Quality, how to improve

This site has been a great help for me in expanding my photography skills, but I often find myself unhappy with the quality on my images. They just don't seem as sharp, snappy, clean as I would like.

I've learned a lot about working with them in photoshop, but in the end they still just seem to lack something. Mainly they don't seem sharp enough, like the focus is soft.

Not sure if its an equipment issue, or maybe I'm missing some essential shooting techniques? I've been debating getting some new equipment, but perhaps that isn't going to change anything.

My current combo is a Canon xti and a Sigma 17-70f2.8 lens.
I almost always shoot at ISO100
I usually shoot with the lens @ f5.6/8.0, sometimes f16.0
I always shoot in RAW
Try to work off tripod
I use autofucus, sometimes the center spot
I edit in photoshop CS3

Just looking at your current equipment and field technique, nothing obvious stands out.
A synopsis of your typical postprocessing workflow would help.
Can you link to an unedited RAW file that you consider a prime example of your concerns and note where you focused?

Do you reckon that it's a 'vision' (subject, comp.) thing?
Perhaps you can point to an image that has a level of quality that you strive to achieve.
My favorite work here almost always has not just good, but excellent light and flawless postprocessing as a hallmark.
That often takes a combination of vision, a lot of work, timing, great 'darkroom' skills and some amount of luck to achieve.

Basic workflow technique:

Download files off camera using Canon's DPP
Use Adobe Camera RAW to import into photoshop
I use fill light, recovery light, contrast, clarity, highlight/shadow sliders, saturation adjustment
generally set sharpness to 40 in the ACR
Import at 16bit same as original file size from the camera
I work with adjustment layers in ps3, selective color, curves, contrast, saturation, sometimes using TK's luminosity masks.
Save as PSD.
Then I change to 8-bit, knock image size down to like 2200x1467, apply USM, then save as jpg. I also follow the web sharpening technigues for smaller images I post here.

Sounds like you have a good rhythm going there.
I added a second paragraph to my original post while you were typing.
Is that more along the line of what you're thinking, or is it all technical?

Again, a link to an unedited RAW image would be helpful.

I don't know where I can host a RAW file?

I'm also wondering some about your second paragraph, some members photos are always tack sharp, with beautiful clarity and contrast. Probably more skill related than equipment related. I guess that is where my uncertainty comes in, without a FF sensor, an L-series glass, is it possible to create images like those...

..without a FF sensor, an L-series glass, is it possible to create images like those.

Of course it is!
In regard to clarity/contrast/'snappiness', I would venture to say that subject, composition and light have much more to do with those qualities than does equipment.

Some free image hosting sites include PhotoBucket and Flickr.

Kevin, just another voice backing up John's point of view. The XTi sensor is capable of delivering world class images, and the Siggie lens you've got has a good rep for sharpness.

A couple things occur to me. If you are shooting landscapes, which focus mode are you using in autofocus, Al servo Al focus or one shot? A typical landscape image requires pretty extended DOF, with apparent sharpness evident from foreground to background. If using one shot you can lock focus on the foreground and recompose before tripping the shutter, but manual focus is more simple and effective in those situations. And if you are in Al servo focus mode (I have to assume you are not), recomposing and then tripping the shutter will force the lens to refocus on the focus point, most commonly used is the center focus point, which would put the focus too far back in your image to sharply render foreground elements. And if you select the bottom focus point in the array in order for autofocus to capture foreground elements, be aware that the XTi is at its most accurate autofocus capabilities with an f2.8 lens only when the center focus point is selected. It may be inclined to hunt a bit or miss focus using the other focus points, and that's especially true if your foreground elements lack that contrast needed for any autofocus to perform well. For all these reasons, manual focus is the way to go on landscapes (and most macro).

Also, if you're at iso100 at up around f16, your shutter speed will be slow enough in many situations that not only is the tripod required, but a remote release and the mirror lock-up feature as well. Mirror slap at slow shutter speeds will introduce enough camera shake to soften images, as will the slight vibration caused by depressing the shutter with your finger. I didn't see you mention either MLU or a remote release in your first post. If you don't have a remote release, you can still use MLU and your camera's self timer.

And those slow shutter speeds also require care as far as elements in the landscape moving slightly in any whiffs of breeze. If you're at a full second, just using an example, as a shutter speed and there's any breeze, foreground and sometimes even mid-range foliage will have enough movement to soften things. In these cases the remote release is far superior to a camera self-timer because you can snap the shutter right when the breeze is at its slackest, where with a timer it's just by gosh and by guess.

Also, most lenses deliver images that fall off in sharpness as you approach the smallest apertures. So while depth of focus increases at f22 over f11, the degree of sharpness within that DOF will decrease. You can find the sweet spot for your individual lens and that will help you compose images with just as much DOF as you really need but no more than is needed. My Canon 17-40 is great to about f16, with some sharpness falloff noticeable after that, so I like to keep things at f16 or less whenever possible. I've even found cases in my own work (or it's my imagination and overpicky attitude) in which the overall sharpness falloff at f22 was hindering the image more than the slightly shorter DOF at f16. However, even at f22 with some softness apparent, sharpening in PS pretty easily takes care of that.

You may have considered all these things already, but if not maybe there's some aspect covered here that might help you out. I agree with John as well on putting up a RAW image on photobucket or flickr with a link here.

Also, have you got a UV/skylight type of filter on the lens when you're shooting? If so, remove it.

Some tips on uploading a RAW image to a hosting site:
You'll want to set all defaults in DPP or ACR to '0", convert to 8 bit and then convert to JPEG using the least amount of compression when saving.

Well it seems you are on the right track. Its hard to judge without seeing a raw image whether its technique, equipment, or processing. The other posts are very informative with regards to specifics of these and there are obviously many things involved, but I'll just add one thought that came to my mind when I read this sentence:

"some members photos are always tack sharp, with beautiful clarity and contrast."

I found myself wondering exactly what you are wondering a while back, and while my solution wasn't this simple and your solution probably won't be this simple, if you have not yet, try Marc Adamus' sharpening for the web technique. It boggled my mind when I first tried it http://pacificnw.naturephotographers.net/tips/photoshop.htm

There is much to fully developing an image beyond sharpening as I'm sure you know. Tack sharp is a good start but color balance, clarity, contrast (tone) and everything works together to make something eye popping. And one person's eye popping is another persons over-done.
here is an original with no tweaking done to the raw..
http://www.pbase.com/santa/image/103656503/medium.jpg
and here is the final (or close to it) after fully developing in PS (I must have failed to convert to srgb so color seems muted)
http://www.pbase.com/santa/image/103656504.jpg
You can see larger versions at http://www.pbase.com/santa/test_stuff for a while but I don't leave stuff up there very long....

Thanks everyone for all the replies.

I do think I have some room for improvement on my shooting skills.
I need to be more religious about shooting off my tripod and using a shutter release, I do use a shutter release when my shutter speeds gets lower than 1/8 or so, but maybe I should be using one even at 1/15?
I don't use mirror lock that often, unless my shutter speed gets real low or I'm using a longer focal length lens.

I've found my lends to be best up to about f/16, above that I start noticing softer focus and when my shutter speeds get real slow I notice lots of dust and noise.
I prefer to shoot my lens at 5.6 or 8.0, seems best there.

I will have to look closer at my Auto focus settings, I generally use the grid, but sometimes use center spot. I struggle a bit with manual focusing in some situations.

Do you guys all shoot manual focus?

I will look into posting a raw image on my flickr account and see what you guys think.

How sharp do your images look at 100%?

Thanks again for all the information. Maybe I will hold off on any equipment changes and focus more on my shooting... Although the 50d is still attractive...

Interesting post. I'm not even as advanced as Kevin Trinker. Have not yet been able to afford Photo Shop. But in reading posts and the material from my programs, it would appear that sharpness for prints also has an element of "oversharpening" on processing. Several have mentioned that sharpening to a point where the photo appears overdone in that aspect makes a better print. And I guess this does not work for web photos. Am I correct? If so, photos for web and photos for prints are always slightly different and that could be one more item for Kevin's sharpness in photos. Comments appreciated. Larry

Just a couple of quick comments Kevin :

1) Based on what I've read, blurriness due to mirror slap is worst from about 1/30 to 1/2 second. And at very slow (like over 1 second) shutter speeds doesn't matter since the vibrations caused comprise so little of the exposure time. I've never tested this though.

2) Evaluating sharpness at 100% is going to vary somewhat based on number of pixels. A 10 MP image at 100% is not blown up nearly as large as a 21 MP image at 100%. So I figure it's better to figure out what the best possible result you can get with your camera is, and try to attain that. Or at least try to compare your results to another image in the same ball park pixel-wise.

I know this is an old-fashioned notion, (a real hot topic at the photo desk 30 years ago) but when tack sharp is important I still pull out a fixed focal length lens instead of a zoom. Just my personal opinion, Kevin, but before I upgraded the camera I'd invest in a high-quality Canon fixed focal lens. For landscapes I use the Canon24mm 1.4 L, always with a very sturdy tripod and remote release. Good luck with your quest for quality.

The best way to evaluate an image and provide a diagnostic on how to improve it is to post it for a critique - every comment here is valuable but not necessarily pertinent to your question. Gear defect, technique issues, post processing issues etc will all become evident when an image is available for review.

I do not agree that a UV or other filter is the cause of poor IQ - however, a cheaply made uncoated or single coated filter will most definitely degrade an image. If you use a filter make sure it is of the best quality you can get your hands on. You will see little if any image degradation with a high quality filter. Prime lens vs Zoom - again, the old adage that a prime is always better is not necessarily true - there are some legendary zooms that blow away prime lenses at specific focal lengths - and other new zooms that are destined to become legends because they are that good.

As far as Sigma is concerned - yours is a good lens, as long as you have a good copy. The bad news is that QC remains a challenge at the Sigma factory. The good news is that if your lens is under warranty Sigma field techs are renowned for correcting bad lenses. My personal experience was a 10-20 ultrawide zoom that I was about to purchase used. Test images were so bad I could swear the lens had been dropped or otherwise severly traumatized, however my instincts told me that it was a factory assembly issue. I asked the owner to send the lens to Sigma in Long Island NY for a going over, and what came back completely blew me away as far as contrast, focus, edge to edge sharpness etc. - in short it was much much better than I ever expected. The cost for this was the postage and 10 days turn around. Sigma US offers a 5 yr warranty on their glass, and I have had only positive experiences with their technical and customer service so far.

Can't wait to see an image that shows what your concerns are!

This is a super thread. I have learned a great deal and will sift through it again to gather another glut of info. Thank you.