How to Get Sharp Photos
I’ve had a few questions lately asking me about how to get sharp photos – specifically, how and why my photos are consistently crisp. The short answer is that as a professional photographer I’ve had plenty of practice (technique is hugely important) and I’m always thinking about the technical considerations which can influence the final outcome. Over the years I’ve seen a tendency for the equipment to be blamed when in fact it’s extremely rare for that to be the case.
That said, the cheaper consumer grade long telephoto lenses are often slower and less accurate to focus (‘standard’ primes or zooms, rarely so). Reading reviews and doing your own tests is the best way to gauge where those limitations lie and how to stay within them. Yet even with the finest equipment available I’ll often receive questions from photographers who are having difficulties gaining sharp photos. Broadly speaking, sharp images depend on a variety of parameters which we may need to juggle (and compromise on if we’re shooting in challenging conditions):
Accurate Focus Point Placement
There are several ways a photographer can manage the focusing of his or her pictures. Simplistically, we can hand this over to the camera (as many hobbyists will do using the various automatic modes available to them). When we allow the camera to select the focus point from a wide area of possibilities the camera will generally focus on the largest or closest ‘contrasty’ area. However this may not be the person or thing we want sharpest in our image, and so the subject may appear soft.
To avoid random focusing we can modify the size of our focus area and select a particular focus point. This then depends upon our ability to place that focus point on a relevant part of our subject (for any camera to gain accurate focus the area under the focus point needs sufficient contrast and sufficient light for the area to register).
Shutter Speed
Your chosen shutter speed must be relevant to either an appropriate handholding speed (for static or mostly static subjects) or else it must be appropriate to the speed of movement exhibited by your target.
You may want to freeze movement by choosing a high shutter speed, or purposefully introduce some background blur by panning at a lower creatively influenced speed. More on this below.
Olympus EM1 Panasonic 100-300 1/640 f6.3 ISO250
Olympus EM1 Panasonic 100-300 1/4000 f5 ISO400
Adequate Hand Holding Skills
As a general rule, the longer your focal length, the higher your handholding speed will need to be. The ‘rule’ I refer to is the often quoted 1/focal length sec rule. This suggests that a focal length of, say, 100mm (in FX/35mm terms) would usually require a shutter speed of at least 1/100 sec to avoid blur caused by camera shake. In fact there is a lot of variance with this – we also have to take into account whether or not our lens is stabilised, or if the camera body is for that matter, and our sensor format. Stabilisation can enable us to claw back around 3 stops depending on your system. On the other hand a smaller sensor gives us greater ‘apparent magnification’ and hence an longer ‘effective focal length’ and hence we will need a faster shutter speed for that same 100mm lens.
It also has to be said that everyone is different. Some people are shakier than others, perhaps by virtue of their age, medication, coffee consumption, or individual natural variance. Some people find it easier to steadily hold a heavy camera and lens due to the balancing effect of its heft, whilst others will do better with more lightweight equipment. In ‘slow’ situations it makes sense to brace oneself where possible, perhaps against a wall or fence. But technique is also important – we need to hold our camera correctly, bracing it against us, and it can help to squeeze the shutter after we have exhaled. It’s worth putting a bit of practice into this, it does make a difference.
Subject Movement
If we encounter a subject which is moving then the shutter speed needs to be considered over and above our hand-holding speed. Fast-moving animals or birds can necessitate shutter speeds of around 1/1000 sec, and a model pacing along a runway might need 1/450 sec. Leaving these decisions down to the camera, by using automatic modes, will usually be unsatisfactory simply because the camera won’t know what we’re photographing.
Moreover, our chosen focus mode for a moving subject will also play a part. By that I’m referring to continuous autofocus, subject tracking, one shot focusing, or zone focusing. Moving subjects (particularly if the direction movement is erratic or unpredictable) are notoriously difficult to focus on and we should expect a number of focus failures for that reason. Usually only the professional camera bodies (and well matched lenses) will offer competent focus tracking systems, but don’t expect those systems to be perfect.
Although this appears to be an old post, I do update it from time to time. A few years ago when I photographed the catwalks with my Canon 5D MkIII and other Canon bodies I would focus on the moving models in two ways, depending on where I was standing. I would either zone focus (a fixed focus point where the models would move through the focus area) in which case I would also need adequate depth of field. Or else I would use continuous autofocus, selecting a focus point which I would try to keep over the subject’s face. In 2020 my Sony mirrorless cameras are much more competent than those bodies and so the keeper rate with either continuous autofocus or one of the tracking modes would be better (particularly the excellent eye autofocus which has recently been refined to genuinely useful levels).
Canon 5D MkIII 70-300L 1/400 f5.6 ISO1250
Sony A7Rii FE85 f1.8 1/320 f2 ISO200
Sony a6300 18-200 1/1250 f5 ISO640
Depth of Field
This will encompass variables such as focal length/magnification, subject to camera distance, aperture choice and sensor size.
I’ve noticed something of an obsession these days with shallow depth of field. The plane of critical focus will become narrower the greater the magnification (and therefore the closer you move towards your subject), and narrower still as you widen your aperture. This means we have to take extra care with both our technique and the placement of our focus point. For most of my work I can rely on focusing and then re-composing (or moving my focus point around if that’s more appropriate). But if the depth of field is very shallow the plane of critical focus can move slightly when we recompose, likewise if we move our body even slightly when doing so. If our subject isn’t particularly close to us we will usually have a little more leeway.
Olympus EM1 40-150 f2.8, 1/500 f2.8 ISO400
Light
The autofocus mechanism of most cameras will rely upon contrast detection, and we need enough light for this contrast to show up. Even with good light, if the subject isn’t contrasty enough then autofocus might be difficult or impossible. Instead focus on a more distinct area nearby, within your subject’s plane of focus.
If our subject is in muddy or dim light then even the best camera will struggle to gain accurate focus. This is a very common cause of missed focus and one where the equipment is often blamed.
Subject Distance
As just mentioned, this can influence depth of field/plane of focus. But it’s also worth pointing out that some equipment choices can result in less accurate autofocus as distance increases. This is particularly notable with the consumer grade telephoto lenses and consumer grade superzoom lenses. I’ve owned many such lenses in the past and have found autofocus accuracy to be very good within about 20 feet and in some cases absolutely terrible over about 30 feet.
However, if you’re using well specified professional grade optics this would very rarely if ever be an issue. But if your subject is very small and very distant, and if there is little contrast on or immediately next to that subject where you can grab focus, then it’s likely the image will not be particularly sharp.
And another thing ……
Cropping
I’ve lost count of the number of times keen wildlife photographers have written to me saying they can’t get sharp images despite using the same expensive equipment I might be using myself. With very few examples I can think of, their equipment is usually blamed. That is sometimes the case with many of the cheaper consumer grade telephoto lenses, but not with high-quality optics.
Often the first problem is that the subject in the photo has been tiny in the frame and far away from the photographer. A long telephoto lens is not a magic bullet - even the superb Panasonic Leica 100-400mm optic (which affords us an effective 800 mm focal length at the long end on a 4/3 sensor). Quite simply, even with that level of magnification a small subject needs to be close to you in order to gain a worthwhile image. A bird the size of a lark or thrush for example would need to be within around 12 feet (and you would still need to do a little cropping to improve the composition).
I see photographers taking pictures of small birds from a hundred feet. Even with the lens just mentioned the animal will be a speck in the resulting image. The photographer then starts to crop the photograph, often cropping beyond an appropriate resolution. To make the nightmare even worse the photographer then zooms into the picture, beyond hundred percent magnification and into pixel level.
Environmental Interference
This is very much tied in with subject distance and cropping, simply because the effects of the environment will become more apparent.
During the warmer drier months the air can be filled with dust and pollen, and other particles. Because of this the air isn’t quite as clear and becomes more hazy and ‘gritty looking’ with distance. In some situations there can be heat haze, and this isn’t always visible to the naked eye. Therefore if our subject is somewhat distant then they are going to be adversely affected, even more so as we start to crop.
Aperture Choice
Most lenses aren’t completely sharp wide open and will benefit from being stopped down a little. Having said that, my Micro 4/3 lenses are all very sharp wide open – perhaps because of the way they are optimised for a particular image circle.
Aperture choice is one of the factors which will influence depth of field, which is in turn linked to focus accuracy.
Olympus EM10 75 f1.8, 1/320 f1.8 ISO400
Post Processing and Sharpening
Some newer photographers are inclined to feel that soft images can be remedied by sharpening (either within the camera’s JPEG settings) or afterwards in postproduction. This can be a catastrophe, leading to artefacts and increased noise in some parts of the image. If you shoot JPEG, I would advise switching the in-camera sharpening down to its lowest setting – you can always add a bit of sharpening afterwards if you need to, but you can’t undo an over sharpened picture. I’m often asked how I sharpen my images because they appear so crisp. In fact I don’t do any output sharpening for web display, and I apply only the minimal default sharpening in Lightroom when I process (this is something like 0.3/30).
Excessive noise reduction can also make photographs appear soft. If you shoot JPEG I’d also advise this is turned right down in your picture style settings - you can always add more afterwards during post production.
Conclusion
All in all then, there are lots of things we need to think about if we want acceptably sharp photos. Soft images are rarely a result of poor hardware, but mostly a lack of understanding of the parameters we’ve just talked about. That’s not to say that some lenses aren’t sharper than others – of course they are. But with good technique even the most humble kit lens should be very satisfactory. Often lenses are judged according to how sharp they are, but in fact there are several characteristics which can make a lens pleasing. Some of my favourite lenses would probably be poo-pooed by many of today’s hobby photographers, who want or expect biting sharpness right through the frame.
Like most things in photography getting sharp photos means getting plenty of practice – the more you do it, the more you learn, and the easier it gets.
Incidentally, getting your photos to look sharp online is a whole other ballgame. They need to be the right size, but with today’s multi-device viewing platforms a sharp image on your PC can look soft when uploaded and viewed in your web browser. The same image can look sharp on a tablet. Some viewing platforms apply a lot of compression so it’s important to optimize your photographs for that platform before upload.