What should I do differently

[Chris Janes]

I have a new 7D that I'm using with the 100-400L. I'm not sure if it's me but some of the shots look soft especially around some of the edges. The nose on the Challenger doesn't look as sharp as the rest of the plane. I've read the the 7D can be fussy and I've made some adjustments on the settings and my pics look better than when I first picked up the camera. Also I'm no whiz with the post processing, so maybe I'm doing something screwy on that end. I'm using elements 7.0 and I just picked up LR3 when it was on sale, that's over my head right now. I'd appreciate the feedback. I think I have some good equipment and I'm sure it's user error, but I am getting a little frustrated.

[Jay Beckman]

What were your settings for this shot?  It looks a tad under-exposed for a white jet on a sunny day.  RAW or JPEG?  How much processing did you actually do?  Any significant sharpening applied?

7D + 100-400 equals an effective range of 160-640mm which is a lot of reach to hand hold for anyone so it may just be that you slightly over or under panned.

Another phenomenon you'll run into is Parallax Error where the extremities of your subject are moving in slightly different planes from the center of your subject.  It's usually much more pronounced when panning at relatively slow shutter speeds but it's actually present at all times.

If you look through the Coolidge thread in Airports, you'll see quite a few shots where noses and/or canopies are sharp but the tails show considerable blur.  The more oblique the angle, the more pronounced the effect.  Shooting a perfect profile shot will mitigate parallax the most but, IMO, you get a far less interesting and far less dynamic image.

Just some food for thought.

[Chris Janes]

Hi Jay
Thanks for the reply and the info.

Here are the settings I used. AV was selected and set to F7.1 Shutter speed was 1600. Focal length was 310,  exposure was set to +1/3  and Iso 125. and I always shoot in RAW.  Also while I'm thinking about it the IS on the lens was off. As far as sharpening I did some but nothing drastic. When I look at the image on the camera it looks nice and bright but on my monitor it doesn't stand out like I thought it would in comparison to to what the camera depicted.
I have mixed thoughts on using AV or TV. Seems the amount of keepers goes down when I use AV but I know a lot of folks here use AV.

[FelipeG]

I wouldn't bother with ISO100/125, they're both slightly noisier than 160. I'd say 160-200 gives the best results, at least for me. The whole image looks underexposed, so might be something with the metering mode. What are you using? I can't remember what I use, but there's a setting that on sunny days works good with my 80-400 but is not good with the 12-24 and vice versa, and you might be running into something like that.

[Joe Copalman]

It's a rough exposure set-up to begin with - top/slightly-back lit with quite a bit of belly/underwing shadow.  Looking at the striping along the fuselage, it looks like heat haze was a factor as well.  This can soften or diffuse edges quite a bit.

Agree with Jay that it's most likely a parallax issue, especially if this is not cropped or the result of minor cropping.

I was going to ask about IS, glad to hear that wasn't a factor. 

[Jay Beckman]

If you object, I'll pull this back down but I took your image into Photoshop and did two adjustments:
1) Levels - I clicked the highlight dropper on the upper surface of the nose
2) Color Balance (Highlights) - Three or four clicks toward Yellow on the Blue/Yellow scale and three or four clicks towards Red on the Cyan/Red scale.

Left - My Tweaks / Right - Your Image


Adding +1/3 exposure compensation was the right idea but it wasn't enough.  Chances are your meter saw a big ol' chuck of the glare off the leading edge (a mondo specular highlight .. something that can't help but blow out in direct sunlight) so it was fooled from the get go.  In consistent sunshine, your best bet is to avoid Tv or Av and simply shoot in Manual mode.

Are you familiar with the "Sunny 16 Rule?"

Start at 1/125 @ f/16 ISO 100 and walk your reciprocal exposure to the shutter speed you need and leave it there until a subject comes along where you want to change (say, something with a prop)
1/125 @ f/16
1/250 @ f/11
1/500 @ f/8
1/1000 @ f/5.6
1/2000 @ f/4
1/4000 @ f/2.8

Another way to get around subjects that may fool your meter is to Spot Meter (the yellow circle) clear blue sky which has about the same reflectivity as a Grey Card


In fact, when I took your image, tweaked it and then did a Color Range selection on just the Mid Tones, this is how much of your image carries about the same level of reflectivity:


Had you Spot Metered anywhere in the hot pink area, you'd have been in the ballpark.

Many ways to skin Felix!

[Jay Beckman]

I also meant to add that if your monitor isn't hardware calibrated, you should consider doing so...

It's a wonderful investment in peace of mind that saves a lot of guessing, tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth.

Even if you aren't printing at home, it's comforting to know that you can actually trust what you're seeing.  Most LCD monitors are far, far too bright right out of the box so unfortunately, when it "looks" right, it often isn't.

[Chris Janes]

I wouldn't bother with ISO100/125, they're both slightly noisier than 160. I'd say 160-200 gives the best results, at least for me.

Felipe,
I had it set to 160 but thought I would try the 125 since I had done some other suggested adjustments with in the camera, I've read the 7d has some noise issues at 100 but tends to be better at 160 and 200, still scratching my head on that one.

Looking at the striping along the fuselage, it looks like heat haze was a factor as well.

Joe,
Your right on the money with that. I was looking at a pic I took of a UPS 767 that was rolling out on the runway and the heat haze was very noticeable.So I'm sure there was some residual heating coming from the ground.

If you object, I'll pull this back down but I took your image into Photoshop and did two adjustments:

Jay,
I have no objection with you using my pic. If others can learn from it, in addition to myself then it's time well spent. Thank you for taking the time to explain my errors and providing feedback. I've heard of the sunny 16 but never really applied it... I will be a good grasshopper and study it.
As far as the monitor goes I look at my monitor three different ways and I get three different perspectives. The Tax man should be kind this year so I'm thinking about making the jump to the MAC computers or at the very least a Dell ultrasharp or an Eizo monitor. Guess that could be a topic all on it's own.
Again thank you all for the input. I'm always open to feedback....good, bad, or indifferent.

[FelipeG]

I wouldn't bother with ISO100/125, they're both slightly noisier than 160. I'd say 160-200 gives the best results, at least for me.

Felipe,
I had it set to 160 but thought I would try the 125 since I had done some other suggested adjustments with in the camera, I've read the 7d has some noise issues at 100 but tends to be better at 160 and 200, still scratching my head on that one.

I think we're better off accepting that issue as it is instead of understanding it. It really makes no sense, I feel like even ISO 640 gives better results vs shutter speed than 100. ISO 100 is a lot better on my 7 year old XT than on the 7D.

That said, I have read that due to the way the sensor works, ISO 160 is going to be slightly less noisy than 200, but 125 is going to be slightly more than 100. The difference between 100 and 160 is something I can't explain, but plenty of users have tried to figure that one out.

Now that you mention your monitor, make sure it's properly calibrated. My current external monitor is a Hanns-G that I picked up for cheap a few years ago, it's not the best for color adjustments (Read: it's terrible!), but allows me to work on the images themselves, I just need to keep in mind that the color/contrast rendition is terrible. I use my Macbook's built-in panel for color adjustments.

[Jay Beckman]

There is an ongoing debate about "native" ISO and whether or not certain ISOs are pushed (noisier) while others are pulled (cleaner) but I've yet to find anyone who can confirm if this is true or not.

I've sat in a room full of photographers where a bona fide Canon Explorer of Light put this very question to a senior member of CPS and there was neither a confirmation nor a denile that some number other than a traditional whole ISO was valid.

It's kinda like asking how many licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop....  The world may never know.

However, there's no need, in broad daylight, to go to ISOs over 400 at most.  Anything more is simply creating additional noise where there's no need.