| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/26/2010 04:41:32 PM · #1 |
So I have a question, and it might be a fairly Dumb one, But I won't know until I ask.
I have been looking over the current and past challenges, and my favourite Photos in general as of late. And I have noticed that the pic's that win ribbons almost always have a great amount of detail and clarity contained within the image. Whereas the ones that score poorly (and almost all of mine LOL) are not nearly as clear an image.
So here's my question. Why can other photographers seem to be able to extract very clear and detailed images, whereas mine seem always to be fuzzy, or lacking in quality?
is it my:
ISO? (biggest suspicion)
Megapixel amount? (12- so I don̢۪t think this is it)
aperture? (although I think this is more to do with DOF than detail)
exposure?
or editing?
Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:46:03 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by PixelKing:
So I have a question, and it might be a fairly Dumb one, But I won't know until I ask.
I have been looking over the current and past challenges, and my favourite Photos in general as of late. And I have noticed that the pic's that win ribbons almost always have a great amount of detail and clarity contained within the image. Whereas the ones that score poorly (and almost all of mine LOL) are not nearly as clear an image.
So here's my question. Why can other photographers seem to be able to extract very clear and detailed images, whereas mine seem always to be fuzzy, or lacking in quality?
is it my:
ISO? (biggest suspicion)
Megapixel amount? (12- so I don̢۪t think this is it)
aperture? (although I think this is more to do with DOF than detail)
exposure?
or editing?
Any thoughts? |
You are, I believe, like so many of us. We all take similar photos and then see the ribbon winners and blame, location, model or camera/lenses. Truth is, we are average and editing is one of the biggest problems. I can fiddle with PS or Lightroom and think I have a great shot til I see the others.
If you show your photos to others, they say how good they are etc. But here on DPC, if you can't edit, you are Mr Average:) |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:47:32 PM · #3 |
| I had a look at your latest photo in your portfolio, Blood Alley, and I would say that your use of a very high ISO goes a long way to explain fuzziness. In landscapes other things to consider are use of tripod, mirror lock up and cable release, although to be honest they are all more relevant to good quality prints - web viewing at DPC size does allow for some latitude. Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:50:01 PM · #4 |
| All the above. It is a combination of factors and knowing how to use them. You forgot to include owning good lenses and a tripod. Lots of other things contribute besides the gear. Actually, my highest scoring entry surprised the heck out of me because it was soft and grainy. It just happened to work for the scene. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:52:58 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
I had a look at your latest photo in your portfolio, Blood Alley, and I would say that your use of a very high ISO goes a long way to explain fuzziness. In landscapes other things to consider are use of tripod, mirror lock up and cable release, although to be honest they are all more relevant to good quality prints - web viewing at DPC size does allow for some latitude. Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
thanks to you both,
I̢۪m thinking your right in that its the settings in camera too, and again my biggest suspicion is the ISO. I was doing some tests this weekend using High in one shot then shooting same in Lo, and I couldn't get a discernable difference between the two, which prompted my post........
the reason I̢۪m shying away from blaming my editing skills (and not that they are great by ANY stretch) is because in my understanding you need the information to be in the photo to edit in the first place (i.e. clear and detailed) and if that were the case Basic Editing rules should be the great equalizer, and yet there are some AMAZING images in this latest challenge.....
Message edited by author 2010-04-26 16:57:13. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:55:26 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
I do have to say that some of this is gear. I originally had a Rebel XT, then a 20D for a short time, which had nearly identical image quality. They were both pretty good. Then I moved to a 50D and also got a better lens than anything I previously had. I have definitely noticed sharper images and less noise. The adjustments I make to my images are now working on detail and not noise.
I believe it is the 80/20 rule: 80% is the photographer, and 20% the gear, but only if the photographer has the skill to take advantage of what the gear offers. Interestingly, I seem to, on average, score equally well (or poorly) when I am without an SLR and using my Powershot S5. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:55:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by PixelKing:
Originally posted by SaraR:
I had a look at your latest photo in your portfolio, Blood Alley, and I would say that your use of a very high ISO goes a long way to explain fuzziness. In landscapes other things to consider are use of tripod, mirror lock up and cable release, although to be honest they are all more relevant to good quality prints - web viewing at DPC size does allow for some latitude. Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
thanks to you both,
I̢۪m thinking your right in that its the settings in camera too, and again my biggest suspicion is the ISO. I was doing some tests this weekend using High in one shot then shooting same in Lo, and I couldn't get a discernable difference between the two, which prompted my post........ |
Would you get much difference with the D700? |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:56:24 PM · #8 |
| Are you shooting raw? Do you do output sharpening after resizing? |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 04:59:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by PixelKing:
Originally posted by SaraR:
I had a look at your latest photo in your portfolio, Blood Alley, and I would say that your use of a very high ISO goes a long way to explain fuzziness. In landscapes other things to consider are use of tripod, mirror lock up and cable release, although to be honest they are all more relevant to good quality prints - web viewing at DPC size does allow for some latitude. Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
thanks to you both,
I̢۪m thinking your right in that its the settings in camera too, and again my biggest suspicion is the ISO. I was doing some tests this weekend using High in one shot then shooting same in Lo, and I couldn't get a discernable difference between the two, which prompted my post........ |
Would you get much difference with the D700? |
I look at these two images and am amazed at the quality clarity and detail in them. Editing is great but the camera has to be able to capture that info first right?
 
I shoot RAW and JPG in FINE. I use my d700 and Nikor and VR lenses. so its most likly a user not a gear issue lol.
Message edited by author 2010-04-26 17:05:31. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:05:56 PM · #10 |
My problem for a while was that I would upload photos without sharpening them before they were resized, they would often look fuzzy compared to the higher scoring entries.
I use Unsharpen Mask in Photoshop for my sharpening. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:10:07 PM · #11 |
| I like to look at the F-stop settings and try and duplicate those shots...it takes practice but it eventually comes along...I know if I don't get razor sharpness in my shots I get hammered..I have focal problems, so this is a struggle...I have a very old Vivitar Lens but boy is it sweet...it's gotten me some of my highest scores. It's manual but it's taught me to find that really, really sharp focus... |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:11:44 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Are you shooting raw? Do you do output sharpening after resizing? |
not to sound totally dumb here...but you mean USM after you are done with the editing and just before you save for WEB right....(at least I can give you a good rolls the eyes today) |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:15:35 PM · #13 |
| USM is my last editing step before saving. I do no explicit sharping before that. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:16:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
Originally posted by Ken:
Are you shooting raw? Do you do output sharpening after resizing? |
not to sound totally dumb here...but you mean USM after you are done with the editing and just before you save for WEB right....(at least I can give you a good rolls the eyes today) |
No eye-rolling here...
Yes, that's what I mean, sharpening right before you save for web. If you're using Photoshop there's a setting for resizing for smaller sizes in additional to larger(think it's Bicubic Sharper or something like that).
I ask about raw because raw is unsharpened, whereas jpg has sharpening, saturation, etc applied, it's the camera's best guess as to what looks good. Even if you're shooting raw, the preview you see on the camera is jpg. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:19:55 PM · #15 |
I would say that the D700 is not the limiting factor! even at 1600 ISO. And you don't need incredible photoshop skills to take quality photos, with lots of detail and appropriate sharpness.
I also looked at Blood Alley to get a sense of what you are talking about. Things I would look at include: sharpening (all digital photos need sharpening, either in-camera when you shoot in jpeg mode, or in post-processing or both depending on your camera settings), shutter speed (1/200 is a tad slow if you were at the long end of that lens. unless you can hold your camera very steady), proper exposure (underexposing can kill your details). If I had to guess, I would say inadequate sharpening for that particular photo. Exposure looks OK, and I dont' think you were having a problem with hand-holding the lens.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:21:29 PM · #16 |
ya, that's what I thought you guys were saying but I wasn't sure (dumb blonde here)...
and yes...I usually do the one for Bicubic Sharper...I've also been starting to do a lower USM (on the full size) drop down the sizing...by about 1/2 then do another USM, much, much lower then a final downsizing...I was recently shown this and I think it makes a difference...but I really do try to avoid that crunchy look...not always successful |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:22:42 PM · #17 |
Well, I guarantee you it isn't the camera :-) Here's one from  Jovan, and two apiece from  Nutzito and  IreneM (who pretty much dominate the high scores for this camera):
    
Correct exposure and a LOT of experience at optimizing settings in PP will take care of the rest, assuming decent glass and a reasonable ISO. I can get these kind of detailed images from the 5D at ISO 6400, but that's a FF sensor that's famously good at high ISO, so I am not sure if that applies with your D700.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-04-26 17:23:05. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:22:55 PM · #18 |
| ahhh, one other thing...if you are using a VR Lens and a tripod...you need to shut off you VR setting on the lens if it is mounted (that sounds dirty) |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:24:17 PM · #19 |
| A tripod and good lighting go a LONG way for great details and that extra crispness you notice. I'd also tend to agree about the F-stop....most lenses have a "sweet spot" and everything taken in that range is more crisp and clear. Of course, it's a bit different for different lenses I think. This is all stuff I'm experimenting with and learning about as well. I always shoot at ISO 100 whenever I can help it. It also seems, though this might just be to me, that when I use my Manual settings things come out better. Maybe it has to do with the way the camera calculates the light or something....or maybe I'm just making it up :-) But when I'm really trying to get a good shot, ISO 100, manual settings, my 50mm lens, a tripod, and lights/reflectors go a long way. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:25:56 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
I had a look at your latest photo in your portfolio, Blood Alley, and I would say that your use of a very high ISO goes a long way to explain fuzziness. In landscapes other things to consider are use of tripod, mirror lock up and cable release, although to be honest they are all more relevant to good quality prints - web viewing at DPC size does allow for some latitude. Most of the consistently good photographers and processors nail the exposure and lighting in camera, which means that post processing doesn't introduce further digital noise. |
I'd have to agree with this, particularly the inexplicable use of ISO 1200 for an exterior shot in daylight. The sky is completely blown to boot. Jeff, you would probably have had a much better result with ISO at 200, your camera set on aperture priority, and the aperture set at f/4 for what you shot here. I'm not so sure that lens is the greatest either. I've heard it has focus issues. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 05:31:59 PM · #21 |
The other thing to understand is how key lighting is to every shot, to often I go out and shoot at the wrong time of day or try to compensate for poor lighting in PP and when you do that you lose a lot of detail. Starting with a good exposure and lighting makes everything go better. The quality of the glass is also key, when I started all my shots looked great, to me they looked really sharp and had detail but after a while I started to get a little better and see the difference in each lens and the level of detail I would get out of my better lenses. Those type images are really a combination of doing everything right from seeing the image, getting the good lighting, having good equipment and knowledge of how to get the most out of each shot and in some cases add in a little luck.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2010 09:41:02 PM · #22 |
I want to personally thanks everyone who posted a response here. I have learned more about photography in the last 2 hours, that I have in all time I̢۪ve been shooting.
If I can take two key elements from the culmination of this post, they would be to:
A. take care in how I shoot subjects. Change completely the method in the way I shoot: so that instead of shooting 500 frames and hoping for a good or interesting shot, I need to pick a specific subject and treat it like an individual project. I should pick a subject, and spend time in finding the best POV, the best lighting and set up for the shot I want. Treat it like it's own photo shoot. And shoot in 200 or less ISO whenever possible. (duh - Idiot)
B.) Then once I've taken the best shot possible I use all the editing tools available in Photoshop including sharpen(duh, - Idiot again) to get the best possible picture out of the details the camera has captured.
What your really telling me is I haven̢۪t put enough effort into taking pictures.........huh, I kinda see your point.
So here̢۪s what I̢۪m going to do, below is the two images. One prior to this post, and one after reading all your amazing advice including using sharpen more (duh) ;'). You tell me which is better.......(no brainer)
 
And I'm also going to go out and shoot this site again, spending time getting the best shot possible from this location. I'll then edit it and re uploading it for you to see. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 09:54:55 PM · #23 |
| marked improvement...good job...will look forward to your shots...always allow for some "experiment" time to play with f-stops and aperture...you will be amazed with those results...I am assuming from one of the posts that your not totally manual with your photos...make yourself become manual...you'll NEVER go back...just like you'll NEVER go back to just JPEG...it's to limiting. and with practice it become more and more natural to pick the camera up and start off right where you want to be...less experimenting. good luck |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 10:19:42 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
The other thing to understand is how key lighting is to every shot, to often I go out and shoot at the wrong time of day or try to compensate for poor lighting in PP and when you do that you lose a lot of detail. Starting with a good exposure and lighting makes everything go better. The quality of the glass is also key, when I started all my shots looked great, to me they looked really sharp and had detail but after a while I started to get a little better and see the difference in each lens and the level of detail I would get out of my better lenses. Those type images are really a combination of doing everything right from seeing the image, getting the good lighting, having good equipment and knowledge of how to get the most out of each shot and in some cases add in a little luck. |
You pretty much nailed it. The two keys are:
- Light Control
- Quality of Lens
Always use a lens hood especially when outdoors and when working with strobes use barn doors, flags or whatever you have available to keep the stray light from reaching the camera lens. It's amazing how much better the quality gets when you do this and how much more you can push afterwards in post.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2010 10:24:52 PM · #25 |
|
