How to have a sharp product image?Why are my product photographs not sharp?How can I get non-blurry...

What is the unit of time_lock_delta in LND?

Why didn't the Space Shuttle bounce back into space as many times as possible so as to lose a lot of kinetic energy up there?

Can a level 2 Warlock take one level in rogue, then continue advancing as a warlock?

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

What is this word supposed to be?

How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?

Work requires me to come in early to start computer but wont let me clock in to get paid for it

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

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

Why do games have consumables?

Philosophical question on logistic regression: why isn't the optimal threshold value trained?

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

A strange hotel

Should the Product Owner dictate what info the UI needs to display?

How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?

Prove that the countable union of countable sets is also countable

A Paper Record is What I Hamper

Multiple options vs single option UI

Find the identical rows in a matrix

"Whatever a Russian does, they end up making the Kalashnikov gun"? Are there any similar proverbs in English?

Where was the County of Thurn und Taxis located?

How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?

A ​Note ​on ​N!

How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?



How to have a sharp product image?


Why are my product photographs not sharp?How 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?Getting a completely sharp bird when it is up closeHow 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?






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







5















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

























  • Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago




















5















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

























  • Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago
















5












5








5








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 depth-of-field product-photography blur






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago









xiota

12.5k41966




12.5k41966










asked 17 hours ago









PherdindyPherdindy

494




494













  • Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago





















  • Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago



















Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

– Michael C
2 hours ago







Possible duplicate of Why are my product photographs not sharp? One of the answers there has links to all of the other numerous duplicates of the same basic question here. Why do we really need another one?

– Michael C
2 hours ago












7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















7














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. Note that lens diffraction becomes a significant issue when stopping down the lens to small apertures. Therefore, stopping down the aperture more than F/14 will increase the amount of subject in focus but will decrease image quality.



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


























  • 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
    15 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
    15 hours ago











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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    #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
    15 hours ago













  • @xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago



















6














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





















  • 1





    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...
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago











  • Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago






  • 4





    A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

    – xiota
    10 hours ago








  • 1





    @xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

    – J...
    10 hours ago





















6















shutter speed 0.5 seconds




This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button.



At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that vibration can ruin your shot.



If you have to use shutter speeds in that space, use mirror lock up and a remote release. If no remote, use MLU and the self timer.



Oh, and open up from f/14. That’s unnecessary. You should have plenty of DoF at f/8. Test with a DoF calculator to confirm.






share|improve this answer
























  • This is the best answer.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago











  • BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago





















5














To get the entirety of a subject in focus, 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
    15 hours ago













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

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago











  • Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago











  • If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

    – xiota
    18 mins ago



















4














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
    16 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
    15 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    15 hours ago



















4














You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop:



image



You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit of artifacting (depends on how large the image can be displayed):



image






share|improve this answer










New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    "It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

    – Tim Stack
    9 hours ago











  • @TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

    – xiota
    8 hours ago



















1














What I would do for this situation would be:




  • A good tripod: this is essential for keeping the camera steady. Note that good tripods (a) cost some amount of money (you won't find one much below $100) and are heavy (anything less than 1.5 kg isn't good if we're talking about regular height tripods, excluding the high-end carbon fiber ones).

  • Live view mode: this ensures the mirror is up already when the picture is taken, so no mirror movements => no mirror slap, no vibrations caused by it. Some good cameras also have a mirror lockup, but I have found live view mode an adequate substitute.

  • 10 second selfie timer or remote shutter release: this ensures you either give the vibrations of the tripod chance to decay, or alternatively don't cause vibrations at all

  • f/6.3 - f/8. The larger the F-number, the more diffraction you get. I'd say something between f/6.3 and f/8 is ideal. This of course depends on the camera: on full frame cameras, you can use higher F numbers. Of course there's a compromise between deep depth of field and low diffraction. Typically lenses are the sharpest between f/6.3 - f/8, but you might prefer f/8 due to the slight increase in depth of field.

  • Consider also an off-camera flash (or multiple flashes) with suitable light modifiers such as umbrellas. This would allow using faster shutter speeds.






share|improve this answer
























  • 10s timer is great advice.

    – relaxing
    2 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

























7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes








7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7














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. Note that lens diffraction becomes a significant issue when stopping down the lens to small apertures. Therefore, stopping down the aperture more than F/14 will increase the amount of subject in focus but will decrease image quality.



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


























  • 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
    15 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
    15 hours ago











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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    #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
    15 hours ago













  • @xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago
















7














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. Note that lens diffraction becomes a significant issue when stopping down the lens to small apertures. Therefore, stopping down the aperture more than F/14 will increase the amount of subject in focus but will decrease image quality.



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


























  • 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
    15 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
    15 hours ago











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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    #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
    15 hours ago













  • @xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago














7












7








7







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. Note that lens diffraction becomes a significant issue when stopping down the lens to small apertures. Therefore, stopping down the aperture more than F/14 will increase the amount of subject in focus but will decrease image quality.



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. Note that lens diffraction becomes a significant issue when stopping down the lens to small apertures. Therefore, stopping down the aperture more than F/14 will increase the amount of subject in focus but will decrease image quality.



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 10 hours ago

























answered 16 hours ago









Tim StackTim Stack

2098




2098













  • 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
    15 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
    15 hours ago











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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    #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
    15 hours ago













  • @xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

    – Tim Stack
    15 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
    15 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
    15 hours ago











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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago






  • 2





    #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
    15 hours ago













  • @xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

    – Tim Stack
    15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 hours ago













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

– Pherdindy
15 hours ago





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

– Pherdindy
15 hours ago




2




2





#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
15 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
15 hours ago















@xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

– Tim Stack
15 hours ago





@xiota you lose one, you win one. It's a choice between speed and quality. "too much work" is entirely relative and subject to OP's expectations and motivation

– Tim Stack
15 hours ago













6














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





















  • 1





    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...
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago











  • Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago






  • 4





    A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

    – xiota
    10 hours ago








  • 1





    @xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

    – J...
    10 hours ago


















6














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





















  • 1





    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...
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago











  • Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago






  • 4





    A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

    – xiota
    10 hours ago








  • 1





    @xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

    – J...
    10 hours ago
















6












6








6







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 14 hours ago

























answered 14 hours ago









nucandreinucandrei

21615




21615








  • 1





    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...
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago











  • Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago






  • 4





    A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

    – xiota
    10 hours ago








  • 1





    @xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

    – J...
    10 hours ago
















  • 1





    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...
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago











  • Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

    – rackandboneman
    10 hours ago






  • 4





    A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

    – xiota
    10 hours ago








  • 1





    @xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

    – J...
    10 hours ago










1




1





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...
12 hours 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...
12 hours ago




1




1





Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

– rackandboneman
10 hours ago





Not much to do with "this lens" - f/14 on a high resolution APS-C camera gets you into diffraction and sensor dirt territory ....

– rackandboneman
10 hours ago













Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

– rackandboneman
10 hours ago





Well, something to do with this lens: the SELP1650 at its widest only works acceptably at all because of HEAVY electronic correction, which can reduce resolution in the corners.

– rackandboneman
10 hours ago




4




4





A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

– xiota
10 hours ago







A lens being sharpest at F5.6-8 is true for nearly all lenses. OP's problem, trying to get an entire subject in focus, is a depth of field, not sharpness, issue.

– xiota
10 hours ago






1




1





@xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

– J...
10 hours ago







@xiota Yes, but F/8 on an APS-C body @ 35mm should have no problem getting that entire box in focus with a reasonable shooting distance unless the lens is just brutally mushy in the corners. Beyond any lens cheapness, OP is really fighting camera shake here, I think.

– J...
10 hours ago













6















shutter speed 0.5 seconds




This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button.



At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that vibration can ruin your shot.



If you have to use shutter speeds in that space, use mirror lock up and a remote release. If no remote, use MLU and the self timer.



Oh, and open up from f/14. That’s unnecessary. You should have plenty of DoF at f/8. Test with a DoF calculator to confirm.






share|improve this answer
























  • This is the best answer.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago











  • BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago


















6















shutter speed 0.5 seconds




This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button.



At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that vibration can ruin your shot.



If you have to use shutter speeds in that space, use mirror lock up and a remote release. If no remote, use MLU and the self timer.



Oh, and open up from f/14. That’s unnecessary. You should have plenty of DoF at f/8. Test with a DoF calculator to confirm.






share|improve this answer
























  • This is the best answer.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago











  • BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago
















6












6








6








shutter speed 0.5 seconds




This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button.



At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that vibration can ruin your shot.



If you have to use shutter speeds in that space, use mirror lock up and a remote release. If no remote, use MLU and the self timer.



Oh, and open up from f/14. That’s unnecessary. You should have plenty of DoF at f/8. Test with a DoF calculator to confirm.






share|improve this answer














shutter speed 0.5 seconds




This is likely to be a bit of your problem. The shutter causes vibration of the camera. So, too, does your hand pushing the release button.



At faster speeds, this vibration does not affect the shot. Likewise, at very slow speeds (a few seconds +). But there’s a sweet spot somewhere between a second or two and ~1/30 where that vibration can ruin your shot.



If you have to use shutter speeds in that space, use mirror lock up and a remote release. If no remote, use MLU and the self timer.



Oh, and open up from f/14. That’s unnecessary. You should have plenty of DoF at f/8. Test with a DoF calculator to confirm.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 10 hours ago









HuecoHueco

12.7k32858




12.7k32858













  • This is the best answer.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago











  • BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago





















  • This is the best answer.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago











  • BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

    – Michael C
    1 hour ago



















This is the best answer.

– relaxing
2 hours ago





This is the best answer.

– relaxing
2 hours ago













BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

– Michael C
1 hour ago







BINGO! Half a second, even on almost all tripods, is too slow if the shutter button is being manually pressed with no timer delay.

– Michael C
1 hour ago













5














To get the entirety of a subject in focus, 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
    15 hours ago













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

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago











  • Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago











  • If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

    – xiota
    18 mins ago
















5














To get the entirety of a subject in focus, 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
    15 hours ago













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

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago











  • Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago











  • If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

    – xiota
    18 mins ago














5












5








5







To get the entirety of a subject in focus, 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















To get the entirety of a subject in focus, 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 10 hours ago

























answered 15 hours ago









xiotaxiota

12.5k41966




12.5k41966













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago













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

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago











  • Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago











  • If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

    – xiota
    18 mins 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
    15 hours ago













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

    – Tim Stack
    15 hours ago













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

    – Pherdindy
    15 hours ago











  • Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

    – Michael C
    2 hours ago











  • If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

    – xiota
    18 mins 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
15 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
15 hours ago















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

– Tim Stack
15 hours ago







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

– Tim Stack
15 hours ago















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

– Pherdindy
15 hours ago





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

– Pherdindy
15 hours ago













Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

– Michael C
2 hours ago





Cropping results in losing the DoF you just gained because you are increasing the enlargement ratio. The more you magnify blur, the more blurry it looks.

– Michael C
2 hours ago













If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

– xiota
18 mins ago





If the enlargement ratio is kept constant, as when pixel peeping, blur will not be magnified by cropping.

– xiota
18 mins ago











4














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
    16 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
    15 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    15 hours ago
















4














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
    16 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
    15 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    15 hours ago














4












4








4







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 16 hours ago

























answered 16 hours ago









Romeo NinovRomeo Ninov

4,25931328




4,25931328













  • 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
    16 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
    15 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    15 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
    16 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
    15 hours ago











  • ok that's a good point.

    – LuZel
    15 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
16 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
16 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
15 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
15 hours ago













ok that's a good point.

– LuZel
15 hours ago





ok that's a good point.

– LuZel
15 hours ago











4














You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop:



image



You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit of artifacting (depends on how large the image can be displayed):



image






share|improve this answer










New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    "It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

    – Tim Stack
    9 hours ago











  • @TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

    – xiota
    8 hours ago
















4














You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop:



image



You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit of artifacting (depends on how large the image can be displayed):



image






share|improve this answer










New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    "It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

    – Tim Stack
    9 hours ago











  • @TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

    – xiota
    8 hours ago














4












4








4







You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop:



image



You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit of artifacting (depends on how large the image can be displayed):



image






share|improve this answer










New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










You could try applying a post-processing filter to make it sharper. Some manufactures automatically apply a post-sharpening filter (namely Nikon) to squeeze out even more sharpness. Here is what your image looks like after applying the Shake Reduction filter in Photoshop:



image



You could go crazy and add a lot of sharpening, but then the image starts to get a bit of artifacting (depends on how large the image can be displayed):



image







share|improve this answer










New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago









xiota

12.5k41966




12.5k41966






New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 9 hours ago









alexy13alexy13

1514




1514




New contributor




alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






alexy13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    "It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

    – Tim Stack
    9 hours ago











  • @TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

    – xiota
    8 hours ago














  • 1





    "It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

    – Tim Stack
    9 hours ago











  • @TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

    – xiota
    8 hours ago








1




1





"It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

– Tim Stack
9 hours ago





"It appears that there is nothing you can do in terms of changing your cameras physical settings in order to make the image sharper" -1 for false statement

– Tim Stack
9 hours ago













@TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

– xiota
8 hours ago





@TimStack I edited to remove first paragraph... +1 as long as it's not edited back in...

– xiota
8 hours ago











1














What I would do for this situation would be:




  • A good tripod: this is essential for keeping the camera steady. Note that good tripods (a) cost some amount of money (you won't find one much below $100) and are heavy (anything less than 1.5 kg isn't good if we're talking about regular height tripods, excluding the high-end carbon fiber ones).

  • Live view mode: this ensures the mirror is up already when the picture is taken, so no mirror movements => no mirror slap, no vibrations caused by it. Some good cameras also have a mirror lockup, but I have found live view mode an adequate substitute.

  • 10 second selfie timer or remote shutter release: this ensures you either give the vibrations of the tripod chance to decay, or alternatively don't cause vibrations at all

  • f/6.3 - f/8. The larger the F-number, the more diffraction you get. I'd say something between f/6.3 and f/8 is ideal. This of course depends on the camera: on full frame cameras, you can use higher F numbers. Of course there's a compromise between deep depth of field and low diffraction. Typically lenses are the sharpest between f/6.3 - f/8, but you might prefer f/8 due to the slight increase in depth of field.

  • Consider also an off-camera flash (or multiple flashes) with suitable light modifiers such as umbrellas. This would allow using faster shutter speeds.






share|improve this answer
























  • 10s timer is great advice.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago
















1














What I would do for this situation would be:




  • A good tripod: this is essential for keeping the camera steady. Note that good tripods (a) cost some amount of money (you won't find one much below $100) and are heavy (anything less than 1.5 kg isn't good if we're talking about regular height tripods, excluding the high-end carbon fiber ones).

  • Live view mode: this ensures the mirror is up already when the picture is taken, so no mirror movements => no mirror slap, no vibrations caused by it. Some good cameras also have a mirror lockup, but I have found live view mode an adequate substitute.

  • 10 second selfie timer or remote shutter release: this ensures you either give the vibrations of the tripod chance to decay, or alternatively don't cause vibrations at all

  • f/6.3 - f/8. The larger the F-number, the more diffraction you get. I'd say something between f/6.3 and f/8 is ideal. This of course depends on the camera: on full frame cameras, you can use higher F numbers. Of course there's a compromise between deep depth of field and low diffraction. Typically lenses are the sharpest between f/6.3 - f/8, but you might prefer f/8 due to the slight increase in depth of field.

  • Consider also an off-camera flash (or multiple flashes) with suitable light modifiers such as umbrellas. This would allow using faster shutter speeds.






share|improve this answer
























  • 10s timer is great advice.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago














1












1








1







What I would do for this situation would be:




  • A good tripod: this is essential for keeping the camera steady. Note that good tripods (a) cost some amount of money (you won't find one much below $100) and are heavy (anything less than 1.5 kg isn't good if we're talking about regular height tripods, excluding the high-end carbon fiber ones).

  • Live view mode: this ensures the mirror is up already when the picture is taken, so no mirror movements => no mirror slap, no vibrations caused by it. Some good cameras also have a mirror lockup, but I have found live view mode an adequate substitute.

  • 10 second selfie timer or remote shutter release: this ensures you either give the vibrations of the tripod chance to decay, or alternatively don't cause vibrations at all

  • f/6.3 - f/8. The larger the F-number, the more diffraction you get. I'd say something between f/6.3 and f/8 is ideal. This of course depends on the camera: on full frame cameras, you can use higher F numbers. Of course there's a compromise between deep depth of field and low diffraction. Typically lenses are the sharpest between f/6.3 - f/8, but you might prefer f/8 due to the slight increase in depth of field.

  • Consider also an off-camera flash (or multiple flashes) with suitable light modifiers such as umbrellas. This would allow using faster shutter speeds.






share|improve this answer













What I would do for this situation would be:




  • A good tripod: this is essential for keeping the camera steady. Note that good tripods (a) cost some amount of money (you won't find one much below $100) and are heavy (anything less than 1.5 kg isn't good if we're talking about regular height tripods, excluding the high-end carbon fiber ones).

  • Live view mode: this ensures the mirror is up already when the picture is taken, so no mirror movements => no mirror slap, no vibrations caused by it. Some good cameras also have a mirror lockup, but I have found live view mode an adequate substitute.

  • 10 second selfie timer or remote shutter release: this ensures you either give the vibrations of the tripod chance to decay, or alternatively don't cause vibrations at all

  • f/6.3 - f/8. The larger the F-number, the more diffraction you get. I'd say something between f/6.3 and f/8 is ideal. This of course depends on the camera: on full frame cameras, you can use higher F numbers. Of course there's a compromise between deep depth of field and low diffraction. Typically lenses are the sharpest between f/6.3 - f/8, but you might prefer f/8 due to the slight increase in depth of field.

  • Consider also an off-camera flash (or multiple flashes) with suitable light modifiers such as umbrellas. This would allow using faster shutter speeds.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 7 hours ago









juhistjuhist

1,137117




1,137117













  • 10s timer is great advice.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago



















  • 10s timer is great advice.

    – relaxing
    2 hours ago

















10s timer is great advice.

– relaxing
2 hours ago





10s timer is great advice.

– relaxing
2 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

Why do type traits not work with types in namespace scope?What are POD types in C++?Why can templates only be...

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?Why do tsunami waves begin with the water flowing away...

Should I use Docker or LXD?How to cache (more) data on SSD/RAM to avoid spin up?Unable to get Windows File...