Bridge not sharp - why?

[John Strung]

The valley under the bridge will act as a chimney causing thermals to rise and the bridge appear to move slightly as the air rises past it. Next time you are in this situation, try turning on Live View and zooming in all the way and I will bet you can see the air movement.

[lux]

I agree with the "chimney" effect.  I suspect that if you had used video you could have seen the thermals rise kind of like the mirage on a road on a hot day.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks dunbar...I neglected to mention that I use a cable remote. I pretty much take every precaution I can to keep my camera as still as possible. More to the point, though, was that I was wondering if this kind of non-sharpness was due to motion blur or just not being focused in the right area. To me, it looks like slight motion blur, but I'm not 100% for sure.

It does look like motion blur, I see no evidence of front or rear focus.
I have a cable remote too, sometimes, the cable sometimes transmits a twitch to the camera as I push the button, so a 2 or 5 sec delay helps damp out movement, as does hanging a weight on the under hook of the tripod.  Wind can move the tripod / lens setup as well, it does not take much.  I have a heavy duty tripod and head, but it can occasionally be a issue in wind, or just me and my remote cable release.(That took a while to figure out, since it had slack in the cable, but it still transmits a slight twitch.)

[EOBeav]

Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur.  However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before.

In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.

[applecider]

Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

[aprotosimaki]

Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur.  However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before.

In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.

What was not solid?

[bdunbar79]

Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

This happens to me ALL THE TIME.  I will post-process and then export to jpeg and the file looks blurry.  I'll then crop just a tad more, let's say off the top, then the file is sharp.  This can also be seen with a blurry file, then you zoom in on it in your viewer and it is again razor sharp.  I'm not an expert in resizing, downsampling, etc. and there has to be a very well known reason for this happening, and I cannot possibly be the only one that is seeing this. 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

I looked at it as well, and its not up to expectations, it should be much sharper.  If your images are not sharper, something might be wrong.
 

[EOBeav]

Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

I looked at it as well, and its not up to expectations, it should be much sharper.  If your images are not sharper, something might be wrong.

Agreed, this has nothing to do with image conversion. The full size image I posted was just that...a full size jpg export from LR, unedited. 

Thankfully, I did a little test tonight and the lens is performing just fine. It was my own oversights that caused the blurriness.

[bdunbar79]

So what ended up being the problem?

[EOBeav]

So what ended up being the problem?

A few things come to mind:

• I was in a hurry and hit the shutter before I let the camera completely stop vibrating after moving it
• At least one of the legs was in some soft ground, so it wasn't 100% stable
• I didn't turn off the AF after getting the focal point where I wanted it, shaking the camera that much more
  

That bridge hasn't moved for 80 years or so, so it had to have been the camera. It was just a perfect storm of events caused from me not minding the store.

[J.R.]

So what ended up being the problem?

A few things come to mind:

• I was in a hurry and hit the shutter before I let the camera completely stop vibrating after moving it
• At least one of the legs was in some soft ground, so it wasn't 100% stable
• I didn't turn off the AF after getting the focal point where I wanted it, shaking the camera that much more
  

That bridge hasn't moved for 80 years or so, so it had to have been the camera. It was just a perfect storm of events caused from me not minding the store.

Good ... I was on the verge of suggesting there might have been an earthquake in the area! 

[agierke]

did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

[EOBeav]

did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

[weixing]

did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

   Err... Mirror lock-up is use to prevent this kind of blur... not create it. You should use mirror lock-up or live view when shooting at slow shutter speed.

   Have a nice day.