How can I get sharper stock-photo results with a Canon 60D and 24-105mm f/4L?
Asked 3/22/2015
5 views
2 answers
0
I’m submitting photos to a stock agency and some were rejected for softness/noise. I’m shooting with a Canon 60D and Canon 24-105mm f/4L. Since some images were accepted and others were rejected for being too soft, I’m trying to understand whether the issue is my technique, focus choices, or my gear. For example, in one bird photo the focus may not be on the birds, and in a text image part of the subject appears soft. Is this setup capable of producing stock-acceptable sharpness, and what should I change to improve my results?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
3
Image sharpness is more a function of the lens than the body. The Canon 60d and the 24-105L F/4L are both capable of shooting stock-acceptable imagery. I used the 24-105 as my wide angle lens for a while and I really like it a lot.
In the case of the pelican image, the focus seems to be on the wall between the two pelicans on the right, not on the pelicans, and the two on the left are clearly soft, but not so soft that it's clearly done by choice. So I'd say the focus on that image is off.
Take the blame -- the word take is clearly soft, but again, not done in a way that seems to be on purpose. I'd say if you're trying for a blurring effect that I think you're trying for, you probably need a lens more like a 50 1.4 to achieve it. If the entire text was intended to be sharp, it's off.
The others are similar -- there seem to be mistakes in technique in taking them, and I think the post processing in sharpening could be improved. Stock is a tough industry with lots of people trying to sell into it, so the standards are really tight.
I don't see anything particularly wrong here, definitely not in the equipment. I'd suggest taking lots of photos, practicing composition, studying the results and studying others doing that kind of work to see the quality standard to aspire to, and practice, practice practice, both with learning how to get the camera to give you the picture you want (and not the picture it feels like giving you) and in improving your post processing technique.
Originally by user705. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user705
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Your camera and lens are capable of producing stock-acceptable images, so the main issue is more likely technique and focus placement than needing better gear.
From the examples discussed, some rejected images appear focused on the wrong area. In the pelican shot, focus seems to be on the wall rather than the birds. In the text image, part of the word is soft in a way that doesn’t look intentionally shallow-depth-of-field. For stock, reviewers usually expect the key subject to be clearly and convincingly sharp unless blur is obviously artistic.
To improve sharpness:
- Make sure autofocus is locking onto the actual subject, not a nearby surface.
- Check focus critically at 100% before submitting.
- If you want selective blur, make it look intentional; f/4 may not always create a strong enough effect.
- If you need more pronounced background blur, a faster lens such as a 50mm f/1.4 can help.
So: no, you likely don’t need a new camera body. Start by tightening up focus accuracy and being deliberate about depth of field.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are my photos being rejected for noise, grain, or softness when they look sharp to me?
Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS vs EF 24-105mm f/4L IS for general use and occasional weddings
Are there stock photo sites with less strict quality standards than Bigstockphoto?
Which Canon lens is best for fashion photography if I care most about sharpness?
Why would a stock photo be rejected for focus and noise when the background blur was intentional?