RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
There are a few things going on here that you may want to adjust for in the future.
Sharpness is a function of contrast. Contrast is a function of your subject's inherent contrast and your lighting's contrast (i.e. diffuse / soft vs. specular / hard). Other factors on contrast are your lens' resolving capability at various apertures.
The fine detail areas of your subject (i.e. petals) are soft / subtle / low contrast.
Judging from the shadows, your lighting was very soft / diffuse (i.e. low contrast).
Shooting @ smaller apertures induces diffraction, which also reduces contrast.
Shooting with OS on a tripod may add very subtle, unwanted false offset movement.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=790&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
In the link above, you can compare your lens @ various apertures. Setting the comparison f/5.6 & f/16 you can see how much diff the aperture reduces contrast. F/32 will likely be even more so.
I understand the desire for the greater DOF afforded by the smaller apertures. While we may make choices that have contrast reducing effects, we can likewise make choices that have contrast enhancing effects. By this, when our contrast is low in one area (subject / light / lens), then we can choose to increase the contrast in another (light / lens / processing ... subject contrast remains constant).
That said, for these images having been shot already, the only option that remains is processing. Applying "standard" processing to "triple soft" low-contrast images (soft subject, soft light, soft aperture) will certainly result in a soft image. Our sharpening / contrast strategy needs to be adjusted differently, if we are to attain a "normal" amount of contrast in our image, when capturing it via a "triple soft" setup.
Next, these are both underexposed significantly.
The EXIF data of the first one tells us that you exposed for about 2/3 stop below Sunny 16, yet our (soft) shadows tell us that you were not shooting in Sunny 16 (EV15) conditions ... meaning you were even more underexposed than 2/3. Looking at your EXIF data for your EC set @ -1.3, that's likely a starting point @ your underexposure. The underexposure added to your "triple soft" contrast levels is doing you no favors.
The EXIF data in the second one tells a similar story (just diff numbers). Additionally, the lighting in your second one reveals the blue of overcast conditions (which matches your soft shadows). Having a WB color cast is yet another way to reduce contrast.
Judging from your tonal values and your shadows, I suspect your lighting was 2+ stops below Sunny 16. That, and your camera's meter reading is based upon a middle gray scene average, and will try to place your subject to render toward an overall middle gray value (which your whites do have near middle gray values).
Individually, any one of these factors can have an impact on your contrast by itself. But, by the time you stack on all these factors, it can really add up.
1) Soft subject
2) Soft light
3) Soft aperture
4) Image stabilization
5) Underexposure
6) Color cast
7) Under-processing contrast / sharpening for above conditions
Understanding which, when and how much influence each of these variables are contributing to your image, then affords the option(s) to make necessary adjustments ... both @ capture & processing ... to achieve your optimal results.
Karen's recommendation for flash augmentation will address "freeze" motion a bit as she mentions. But, it also can address lighting contrast and lighting color, both of which can help your cause. Granted, more specular lighting changes your shadows, but the shadows are also what provide the textural contrast we perceive as sharpness. As an avid shooter of ambient only, the bane of soft light is the low contrast. You may also want to try using a reflector to add a kiss of contrast/exposure without incurring harsh specular shadows of direct flash.
At a minimum, I would strive to ensure a proper exposure via use of something other than your camera's reflective metering in conjunction with a negative EC value. Sunny 16 Rule (and its variants), incident meter reading, gray card reflective meter reading, or chimp / bracket @ histogram readings are all viable options. That, or you may find that dialing in positive EC values for such dominant "white" subjects can work also.
(Interesting story ... I met an old Chinese man in Trinidad who used the back of his hand as a psuedo-gray card (for exposure values). He knew how much deviation his skin tone was from a middle gray value. He took a reading off his hand, then made his exposure compensation (derived from testing) accordingly. Pretty clever that he never left home without his "reference" card.)
Balancing those relationships is a matter of preference, and will likely involve some testing (i.e. structured trial & error), but once you get things dialed in to your preferences, you'll have better command of things. I shoot some "double-soft" stuff, but I usually try to stay out of "triple-soft" as best I can. There seems to be a marked IQ diff once you venture into "triple-soft" (or more) territory.
I've gone long, but hopefully there's a nugget or two in here to aid your plight. I look forward to seeing future efforts. In the meantime, I'll take a rough stab at some diff PP, but one can only enhance (i.e. not fabricate) the detail that is present (i.e. not lost to the "triple-soft") so much before it is merely an exercise in artifact creation.
|