TR Forums

I am in a bind.

I have three pictures that I desperately NEED to fix. They are quite blurry due to a very low aperture setting(?) (I had it set to 15 because of the lighting in the room, and the inability of the built in flash to provide enough light that I can leave the setting at 100).

I have tried a few ways from doing a search - but none of them actually do what I need. The one example that looked promising I can't follow because I truly don't know the commands to do so.

Please, Please, PLEEEAASSSEEEE - any feedback that I can try will be very much appreciated. I can post an example later on today if that would help explain my situation.

Thanks.

Kung-Fu Edit: I have both Photoshop CS3 and Gimp installed. I don't have the software that came with the camera installed though. It's a Sony alpha A200 if that makes a difference.

I'll say that my expertise with PS is above average and below mastery. First, can you post a sample of what type of blur we're dealing with? Second, restorative efforts can take a while because the chances are you're going to be doing a lot of hand editing rather than something like reversing a filter. Un-sharp mask, patching and cloning come to mind. Again, post the pic and we can go from there!

Pretty much anything you do is going to introduce a lot of noise, require a buttload of manual retouching, or both. Blurriness represents a loss of information. You can't just magically create what isn't there to begin with.

Edit: Is the image blurry (edges which should be sharp are soft, and detail is missing), or noisy (speckled and grainy)? Upon re-reading your post it sounds like maybe you raised the ISO setting, which will tend to introduce noise, not blur.

I think the issue is camera shakes, which is a pretty common occurrence with low ISO and low light conditions. I am tempted to use http://lmgtfy.com/ on you, but it might not be appreciated.

Basically, this is a very difficult thing to do, and probably won't be the magic bullet. But, here's a link to three programs that can do it, however:

http://www.teckh.com/?p=245

Good luck.

Edit: Unshake moved: http://www.zen147963.zen.co.uk/

just brew it! wrote:

Pretty much anything you do is going to introduce a lot of noise, require a buttload of manual retouching, or both. Blurriness represents a loss of information. You can't just magically create what isn't there to begin with.

Edit: Is the image blurry (edges which should be sharp are soft, and detail is missing), or noisy (speckled and grainy)? Upon re-reading your post it sounds like maybe you raised the ISO setting, which will tend to introduce noise, not blur.

With my camera, whenever I raise the ISO setting, it introduces noise but also takes a little longer to actually shoot the pictur, so images tend to blur a bit - and that's with the anti-shake turned on. I also had to reduce the aperture setting to get as much light in as possible without taking too long to take the picture, or else I wouldn't get any good pictures. So I have a bunch of blurry pctures, but these three in particular I need to fix. I'm not so much worried about the noise, as it comes with the territory.

A tri-pod was out of the question since the bridal party came in dancing to soca - and I couldn't ask them to stop or I would have been blamed for messing up the party, so I had nothing to work with!!!

Bad lighting, high ISO, low aperture, no-tripod, moving objects, and people bumping into me constantly.

Just an aside (not really relevant to the main topic of this thread): The point of raising the ISO is to shorten the exposure time. If the camera is taking longer at higher ISOs, something really weird is going on. I suppose it is possible that the auto-focus is having trouble (taking longer to lock on) due to the additional noise coming off the sensor; but all else being equal the actual exposure time will be shorter at higher ISOs, not longer.

Raising ISO can increase a camera's shot-to-shot time due to heavier noise reduction. That could be what's causing the perception of increased exposure time.

Sharpening a blurry photograph is difficult to impossible because it amounts to creating data from nothing. In very challenging light conditions, don't be afraid to use flash in addition to upping ISO. A noisy, flash burned shot is still better than a blurry one, especially with add-on flashes that can be bounced or diffused to look more natural.

If it's noise blur then you could try a plug in for PS called Noise Ninja. I've used it a couple of times and it works quite well. if it's motion blur, then I think you are in for a lot of manual sharpening.

If the camera is taking longer at higher ISOs, something really weird is going on.

Older camera, perhaps? I know some older point y shoots (and maybe even some current cheaper ones?) needed time after shooting for post-processing.

He's got a Sony Alpha 200. You should have went down with the aperture to get more light & upped the ISO to help increase your shutter speed (that is if you used Aperture priority).

IIRC from the reviews I read when researching cameras, the A200 had a problem with noise with anything higher than 800. It wasn't too bad at 800, but if you're in some low light situations it can look very grainy.

Here are the pictures i need help with:







Just in case the img tag doesn't work:

http://flickr.com/gp/conchpapa/Xsd375

http://flickr.com/gp/conchpapa/1Luz00

http://flickr.com/gp/conchpapa/q93t3D

lex-ington wrote:

With my camera, whenever I raise the ISO setting, it introduces noise but also takes a little longer to actually shoot the pictur, so images tend to blur a bit - and that's with the anti-shake turned on. I also had to reduce the aperture setting to get as much light in as possible without taking too long to take the picture, or else I wouldn't get any good pictures. So I have a bunch of blurry pctures, but these three in particular I need to fix. I'm not so much worried about the noise, as it comes with the territory.

A tri-pod was out of the question since the bridal party came in dancing to soca - and I couldn't ask them to stop or I would have been blamed for messing up the party, so I had nothing to work with!!!

Bad lighting, high ISO, low aperture, no-tripod, moving objects, and people bumping into me constantly.

Are you sure when you raised the ISO setting you didn't actually go the wrong way ? Going from say 100iso to 200iso should cut the shutter speed in half. 100 to 400 would be 1/4 as long of shutter time. We have a Maxxum 7D which is fairly similar to the A200 and have never had problems with it in lower light settings. Also bigger f number = less light. ie f2.8 lets in twice as much light as f3.5 if my memory is correct. I looked at the three photos. The first two don't look that bad. The third one is really soft and pretty much a lost cause in my opinion.

They're out of focus. The door is in focus in the first 2 instead of the people. The last one might have some camera shake as well, but the main problem is that you were not focusing accurately. I'm not sure what you had set to 15 instead of 100 (minimum allowable shutter?). All 3 have the aperture set at f/5.6 with varying shutter speeds. As a side note: changing your shutter speed has no effect on your flash exposure (assuming you fire the flash at the same strength, of course). Shutter speed only affects your exposure from ambient light.

In the future, be more careful about focusing. For now, there's no magic bullet. You're not going to be able to improve them substantially.

OK, I see! The camera guessed the focus incorrectly, or at least the background seems to be the target. Have you tried Unshake? I've used it on your examples, and it did a pretty good job removing the blur.

Yes, it's the shutter speed not aperture - Sorry for the mix up.

I know with this camera I try to keep the ISO setting at 200, no more than 400, since the shutter speed slows down. And anything below 80 in shutter speed starts getting more blurry.

I don't know why the door is in focus since I took a few practice shots on people standing in the exact location and I did not leave that spot. I barely use auto-focus any more, I just leave the anti-shake on. The flash I can't really control, it does a few flashes first, then takes the shot.

I couldn't go down to f/3.5 at that focal length (I think I was somewhere between 50mm and 70mm for most of the time).

I saw something online yesterday about adding a Gaussian Blur, then using some sort of black mask(???) to fix the blurriness in a certain area, but leaving the rest of the picture blurred. I'm trying to find that exact link again, but having a hard time.

The term is deconvolution, which is what will attempt to fix out of focus images. The Unshake does a decent job, but I now remember using Focus Magic years ago to fix some images. I'd recommend Unshake, though; can't beat free!

lex-ington wrote:

I saw something online yesterday about adding a Gaussian Blur, then using some sort of black mask(???) to fix the blurriness in a certain area, but leaving the rest of the picture blurred. I'm trying to find that exact link again, but having a hard time.

From your description, it sounds like that method would blur the background so the subject would appear to be in focus in the photos. If the couples in the photos are clear enough for your needs this should work fine, although that third photo clearly needs more work. I've never used an 'unshake' program, but I would try those first.

EDIT: After looking more closely at those photos, you should definitely use this method or a similar one to adjust the focus. I would still use that Unshake program first, though.

lex-ington wrote:

I don't know why the door is in focus since I took a few practice shots on people standing in the exact location and I did not leave that spot.

The camera is probably set to "intelligently" select which of its auto-focus points to use. It's not going to get it right every time. I prefer the ability to pick the active AF point(s) for each shot. Refer to your camera's manual for how to set different AF modes.

I barely use auto-focus any more, I just leave the anti-shake on. The flash I can't really control, it does a few flashes first, then takes the shot.

The camera uses the "pre flashes" to help its AF system in dim lighting. There should be the option to turn the flash on and off. It sounds as though you're shooting in full auto mode in which the camera makes most all the decisions. This usually works OK in favorable light settings but getting good results in challenging situations will require a more hands-on approach. Spend some time experimenting with the different exposure(aperture priority, shutter priority, manual), metering(matrix, center-weighted average, spot), and AF modes and you'll be better prepared for the next time you need to take over some of the decision making to get the best looking shots.

malicious wrote:

The camera uses the "pre flashes" to help its AF system in dim lighting.

He had red-eye reduction on, which would also probably shoot out some preflashes.

malicious wrote:

lex-ington wrote:

I don't know why the door is in focus since I took a few practice shots on people standing in the exact location and I did not leave that spot.

The camera is probably set to "intelligently" select which of its auto-focus points to use. It's not going to get it right every time. I prefer the ability to pick the active AF point(s) for each shot. Refer to your camera's manual for how to set different AF modes.

I barely use auto-focus any more, I just leave the anti-shake on. The flash I can't really control, it does a few flashes first, then takes the shot.

The camera uses the "pre flashes" to help its AF system in dim lighting. There should be the option to turn the flash on and off. It sounds as though you're shooting in full auto mode in which the camera makes most all the decisions. This usually works OK in favorable light settings but getting good results in challenging situations will require a more hands-on approach. Spend some time experimenting with the different exposure(aperture priority, shutter priority, manual), metering(matrix, center-weighted average, spot), and AF modes and you'll be better prepared for the next time you need to take over some of the decision making to get the best looking shots.

I actually did have it set on manual using a shutter priority. The only options I had "turned on" was the Anti-shake and red-eye reduction.

Is there a better way to get rid of red-eye besides using the camera setting or Photoshop?

I downloaded the unshake program last night, but when I open a photo with it, nothing shows up on the screen . . time to read the manual.

lex-ington wrote:

malicious wrote:

lex-ington wrote:

I don't know why the door is in focus since I took a few practice shots on people standing in the exact location and I did not leave that spot.

The camera is probably set to "intelligently" select which of its auto-focus points to use. It's not going to get it right every time. I prefer the ability to pick the active AF point(s) for each shot. Refer to your camera's manual for how to set different AF modes.

I barely use auto-focus any more, I just leave the anti-shake on. The flash I can't really control, it does a few flashes first, then takes the shot.

The camera uses the "pre flashes" to help its AF system in dim lighting. There should be the option to turn the flash on and off. It sounds as though you're shooting in full auto mode in which the camera makes most all the decisions. This usually works OK in favorable light settings but getting good results in challenging situations will require a more hands-on approach. Spend some time experimenting with the different exposure(aperture priority, shutter priority, manual), metering(matrix, center-weighted average, spot), and AF modes and you'll be better prepared for the next time you need to take over some of the decision making to get the best looking shots.

I actually did have it set on manual using a shutter priority. The only options I had "turned on" was the Anti-shake and red-eye reduction.

Is there a better way to get rid of red-eye besides using the camera setting or Photoshop?

I downloaded the unshake program last night, but when I open a photo with it, nothing shows up on the screen . . time to read the manual.

The best way is to not use direct flashes at all. Bouncing light off of the ceiling will usually not result in a lot of redeye, and what is there is very easy and fast to remove. Even better is using an F/1.4 lens and just go without the flash.

Sony/Zeiss f1.4 lens...

Guys, if focus is a problem at f/5.6, he's not going to get focus right at f/1.4. It's important to know how to get the best out of what you have and understand where it might be holding you back before springing for more gear.

Isn't it true that with lower f-stops, the depth of field becomes very short?

drsauced wrote:

Isn't it true that with lower f-stops, the depth of field becomes very short?

Yes, that's why a faster lens wouldn't have helped in this instance where focus was more of an issue rather than motion blur. It's also why those fancy f/1.2 lenses aren't for everyone or every situation despite their light gathering potential.

Wikipedia goes into a good bit of detail on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

malicious wrote:

drsauced wrote:

Isn't it true that with lower f-stops, the depth of field becomes very short?

Yes, that's why a faster lens wouldn't have helped in this instance where focus was more of an issue rather than motion blur. It's also why those fancy f/1.2 lenses aren't for everyone or every situation despite their light gathering potential.

Wikipedia goes into a good bit of detail on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

I was under the impression that his problems were motion blur and red eye...

SpotTheCat wrote:

malicious wrote:

drsauced wrote:

Isn't it true that with lower f-stops, the depth of field becomes very short?

Yes, that's why a faster lens wouldn't have helped in this instance where focus was more of an issue rather than motion blur. It's also why those fancy f/1.2 lenses aren't for everyone or every situation despite their light gathering potential.

Wikipedia goes into a good bit of detail on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

I was under the impression that his problems were motion blur and red eye...

If you look at the files it's fairly clear that focus was the primary problem. For an example look at the first image. The people are out of focus. The door is almost in focus. The ceiling tiles in the back room appear to be in focus. There's clearly no or minimal apparent camera shake. On top of that, there are fairly deep shadows from the direct flash, indicating very low ambient light levels. With flash as the primary illuminant, unless his people move with the speed of a hummingbird, motion blur is not the problem.