Acceptable Blur

[Skhilled]

I've been trying out my latest lens...a 70-210mm f4-f5.6. I'm used to the VR of my 18-55mm and am finding it a bit challenging to get a tack sharp shot while handholding it. Yeah, I know, practice makes perfect.

But I've read that in some shots that an acceptable amount of blur is OK. My question is how much is OK? When I view the photos on the PC in Lightroom, etc. I can definitely see the blur. When I upload them to photobucket and add them to a post in a forum they do not seem as blurry.





The composition and exposure does not matter in the above pics.

[Mick]

Steve, shooting @ 1/80 with lens full open at 210mm might be the problem as it was hand held. 

You could try shooting in AP  mode and cranking the ISO up to give you a better shutter speed and smaller aperture.  Or stick it on a tripod.  It's said, the shutter speed should match, or better still exceed the focal length when hand holding. 

[Oldboy]

You can handhold at 80/s but you have to be rock steady to do so. Acceptable blur depends on the subject and what you are trying to achieve. In normal situations, the subject should be sharp but the surrounds can be blurred, as this makes the subject standout. In other situations, blur can be used to show a range of colours rather than having some sharp whilst others are blurred. These would be considered as soft, like a picture of a loved one, give the image a dreamy aspect. Blur can also be used to show speed, like a train passing a station whereas, a sharp image couldn't/might not convey that the subject was moving. So the real answer is, it depends on what you are trying to convey in the final picture. 

Also noticed you have exposure compensation set at +0.33, and suggest you set it to -0.33, to give better results with Nikon cameras. 

[spinner]

When I view the photos on the PC in Lightroom, etc. I can definitely see the blur. When I upload them to photobucket and add them to a post in a forum they do not seem as blurry.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that sites like Facebook have an algorithm that auto sharpens anything posted to them. Perhaps Photobucket does the same.

[Markulous]

I'd say there's no such thing as acceptable blur but there is deliberate blur! 

And although you say that in the above two shots that exposure doesn't matter, as is pointed out they're overexposed - this leads to burned and overexposed pixels affecting the neighbouring (compare the trees against the sky in the top shot with the trees against the field). I can assure you that whatever the camera reducing the exposure comp to something like -0.7 would massively improve the shots

Can also confirm that Photobucket does not sharpen the shots if you link to the image (as you've done). But reducing the final size of an image will have the effect of sharpening (if you think about it, a difuse object will become more concentrated and hence, sharp) - hence sharpening being the final process before saving (as an aside, wider lenses tend to need less sharpening)

[Mick]

I notice in the first pic, you have the white  balance set to + Cool white Fluorescent (W 3900- (was that intensional?) 

You're also shooting in Shutter priority mode on both pics, so you're letting the camera decide what aperture to use.  You have no control over depth of field using that mode.  Unless Nikon's have a trick up their sleeve.

[ABERS]

This thread came to mind as I was reading an article in today's Observer about the Lytro light field camera that has been a subject on a thread somewhere here on CC.

After talking about HC Bresson's portraits and the fact that some are sightly out of focus, it goes on to say that in most of those cases the fuzziness doesn't really matter.

Here's a quote from it to raise the hackles of some!

"So perhaps an  obsessiveness with sharpness is a symptom not of aesthetic sensibility but of nerdish perfectionism" 
 
All complaints to a Mr John Naughton c/o The Observer. 

[Graham]

This thread came to mind as I was reading an article in today's Observer about the Lytro light field camera that has been a subject on a thread somewhere here on CC.

After talking about HC Bresson's portraits and the fact that some are sightly out of focus, it goes on to say that in most of those cases the fuzziness doesn't really matter.

Here's a quote from it to raise the hackles of some!

"So perhaps an  obsessiveness with sharpness is a symptom not of aesthetic sensibility but of nerdish perfectionism" 
 
All complaints to a Mr John Naughton c/o The Observer. 

    Dare you to go over to PRader and say that!......And make sure you have a big bucket of popcorn at the ready.
                    Graham.

[Mick]

What ever happened to the use of Vaseline on the lens, or breathing on the lens and taking pics at various stages of evaporation.    Anyone still do this?

[Markulous]

This thread came to mind as I was reading an article in today's Observer about the Lytro light field camera that has been a subject on a thread somewhere here on CC.

After talking about HC Bresson's portraits and the fact that some are sightly out of focus, it goes on to say that in most of those cases the fuzziness doesn't really matter.

Here's a quote from it to raise the hackles of some!

"So perhaps an  obsessiveness with sharpness is a symptom not of aesthetic sensibility but of nerdish perfectionism" 
 
All complaints to a Mr John Naughton c/o The Observer. 

It's a pretty daft thing to say but I wouldn't necessarily disagree, depending on the context. If it's a choice between an excellent composition and good focus, I'll take the former very time and not mind a little OOFness - way too often find a dire composition and everything in focus! What's that about? 

    Dare you to go over to PRader and say that!......And make sure you have a big bucket of popcorn at the ready.
                    Graham.

Over there you get a distinct whooshing noise as the comment about burned highlights passes at 20,000 feet over their heads! 

What ever happened to the use of Vaseline on the lens, or breathing on the lens and taking pics at various stages of evaporation.    Anyone still do this?

Ah, but that's deliberate and so invalidated in this argument! 
(and I'm sure there's a PS filter for that somewhere along the way......  )

[ABERS]

    Dare you to go over to PRader and say that!......And make sure you have a big bucket of popcorn at the ready.
                    Graham.

Are you suggesting that there are those that seek perfection to the level of nerdishness, or there are just perfect nerds?

Ah the old Vaseline ploy Mick, or the crumpled cellophane on the baseboard. Happy days!

[Skhilled]

Steve, shooting @ 1/80 with lens full open at 210mm might be the problem as it was hand held. 

You could try shooting in AP  mode and cranking the ISO up to give you a better shutter speed and smaller aperture.  Or stick it on a tripod.  It's said, the shutter speed should match, or better still exceed the focal length when hand holding. 

Yes, I notice that when I up the shutter it works better for me. So, I tend to go with SP instead as AP and M do not seem to give me enough light in some situations. I'll bump up the ISO and try it again. The flourescent wb was an error and I know it was on in the first pic when I posted it. LOL

It's just that sometimes trying to get the shutter up high enough is also a challenge unless I'm in bright daylight, etc.

You can handhold at 80/s but you have to be rock steady to do so. Acceptable blur depends on the subject and what you are trying to achieve. In normal situations, the subject should be sharp but the surrounds can be blurred, as this makes the subject standout. In other situations, blur can be used to show a range of colours rather than having some sharp whilst others are blurred. These would be considered as soft, like a picture of a loved one, give the image a dreamy aspect. Blur can also be used to show speed, like a train passing a station whereas, a sharp image couldn't/might not convey that the subject was moving. So the real answer is, it depends on what you are trying to convey in the final picture. 

Also noticed you have exposure compensation set at +0.33, and suggest you set it to -0.33, to give better results with Nikon cameras. 

Thanks for the tips.

I'd say there's no such thing as acceptable blur but there is deliberate blur! 

And although you say that in the above two shots that exposure doesn't matter, as is pointed out they're overexposed - this leads to burned and overexposed pixels affecting the neighbouring (compare the trees against the sky in the top shot with the trees against the field). I can assure you that whatever the camera reducing the exposure comp to something like -0.7 would massively improve the shots

Can also confirm that Photobucket does not sharpen the shots if you link to the image (as you've done). But reducing the final size of an image will have the effect of sharpening (if you think about it, a difuse object will become more concentrated and hence, sharp) - hence sharpening being the final process before saving (as an aside, wider lenses tend to need less sharpening)

Thanks, will try adjusting the exposure comp.

Thanks to everyone for their honest input.

The weather's been horrible lately and I haven't been out much. We've actually got more than a 1/2 foot of snow yesterday and there are still 1000's without power. Trees and limbs are littering the city everywhere. I started to go out and take a few picks of it but the sun is melting it pretty quickly and it is kind raining under the many trees here. There are also a lot of half-broken branches still hanging from trees waiting to fall so it is probably best I stay in and not get hit in the head with a limb or a whole tree. 

[picsfor]

That said, do not pass up the opportunity to practice hand held at slow shutter speeds - you never know when you will be out in low light and not have a tripod, or in a situation where flash will be adequate to the task.

My recent trip to Vegas pretty much involved constant shooting at 1/20th sec with a 24-105 lens, and occasionally down to 1/8th sec. Yes, i was pushing it, but in know i got several shots i would not have got without doing it, and when i attended a wedding reception last night, i found practice came to use as i was able to get hand held shots i may not have attempted previously.

[Beaux Reflets]

How much blur is acceptable? As much as you desire!