure VR is off for tripod shots. I enclosed a couple of casual shots I just took with mine. Kit lens at 35mm, f/8, ISO 400, handheld with VR on. This is what I consider decent normal sharpness (not quite as good as my wife's D7100, but close).

Focus is single point, A mode. First the original shot, taken as RAW, saved here as 1000 pixel JPG at about 50 percent:

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1000x665q90/742/CCVr9y.jpg

Next a crop from a 100 percent view in ViewNX2, saved the same way:

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1000x675q90/746/jbpnB1.jpg

If you can't get something pretty close to this, I'd suspect that the camera is not adjusted properly, or the lens is not working properly. I get this level without great effort, with multiple lenses.

jonnydark

I get something close but it's landscape photos I'm most disappointed in. When I zoom in to 100% there is definite blur. The camera is brand new and I'm using a tripod. Did you shoot in ap priority?

bruto

Yes, I shot at aperture priority, f/8, which is considered the "sweet spot" for this lens.

Distant landscape leaves are a challenge for anything. A small sensor may just not be able to get them pin sharp at a distance, but remember too that the Nikon's native setting may be for less sharpening than other cameras do automatically. The very high resolution of the sensor can result in very deep zooms looking a little less sharp too at 100 percent, which is the equivalent of printing it approximately nine feet wide!

So, back in quick and dirty mode, I put my rig on a tripod, turned off VR, and shot in the gathering dusk. F8, A mode, ISO 400, 35mm focal length, same as before except that the exposure was very long. I used self timer to make sure I didn't shake it. The following JPG is a crop of 402 pixels wide from the original 6000, covering the approximate focus area of the shot. I had meant to focus on the far edge of the field, but suspect the camera may have chosen the branches instead.

As you can see, there is a little blur, though some added sharpening could help that. Since we're just about at the pixel level, it seems pretty decent. What shows here is barely visible in the original.

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/402x284q90/911/d6XV7m.jpg

Edit to add: Here's the original. You can see the little piece of dangling clothesline as a reference:

https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/720x479q90/901/XNpdMd.jpg

jonnydark

Thanks again for your insight. Sometimes I think I get better quality in jpeg than in raw. I know you have more control in raw but in all honesty you can do a lot in photoshop anyway even with jpeg. As long as you take your best shot in camera you can still add different adjustments in photoshop. If I see a photo processed in photoshop, one in raw and one in jpeg and both are done well, I couldn't tell the difference. About landscapes I figured as much concerning focus. I think I just expected too much. Could you tell me what the best aspect ratio is 4.3 or 16.9?

bruto

I'm not sure about aspect ratios. I tend to save the whole picture as it was framed in the camera. When cropping I just crop with little regard for aspect ratios and rarely edit in the camera at all.

It is true that the JPG output of the camera is very good, and if you're not doing certain kinds of post processing or cropping, it probably does not matter. Even the smaller sizes and higher compression look pretty good for smaller prints. When the camera saves a raw file it contains all the information for varying exposure values, color sets and white balance, etc. All those settings you make in the camera determine what the JPG view will be, but the other options are in the raw image file. n the viewing program, you can shuffle back and forth through these without changing the base file and without loss. When you get what you like you can save it, but even a month later, you can go back and with a push of a button restore the original. All you've been editing is the JPG layer.

If you crop very deeply, you will find that a crop from a raw file is sharper than a crop from a JPG, even if both end up as JPG.

Of course, you can always set your camera to save both formats at once, and race them. Choose the one that works best for you and turn off the other. In my limited experiments with this, I've found that RAW works best, and since it's so easy to convert files when needed it's what I stick with.

I use a few manual lenses that do not meter at all with the D3200, and the lossless exposure compensation is a useful adjunct to the histogram for getting things just right.

ohyeahar

JPEG do often look better than RAW files. It’s important to understand why though. It’s because the JPEG file goes through processing right in your camera. Contrast is increased, colors are saturated, there’s noise reduction, sharpening, etc. Your camera edits each shot before you see it.

If you shoot RAW and do the same edits on your PC, the photo will look the same as the JPEG. Actually, it may even look better because your PC has infinitely more processing power than your camera. The beauty of editing a RAW file is the amount of data you have to manipulate compared to JPEG.

There are plenty of articles online to explain JPEG vs RAW. I would highly suggest reading up on them.

Anyway, the short version is this. If you want absolutely the best image quality, shoot RAW. It’s that simple. You’ll be able to take the file into Photoshop or Lightroom and extract the most out of it.
If you want to just take a shot and be able to share it immediately with no processing, then shoot JPEG. No fuss.
If you want the best of both worlds, shoot both.