is it my photo or my monitor

[lneilson]

Hi all
I have a problem I don't know the cause I have a dell computer purchased in 2003 so it has the old style monitor. I use photoshop 5.0 I have a Nikon D60 with an assortment of lens. The problem is say I take a outdoor picture say fall colors on a bright sunny day with my camera on a tripod using a remote release shooting a a relatively high speed with a small F/stop number and I always look for the steady little green dot on the bottem left of the view finder to make sure it is focused. When I down load the photo onto my computer and open it in photoshop the image size is 53 inches by 28 inches however ps opens at 16% it looks great (here is the problem) however when I increase the photo to 100% it is not really in focus and doesn't look at all sharp can someone tell me where the problem is? my camera or my old monitor.

thanks

Louie

[OldBoy]

Neither, as an out of focus image is a user problem. Before taking the picture look in the view-finder and focus where you want it to be and then take the shot. It could be mirror-slap that causes the camera to shake when taking the image. Try holding the camera firmly when taking the shot to dampen it, or as you are shooting at high speed it might be better to hand-hold. Not sure if the D60 has the mirror lock-up option so, check your manual. If it has the lock-up mirror option then select it, then when you press the remote the mirror will lift, wait a couple of seconds and press the remote again and the picture will be taken and the mirror will come down. This avoids mirror-slap.

[chris-p]

Could also be that nothing looks perfectly sharp and focussed at 100%

[OliverCharles]

You say you're using a small f stop number, do you mean something like f/1.8, for example. Depending on what you're focusing distance is and you're focal length, that's going to give you a small depth of field. Maybe try a large f stop number.

I might be wrong and that's what your doing now, but I saw small f stop number and thought it could be that.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by OliverCharles

You say you're using a small f stop number, do you mean something like f/1.8, for example. Depending on what you're focusing distance is and you're focal length, that's going to give you a small depth of field. Maybe try a large f stop number.

I might be wrong and that's what your doing now, but I saw small f stop number and thought it could be that.

If you were shooting landscapes at f/1.8 they wouldn't look sharp even at 16%. Assuming the OP is shooting with a prime capable of f/1.8 (like the 35mm G) and focussing on something at 10m away the DoF is 6.4 metres. Not a lot for a landscape shot and not particularly wide either.

I think it's more likely that the OP is either not focussing as cleanly as they need to, are suffering from mirror slap (as OB has suggested) or are simply expecting too much from their camera. You'll never get clear definition at 100% on your monitor.

How do the shots look at 50%?

[NormanLaw]

It's a while since I used PS5 but try this.

Go to Image Size (Alt-Ctrl-I)
Set the resolution to 300 dpi and make sure the 'Resample Image' box is NOT ticked.

Now look at your image again at 100%. Does it look any sharper?

I don't know the pixel dimensions of your camera's images but I'm guessing your camera is setting the dpi to 72 and that means (printed at that resolution) an image size of 53" X 28". If you look at the image at 100% you are looking at individual pixels and they won't look sharp.

[Eileen]

Originally Posted by chris-p

I think it's more likely that the OP is either not focussing as cleanly as they need to, are suffering from mirror slap (as OB has suggested) or are simply expecting too much from their camera. You'll never get clear definition at 100% on your monitor.

How do the shots look at 50%?

A bit puzzled by this comment. My unprocessed pictures look quite sharp at 100%. Not bitingly sharp but enough that I can tell they are in focus. Once I have sharpened them in the raw converter they look perfectly sharp at 100%. Maybe there are variations depending on how you've set up the monitor? Mine is set up for good quality photo viewing.

[hssutton]

There is a great deal of guess work going on here, as the OP has not given much information "relatively high speed with a small F/stop number" means nothing.

Louie give a little more info on what you mean by relatively high speed and small aperture. (Actual figures would be better) chris-p is suggesting a wide aperture which is a small number, but I'm guessing you mean such as F//16 which phyically is a small aperture, but an high number.

One other point are you using an image stabalised lens?

I would go along with Eileen re. 100% viewing of raw files looking sharp at default settings in a convertor.

[Oly Paul]

As most houshold monitors use some sort of pixel dithering at anything but 100% veiwing and different programs have widely differing alogorithims for displaying a image at anything but 100% ( have you ever wondered why a image looks more sharper in one program than another) then 100% veiwing is the only yardstick you can accuratley use.

[KeithT]

Shooting at f16 won't necessarily give you sharp images. In fact quite the reverse as you begin to get diffraction as you close lenses down. Diffraction will appear most noticeable in foliage which will look smudged to the eye. Try researching the optimum aperture for your lens. See here how to go about it: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=1386

At 100% my 5d raw files look absolutely sharp.

Dell monitors are not the best for photo editing. They are not that easy to calibrate and will distort as you move your eyes from one side to the other. They are only fit for office and home computer use. You need one that is at least suitable for gaming. I got rid of my Dell monitor and replaced it with a HP w2207 (a couple of years old now) and that is remarkable for editing video or still images without breaking the bank.

You just need to consider what hardware you use for editing your pictures with if you want the best you can get from your camera files, and that might be costly.