Why are my photo's not so sharp even when using a tripod?

Question

I took the following photos yesterday to capture the shades of sunset skies. However, I am utterly disappointed with the sharpness of the overall pictures (areas in shadows particularly very soft) and not sure if the infinity that I intended to keep sharp (horizon in this case) is what  the camera has indeed captured.
Please also review other pictures in order to assess my photography style, giving broader idea about me as amateur photographer struggling to make a mark at shutter stock site.
Also, am I struggling with my photography skills or partly canon 1300D kit could be blamed as well?

Taken just before sunset, 35mm, ISO 200, f/11, 0.6 sec, IS off, focus set at near most tower. Bushes under shadows appear noisy and lack detail (taken 35mm, ISO 200, f/11, 2.5 sec, IS off, using Canon 18-55mm IS lens). What could be the reason. Further, Shutter stock declined it for focus issues.

Exposure is better (35mm, ISO 200, f/11, 2.5 sec, IS off, using same lens as above) but again bushes just behind the first tower are all so soft and lack detail. Even longer exposure of 31 sec

Although this picture has better sharpness at 75 mm, f/10, 31 sec, it has been rejected by shutter stock for Noise/film grain (using Canon 75-300mm 4-5.6 non-IS lens). Could you please pinpoint it? Also, are lights on chimneys producing chromatic aberration?

I personally felt that at 125 mm, ISO 200, f/5.6, 0.8 sec (using same lens as above) I clicked a good shot but it got rejected at shutter stock for Noise/film grain and focus issue. Because the scene was dark so to prevent noise at high ISO I didn't shot at high shutter speed. What I could have done better here?

I like the composition but failed to manage the bluish color cast in shadow area. Taken at 18mm, ISO 100, f/10, 90 sec, IS off using canon 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens with ND1000 filter at sunset time. Shutter stock rejected it for focus issues but I found the overall DOF to be good enough, please advice? Also, is this blue color cast normal?

Tetsujin · Answer

After comments & question edit
I'm still only concentrating on the first 2 images, as a single question. The others ought to be separated out.
At exposure times of 2.5s & 0.5s respectively, I'd have definitely used some method to increase the amount of light captured - lift ISO, open aperture, or extend exposure time - whichever adds least extra work.
You could have opened your aperture a good way. Most lenses are at their sharpest a couple of stops from fully open, often around f/5.6 or so - which would have let in a lot more light & halved your exposure time already. A wide-ish aperture on a wide-ish lens & focussed at or near infinity still gives you a lot of DoF.
I'd also have ramped ISO until exposure was 1/60 or so & if there was still any chance of camera shake, weak tripod or wind, I'd use a remote release, mirror up & a 2 second delay to lessen that. [I don't really see any in the images, but belt & braces.]
Looking at the Histogram, though there's a hint of bright at the top, I feel it would have been worth at least bracketing these shots and either using HDR later, or picking the one least affected by lost data at the top. It's easier to reduce overall brightness after the fact if you are Exposing to the right than lift shadows if you haven't used the full scale to best efficiency.

original answer before details were known
How long is a long exposure? Trees move, clouds move. The pylon, which is the only truly static element, seems reasonably sharp as far as I can tell on a small jpg.
Most photographers would not use the results straight from the camera - some Photoshop [or Gimp or Luminar or OnOne etc etc] skill is essential to turn 'pretty good' into 'publishable'.
I did a really quick punch up in Photoshop to add a bit of 'drama' to this. Working from a small jpg isn't the best start, as it's a bit crackly, but this was just 2 minutes' work, adding contrast & some sharpening. [No, it's not perfect, it's just an example of what can be done, to show how much you can punch up detail. It will work much, much better from your original image than a highly-compressed jpg]

I did the wrong pic first, so I now tweaked both the sky shots.

Why are my photo's not so sharp even when using a tripod?

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question