How to have a sharp product image? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Proposal: Rules for *New* Photo Contest on Main Site Counter-Proposal: Leave contest on meta. Add critiques to main siteHow can I get non-blurry gymnastics pictures with my entry-level DSLR?How do I use the manual exposure setting in the new Google Camera app?How can I get my colours true for product photography?What's worse for post-processing blurriness, graininess or softness?How can I “unblur” these pics of the Northern Lights?How to take sharper images indoors, scene with all objects in focus?How can I get consistent exposure while allowing aperture changes on Fujifilm X-T2?Which camera (and lens) mode or settings for moving subjects?What is the possible optimal range for shutter speed, aperture, and ISO settings in product photography setting on white background?How to shoot nice shots in indoor nightclub?

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

Implementing 3DES algorithm in Java: is my code secure?

How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?

What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?

How to not starve gigantic beasts

Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?

Map material from china not allowed to leave the country

Why do games have consumables?

What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?

Is there metaphorical meaning of "aus der Haft entlassen"?

Bayes factor vs P value

What is purpose of DB Browser(dbbrowser.aspx) under admin tool?

Why doesn't the standard consider a template constructor as a copy constructor?

Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer

How to open locks without disable device?

Mistake in years of experience in resume?

Older movie/show about humans on derelict alien warship which refuels by passing through a star

Is there really no use for MD5 anymore?

Check if a string is entirely made of the same substring

I preordered a game on my Xbox while on the home screen of my friend's account. Which of us owns the game?

A strange hotel

How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?



How to have a sharp product image?



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Proposal: Rules for *New* Photo Contest on Main Site
Counter-Proposal: Leave contest on meta. Add critiques to main siteHow can I get non-blurry gymnastics pictures with my entry-level DSLR?How do I use the manual exposure setting in the new Google Camera app?How can I get my colours true for product photography?What's worse for post-processing blurriness, graininess or softness?How can I “unblur” these pics of the Northern Lights?How to take sharper images indoors, scene with all objects in focus?How can I get consistent exposure while allowing aperture changes on Fujifilm X-T2?Which camera (and lens) mode or settings for moving subjects?What is the possible optimal range for shutter speed, aperture, and ISO settings in product photography setting on white background?How to shoot nice shots in indoor nightclub?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.



I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.



Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000



Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft



ISO: 100



Shutter Speed: 0.5"



Aperture: F14



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here










share|improve this question
























  • @xiota edited the main post

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

    – mattdm
    3 hours ago











  • Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

    – J...
    29 mins ago


















2















I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.



I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.



Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000



Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft



ISO: 100



Shutter Speed: 0.5"



Aperture: F14



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here










share|improve this question
























  • @xiota edited the main post

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

    – mattdm
    3 hours ago











  • Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

    – J...
    29 mins ago














2












2








2








I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.



I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.



Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000



Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft



ISO: 100



Shutter Speed: 0.5"



Aperture: F14



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here










share|improve this question
















I am trying to get my images sharp, but I always notice there are some blurry edges that are further from the lens.



I basically set my ISO to 100 and tried to work my way from there. Since I was using a tripod (no wireless shutter control but try to minimize the shaking), I decided that shutter speed can be slow (but I don't know if I should've made it slower to allow in more light so I can increase aperture). I didn't maximize my aperture to the highest, but I set it to something like F14, but I read that maximizing aperture and going downwards is the way to go.



Camera: Sony, ILCE-6000, a6000



Lens: E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS; 0.25m/0.82ft-0.30m/0.98ft



ISO: 100



Shutter Speed: 0.5"



Aperture: F14



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here







camera-settings product-photography blur






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago







Pherdindy

















asked 4 hours ago









PherdindyPherdindy

343




343












  • @xiota edited the main post

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

    – mattdm
    3 hours ago











  • Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

    – J...
    29 mins ago


















  • @xiota edited the main post

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

    – mattdm
    3 hours ago











  • Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

    – J...
    29 mins ago

















@xiota edited the main post

– Pherdindy
3 hours ago





@xiota edited the main post

– Pherdindy
3 hours ago




1




1





FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

– mattdm
3 hours ago





FWIW lens diameter doesn't matter but the other stuff does

– mattdm
3 hours ago













Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

– J...
29 mins ago






Four answers. Nobody notices that the shutter speed is a half second. That won't work. Even with a tripod. Shoot at F8 and get more light, or at least use the timer function on your camera so that your hands are off the camera when the shutter goes. Even then, the shutter itself will generate some image shake. Turn off OSS on the tripod - it will hinder more than help. Really what you need is flash - a speedlight and an old sheet make for a cheap and easy softbox. If you're having DOF issues, just back up a bit and crop.

– J...
29 mins ago











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4














Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction:



https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/




Sharpness
At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.



Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.



At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you'll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness.




Based on your experiments, it seems that you have reached the optical peak performance of the lens.



The same behaviour was noticed by the people at DXOMark
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56




Sharpness 6 P-Mpix




Chistopher Frost reached the same conclusion in his review video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7xbdKG-oc




Are you able to rent / borrow other non-kit lens to test them?






share|improve this answer

























  • This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

    – J...
    20 mins ago


















3














It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.



You could tackle this issue in three ways:



1) Close down the aperture



An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.



In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus



2) Apply the focus stacking technique



As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.



3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens



Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.



How to determine DOF



Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.



Best of luck!






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago












  • So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago











  • Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    #2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

    – xiota
    2 hours ago



















3














You need to increase Depth of Field.



  • Increase F-number (decrease aperture).

  • Increase distance.

  • Decrease focal length.

I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.



Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.



Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.






share|improve this answer

























  • Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago












  • No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

    – Tim Stack
    2 hours ago












  • Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago


















2














Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.




Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.




And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement






share|improve this answer

























  • or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago












  • @LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

    – Romeo Ninov
    3 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107828%2fhow-to-have-a-sharp-product-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction:



https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/




Sharpness
At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.



Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.



At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you'll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness.




Based on your experiments, it seems that you have reached the optical peak performance of the lens.



The same behaviour was noticed by the people at DXOMark
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56




Sharpness 6 P-Mpix




Chistopher Frost reached the same conclusion in his review video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7xbdKG-oc




Are you able to rent / borrow other non-kit lens to test them?






share|improve this answer

























  • This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

    – J...
    20 mins ago















4














Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction:



https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/




Sharpness
At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.



Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.



At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you'll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness.




Based on your experiments, it seems that you have reached the optical peak performance of the lens.



The same behaviour was noticed by the people at DXOMark
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56




Sharpness 6 P-Mpix




Chistopher Frost reached the same conclusion in his review video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7xbdKG-oc




Are you able to rent / borrow other non-kit lens to test them?






share|improve this answer

























  • This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

    – J...
    20 mins ago













4












4








4







Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction:



https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/




Sharpness
At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.



Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.



At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you'll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness.




Based on your experiments, it seems that you have reached the optical peak performance of the lens.



The same behaviour was noticed by the people at DXOMark
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56




Sharpness 6 P-Mpix




Chistopher Frost reached the same conclusion in his review video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7xbdKG-oc




Are you able to rent / borrow other non-kit lens to test them?






share|improve this answer















Based on the article posted here, it seems that this lens sharpness does not increase with aperture size reduction:



https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/e-16-50mm-f3.5-5.6-pz-oss-selp1650/review/




Sharpness
At 16mm and f/3.5, the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is fairly soft in the corners and across much of the frame, but the very center of the frame remains fairly sharp. As you stop down, f/5.6 and f/8 appear to be the sweet spot with the largest center area of sharpness; however, the far corners still remain relatively soft. Zoomed in to 35mm, overall sharpness improves, and at f/8, the corners start to look pretty good, although still not tack sharp. At 50mm, you'll see the best results at f/8. Based on the numbers, the best results overall are at 35mm at f/8.



Strangely, at 16mm at f/8, we saw the largest difference between sharpness at the center vs. the corners. The center of the frame was quite sharp, but the corners, conversely, were very soft. This is unusual in our experience; normally sharpness becomes more uniform across the frame as you stop down.



At all focal lengths, once you stop down to f/16 and beyond, diffraction limiting sets in, and you'll begin to see significant loss in image sharpness.




Based on your experiments, it seems that you have reached the optical peak performance of the lens.



The same behaviour was noticed by the people at DXOMark
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56




Sharpness 6 P-Mpix




Chistopher Frost reached the same conclusion in his review video:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7xbdKG-oc




Are you able to rent / borrow other non-kit lens to test them?







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 1 hour ago









nucandreinucandrei

1805




1805












  • This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

    – J...
    20 mins ago

















  • This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

    – J...
    20 mins ago
















This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

– J...
20 mins ago





This is the most useful answer, only because it gives OP specific advice about their lens. 35mm + F/8 is where you want to be with this lens. With that nailed down, OP can then look to other issues like camera shake and shutter speed.

– J...
20 mins ago













3














It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.



You could tackle this issue in three ways:



1) Close down the aperture



An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.



In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus



2) Apply the focus stacking technique



As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.



3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens



Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.



How to determine DOF



Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.



Best of luck!






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago












  • So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago











  • Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    #2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

    – xiota
    2 hours ago
















3














It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.



You could tackle this issue in three ways:



1) Close down the aperture



An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.



In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus



2) Apply the focus stacking technique



As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.



3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens



Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.



How to determine DOF



Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.



Best of luck!






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    @xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago












  • So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago











  • Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    #2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

    – xiota
    2 hours ago














3












3








3







It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.



You could tackle this issue in three ways:



1) Close down the aperture



An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.



In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus



2) Apply the focus stacking technique



As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.



3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens



Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.



How to determine DOF



Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.



Best of luck!






share|improve this answer















It appears your aperture is still too open for the subject to be entirely in focus, at the current distance between the lens and the subject.



You could tackle this issue in three ways:



1) Close down the aperture



An open aperture will result in a narrow depth-of-field (DOF). The DOF entails the area in the image that is in acceptably sharp focus. Seeing as how almost the entire subject is in focus, I assume that -1 stop (so close the aperture by 1 stop) would do the trick.



In short: open aperture -> little in focus // closed aperture -> a lot in focus



2) Apply the focus stacking technique



As per Romeo Ninov's answer. More work, but the best solution as a lens is usually at its sharpest 2-3 stops from its max. open position.



3) Increase the distance between your subject and the lens



Generally speaking, moving closer to your subject (as with macro photography) will get you a smaller DOF. This is especially the case if you use a camera with bellows. If you move the lens away from the subject your DOF will increase. To keep the subject the same size on the image, you will need to crop the image. Do not increase the focal length to compensate for the subject size change, as this will leave the DOF unchanged from the previous setup. Do note that moving away from the aperture will also affect compression, which may be an unwanted by-effect.



How to determine DOF



Many lenses feature a scale to roughly determine the DOF at a certain aperture and distance to the subject. For a more accurate measurement, you could use a DOF calculator such as this one. You could also manually calculate DOF with the formulas on this page.



Best of luck!







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Tim StackTim Stack

1617




1617







  • 1





    @xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago












  • So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago











  • Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    #2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

    – xiota
    2 hours ago













  • 1





    @xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago












  • So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

    – Pherdindy
    3 hours ago






  • 1





    I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

    – Tim Stack
    3 hours ago











  • Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago






  • 1





    #2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

    – xiota
    2 hours ago








1




1





@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

– Tim Stack
3 hours ago






@xiota ah you're absolutely correct.. That's a mistake. Though decreasing focal length would not be necessary.

– Tim Stack
3 hours ago














So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

– Pherdindy
3 hours ago





So for product photography, a longer lens is better for #3, to get a close up version of my product and move my tripod away? It does make sense similar to how it's harder for our eyes to see things as we move closer to the image. My issue is that my camera lens was at maximum zoom and quite near the subject to obtain that size

– Pherdindy
3 hours ago




1




1





I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

– Tim Stack
3 hours ago





I would argue option 2 is the best, and the third the least favourable. The latter affects, as I wrote, the compression of the subject and a compressed subject would look off for macro photography. You'd also have to deal with cropping, thus getting a smaller image resolution. Zooming is the same as increasing focal length, something you should not do, as I mentioned.

– Tim Stack
3 hours ago













Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago





Thanks will look into the post a bit more in depth.

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago




1




1





#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

– xiota
2 hours ago






#2 takes too much work. Combine #1 and #3. Stop down to F11, use a small focal length (18mm), pick a distance where entire subject is in focus, crop resulting image.

– xiota
2 hours ago












3














You need to increase Depth of Field.



  • Increase F-number (decrease aperture).

  • Increase distance.

  • Decrease focal length.

I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.



Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.



Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.






share|improve this answer

























  • Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago












  • No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

    – Tim Stack
    2 hours ago












  • Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago















3














You need to increase Depth of Field.



  • Increase F-number (decrease aperture).

  • Increase distance.

  • Decrease focal length.

I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.



Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.



Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.






share|improve this answer

























  • Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago












  • No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

    – Tim Stack
    2 hours ago












  • Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago













3












3








3







You need to increase Depth of Field.



  • Increase F-number (decrease aperture).

  • Increase distance.

  • Decrease focal length.

I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.



Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.



Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.






share|improve this answer















You need to increase Depth of Field.



  • Increase F-number (decrease aperture).

  • Increase distance.

  • Decrease focal length.

I would not use an aperture smaller than F8-11 because of diffraction. Once you have found a suitable distance, you will have to crop the image because the subject will be small within the frame.



Another technique you can consider using is tilt-shift. This allows you to align the focal plane with your subject. Since you are using mirrorless, you can buy a relatively inexpensive mount adapter with tilt function to use with a full-frame lens.



Try searching for "tilt shift lens mount adapter" on your favorite shopping sites.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 2 hours ago









xiotaxiota

12.4k41865




12.4k41865












  • Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago












  • No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

    – Tim Stack
    2 hours ago












  • Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago

















  • Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago












  • No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

    – Tim Stack
    2 hours ago












  • Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

    – Pherdindy
    2 hours ago
















Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago






Tilting mount is basically the thing on the tripod, if i'm not mistaken, where you can point the camera up or down?

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago














No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

– Tim Stack
2 hours ago






No, you'll need bellows or an adapter for that. You tilt the lens, not the entire camera

– Tim Stack
2 hours ago














Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago





Okay thanks complete noob to this lol. Gonna spend time to read on the stuff in this post

– Pherdindy
2 hours ago











2














Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.




Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.




And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement






share|improve this answer

























  • or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago












  • @LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

    – Romeo Ninov
    3 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago















2














Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.




Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.




And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement






share|improve this answer

























  • or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago












  • @LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

    – Romeo Ninov
    3 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago













2












2








2







Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.




Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.




And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement






share|improve this answer















Increasing the aperture will increase the effect of diffraction. To make photos with big DoF you need to apply technique as focus stacking.




Focus stacking (also known as focal plane merging and z-stacking or
focus blending) is a digital image processing technique which combines
multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting
image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than any of the individual
source images. Focus stacking can be used in any situation where
individual images have a very shallow depth of field; macro
photography and optical microscopy are two typical examples. Focus
stacking can also be useful in landscape photography.




And also use some kind of remote shutter to minimize the camera movement







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 3 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









Romeo NinovRomeo Ninov

4,23931328




4,23931328












  • or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago












  • @LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

    – Romeo Ninov
    3 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago

















  • or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago












  • @LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

    – Romeo Ninov
    3 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    3 hours ago
















or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

– LuZel
3 hours ago






or the timer which is in most cameras so it will release a couple of seconds later instead of the remote shutter... if you use a DSLR you could also consider to activate the mode where the mirror is flipped up a couple seconds before the actual photo

– LuZel
3 hours ago














@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

– Romeo Ninov
3 hours ago





@LuZel, usually timer is fine for one or two photos, but not for a lot of photos you need later to align

– Romeo Ninov
3 hours ago













ok that's a good point.

– LuZel
3 hours ago





ok that's a good point.

– LuZel
3 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107828%2fhow-to-have-a-sharp-product-image%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Log på Navigationsmenu

Creating second map without labels using QGIS?How to lock map labels for inset map in Print Composer?How to Force the Showing of Labels of a Vector File in QGISQGIS Valmiera, Labels only show for part of polygonsRemoving duplicate point labels in QGISLabeling every feature using QGIS?Show labels for point features outside map canvasAbbreviate Road Labels in QGIS only when requiredExporting map from composer in QGIS - text labels have moved in output?How to make sure labels in qgis turn up in layout map?Writing label expression with ArcMap and If then Statement?

Nuuk Indholdsfortegnelse Etyomologi | Historie | Geografi | Transport og infrastruktur | Politik og administration | Uddannelsesinstitutioner | Kultur | Venskabsbyer | Noter | Eksterne henvisninger | Se også | Navigationsmenuwww.sermersooq.gl64°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.75064°10′N 51°45′V / 64.167°N 51.750°V / 64.167; -51.750DMI - KlimanormalerSalmonsen, s. 850Grønlands Naturinstitut undersøger rensdyr i Akia og Maniitsoq foråret 2008Grønlands NaturinstitutNy vej til Qinngorput indviet i dagAntallet af biler i Nuuk må begrænsesNy taxacentral mødt med demonstrationKøreplan. Rute 1, 2 og 3SnescootersporNuukNord er for storSkoler i Kommuneqarfik SermersooqAtuarfik Samuel KleinschmidtKangillinguit AtuarfiatNuussuup AtuarfiaNuuk Internationale FriskoleIlinniarfissuaq, Grønlands SeminariumLedelseÅrsberetning for 2008Kunst og arkitekturÅrsberetning for 2008Julie om naturenNuuk KunstmuseumSilamiutGrønlands Nationalmuseum og ArkivStatistisk ÅrbogGrønlands LandsbibliotekStore koncerter på stribeVandhund nummer 1.000.000Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq – MalikForsidenVenskabsbyerLyngby-Taarbæk i GrønlandArctic Business NetworkWinter Cities 2008 i NuukDagligt opdaterede satellitbilleder fra NuukområdetKommuneqarfik Sermersooqs hjemmesideTurist i NuukGrønlands Statistiks databankGrønlands Hjemmestyres valgresultaterrrWorldCat124325457671310-5