Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Hi everyone,

it might seem odd to post this on a stock site forum with a port of 170 images, but still I need to ask a beginner’s question about something I only considered with the last batch of rejections (5 out of 16 were accepted although I was quite fond of all of them).

A short history: After being accepted here, I went to several photo shootings, mainly during vacation. I really tried hard to perfect the aspects of taking good photos. Not necessarily stock worthy stuff but nice to look at and technically sound. As kind of a “side effect”, I uploaded them to SS, and many of them were accepted, mainly landscape and animals. One image download a day makes me happy. So much for my attitude: always learn, get better, upload a few more.
But the rejection rate stays too high. Last year’s Iceland trip provided me with many accepted images, although by then I still hadn’t come to grips with focus, my main issue. I realised that most of my images had been taken with the lowest f-stop, just because then I still did not think in terms of landscape = high dof = f8, f11, f16 and so on.

This time, I took very many landscape photos again and was very much into f11 (most of the time). I used two new lenses, non-kit, one of them UWA, the other a 17-50 with image stabilizer. With the Seychelles’s incredible weather, I never came below 1/400. With a stabilizer or a UWA lens respectively, this should make up for tack sharp landscapes.

After all those rejections, I’m quite frustrated now and wonder: What actually IS in focus when talking landscapes? Can they be tack sharp at all? Or does the atmosphere (haze, fog, heat) make a wide angle image soft by nature?
Please look at these images and their crops. In Apple Aperture with 100% zoomed in, the palm leaves look sharp to me. The boat isn’t as sharp. Does it need to be? What’s the subject of such a shot? The palm? The boat? Both? And most important: How can I get them both sharp technically?

It’s even more difficult with the second picture: The leaves of the tree are sharp in my eyes. The tree was easily 40 feet away (watched Dave’s video on this). But the mountains in the background again are NOT sharp. Why not? Did I get rejected because of this? How do I approach such a shot and get a tack sharp tree and tack sharp mountains? Is it possible at all? Or did the reviewer make a mistake? Remember: Practically ALL of my accepted (!) Iceland landscape shots have this kind of problem: I can recognize “tack sharp” in the feathers of a zoomed bird, but it’s definitely not what I see in ANY of my landscape shots: Rocks, leaves and everything always looks “ok” to me, but never as sharp as said feathers or your food and model shots.

Any hints would be great. Maybe somebody can post a crop of their landscape shots, so I see, what “tack sharp” in a landscape means.

Thanks, and best regards,

Christian

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

The beach stuff, UWA lens, f11, 1/200...

semmickphoto · Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 10:30 am

It might be helpful to post the rejection reasons for the guys here to help you out. What I want to say is, if they were rejected for composition, it might not have been a focus problem.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

They were rejected for focus. All of them. Just a few have been accepted: Macro shots of a gecko (tack sharp indeed and therefore accepted) and a few landscapes with exactly the same "problem" in my eyes: Nice to look at, yes. Sharp, well, yes, as sharp as my examples above. But TACK SHARP? No. Can it be done with landscapes at all?

About composition: I know that especially the one with the boat is strangely composed (for the boat mainly, or do you think the whole shot doesn't make any sense?). But why not reject it for composition then?

Best regards,

Christian

hhltdave5 · Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 11:06 am

I can't really tell for sure but the tree looks like it could be nearer than 40 feet. This little bit can cause a focusing problem. Also the conditions can cause objects not to appear as sharp as they are but this is usually not the case with objects such as the boat in the tree shot. It usually happens when you are shooting landscapes that are far in the distance.

Were you using spot focus? If not one of your focusing points could have focused in on the ground or something that was actually less than 40 feet away and this could throw things off a bit.

In the tree with the mountains in the background shot the tree looks a bit soft. With the rocks etc in the foreground your focusing points may have hit something in that area. If you were going for getting everything including the rocks in focus then you are getting into hyperfocal distance focusing area.

I may have missed it but were you using a tripod? If you were and the lens had IS or VR on it it should be turned off or focus problems can and will happen in many cases.

To answer your one question if landscapes can really be sharp the answer is hell yes. I am on my laptop and don't have my files on this computer but yes landscape images can be tack sharp.

One of the problems with this comes from infinity focus. Some lenses make you think they are at infinity when they are really not. On some lenses you need to back off a bit and not have the focus ring cranked all the way to the end. Often, depending on the lens this can be off of infinity focus.

Usually if your lens has the infinity symbol on it your focusing line should cut that in half. If it goes past the symbol a touch then you probably are not at true infinity.

It's hard to pinpoint things when we are not there to actually see what is going on.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Hi Dave,

thanks so far.

The conditions I worked under are:

- no tripod

- image stabilizer on with the standard zoom. The UWA doesn't have any.

- spot focus: Focus on the most important subject (ideally 40 feet away, with the palm and the rake, that obviously was not possible), then re-compose the frame, shoot

- f11, f8 if necessary to get faster shutter speeds. Examples are f11.

- try not to get under 1/125. For 1/200 or faster, I even go to ISO200.

Now, you say "a bit off". Actually, that's already reassuring. ;-) But honestly, is it "a bit off" (then ALL my landscapes I EVER submitted and got accepted are "a bit off"), or is it just not acceptable for stock?

Best regards,

Christian

dhogan · Joined: 08 May 2009 Posts: 203 Location: Utah

Landscapes certainly are acceptable for stock. I, for one, would never dream of doing landscapes without a tripod -- under any light conditions. Get a good tripod, turn the IS, off, use good focus technique and you will be amazed at the improvements in sharpness and composition. It forces you to slow down in addition to a stable platform. Also, with your tripod, use mirror lock-up (if your camera is capable) and a remote release.

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7875 Location: The other Nevada

I'm not sure about the UWA lens. According the the EXIF data it's an 11-16mm zoom lens that was set at 16mm. General rule of thumb is that it's usually a bad idea to shoot at the extreme ends of a zoom lens as the optics at those two points are less than ideal. With a lens that has only a 5mm range, I don't know if that applies or not. Also, who was the manufacturer of the lens? The EXIF data didn't identify who it was.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Hi triceratops,

it's a Tokina 11-16mm / 2.8. It's reviewed as being very sharp, as good as Canon's 10-22 with downsides concerning purple fringing and flares (which I can confirm).

I did not think of the zoom problem, but doesn't that apply to the borders and corners only? The leaves in my crop are far from these critical spots, and the focus point actually was around that spot. Shouldn't be a problem...

Best regards,

Christian

rinder99 · Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 1:06 pm

Any noise at all will cause any Image to lose detail, it breaks apart resolution. That along with any wind whatsoever will make movement,add to this your pushing down the shutter button can and does cause blur IE: tripod,mirror up and cable release. Good Hand holding technique is usually 90% of the problem and even using a tripod can cause bad things to happen. I've seen it a 1000 times. doing workshops and classes watching people for years I cringe sometimes at what there doing. I had one woman at a workshop a few years ago that did NOT want to use a tripod for anything and we got into heated arguments about it because it's my job to see that everyone comes away with something of Value. She would not listen And I gave up. she took a 1000 pictures with not one in focus.Your Images will be as strong as the weakest link in your technique and execution and if you have good Glass,A good sensor and great technique including The true and total understanding of the principles of DOF..Yes, There is no reason that Landscapes can't be Tack Sharp.Noise is killing these shots, That and movement of some sort. 1/200th even 1/500th is not enough to stop subject or your movement. You gotta be in the 1/1000/1/1250 range.
A big ass heavy tripod with a good solid Ballhead is the key with landscape work. On our last Monument Valley trip. 3 students were using 3 way video heads...... That won't work.They listened to some idiot salesman. Now they have to Buy again.Stability is KEY in Landscape.

copidosoma · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 3806 Location: Canada

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 388 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Hi everyone,

thanks for all your input! Now, I'll try this approach: take my time and MAKE my landscape shots.

However, the problem with my beloved outdoor vacations is: They provide the most stunning landscapes, but I often don't have the time (it's a vacation from a full time job, and the missus is there as well ;) and suitcase space for my tripod. Since I'm not a professional photographer, my reality is that I can be glad to be able to choose from several different lenses, but quite often without a tripod. Composing a shot for me always will be a compromise because none of my vacations has been a pure photography vacation so far.

But I promise I will bring a tripod as much as possible from now on. I hope I can create some really stunning shots. Gonna practice around here a bit, although it's not too stunning most of the time... :)

Best regards,

Christian

luizeduardo · Joined: 12 Sep 2010 Posts: 72

semmickphoto · Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 4:11 pm

Only speaking for myself.

I also noticed the tripod discussion of late, and since I am travelling to Chicago soon, I decided to go for this tripod and ball head. Seems to be quality for fair prices

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/manfrotto_055xb_classic_tripod_black/bg12164

http://www.calumetphoto.com/eng/product/manfrotto_498_midi_ball_head/bg10070

Thanks to Dave for the tip.

mauijon · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 4286 Location: Maui, Hawaii

Depending where you are and what is handy, a beanbag will help if you have no tripod. Set it on a rock, a tree branch--whatever is handy--and then nestle your camera firmly onto it.