Frustrated Photo-dork needs Advice Badly

[Aristophanes]

From the sample shots you posted I have one word of advice:

Tripod

Only the last put with the uneven horizon is evidently handheld. The others show distinct hallmarks of tripod use.

 

[colyn]

Since you have not posted any of your own photos it is difficult to determine just what your problem might be.

You say your images are not sharp... Could it be you aren't holding the camera steady?? Try a tripod and carefully compose..

If you are judging your work by the inkjet prints you make you'll never be satisfied.. Have them printed by a photo service that uses chemical process printing.. I've done mine both ways and the inkjet prints get blown away by the photo chemical processed ones..

 

[redisburning]

Did you read the OP's list of cameras?

"D50, D40, Rebel XSI, Rebel T3, D70, Lumix G1, Lumix G2, D5000, LX-5, DRebel, D1H, FZ30"

I don't know the capabilities of all these cameras, but I'm sure a handful of them are capable of getting the shots he posted as examples. So he does not need to change the tool.

At this point, we're all speculating what the problem is since the OP hasn't posted his own images. If he did, I agree with the shimokita and ChrisP that it would help pinpoint the problems.

well you know, here is what he said:

I can't seem to make good, sharp photos come out of mine.

I've tried about 12 different cameras over the last 5 years and all were mostly disappointing for one reason or another and try as I might with Lightroom and Picasa I can't get them to do what I want. My frustration is at an all time high and I'm feel like never using a camera again. My latest experiment is m4/3rd with a G2 but even at ISO 400 there seems to be a ton of noise and this sensor seems to have about half the dynamic range of slide film.

I'm not an idiot, I know how to take picture, I've been doing it for years. I know have a nice Mac, software, and an Epson R2880 so I have to tools to produce great prints. I've bought prints from Lenswork and they use the same paper and same ink set (in a larger format printer) and I LOVE what I see but I can't seem to get my equipment to do this

so let's see:

1. he cant get sharp pictures

well you know, someone who has been taking pictures for more than a month on a dSLR probably can get what the average person would call sharp just by shooting at f8 in the middle of the day.

but when you look closely, you are likely to be exceptionally disappointed. when I looked at my dSLR camera's output for the first time in PS I thought it wasnt sharp either. because honestly, it's not. which camera that he posted is noted for it's pixel level sharpness, exactly?

2. he thinks the dynamic range is not good enough on m4/3

like I said, you cant magically make more DR appear. he is losing shots because his highlights are blown or his shadows are blocked that in the past he didnt have trouble getting on slide film.

3. other prints look fine, his dont.

well that's probably post processing.

he came here to ask for advice in how to improve the technical quality of his images and most people responded by telling him he sucks at making pictures and he should ignore image quality and focus on making his pictures more "interesting". to me, that qualifies someone as a dick.

the guy may take pictures of his cats all day. I do. doesnt mean I am asking an invalid question if I want my cats to be drawn at 200 lp/mm. OP wants his pictures to look good beyond the subject matter; how is this not ok? I know some people buy a Summilux ASPH to shoot on expired neopan 1600 but subjecting yourself to poor IQ for any other reason than because you like it is not benefiting yourself, it's being emo.

and then you accuse me of not reading the post. right. I see. It is with some irony that I observe that nearly every time I point out someone completely missed the point of the OP that someone has to question whether or not I actually read it. I can assure you that I read it, afterall I have nothing better to do as I have no life.

now, to the OP:

if you want results that are sharp at 100% on a digital camera I don't know what to tell you. The current generation of full frame cameras are quite good and the newest generation of smaller sensor cameras that is slowly making its way out looks like a major improvement too (OM-D, fuji x-pro 1, etc).

but you could just shoot medium format slide and scan it. but in the end that takes post processing effort just like digital does. although I have to say that I do quite like Raw Therapee's presets.

 

[konicaman]

As for sharpness - do you shoot RAW? I have yet to see a jpg file from a dSLR than is really sharp at pixel level. Post processing is essential when shooting digital. When shooting RAW you will get much sharper results as well as being able to tweak the shadows and highlights.

That being said, I admit that I am usually too lazy to do much post processing unless I have to make some really large prints - but that's just me 🙄

 

[NLewis]

Most any digital camera should be fine. Even a point-and-shoot.

I'd start with a typical APS-C SLR camera, like a Nikon D90 or D5000. Use any Nikon lens. Shoot at f/5.6 or f/8. Put it on a tripod. ISO should be the base ISO (usually 200). This will provide more than enough sharpness for anything up to 12x18 or so, but I would print at 8x10 or 8x12. In-camera jpg at FINE setting is all you need. Keep in-camera tweaks like contrast, saturation etc. at normal. Adjust white balance as appropriate, daylight for daylight, shade for shade etc.

EDIT: apparently the OP has a Panasonic G2 with a kit zoom. That is fine too. Use it at base ISO (probably ISO100), aperture-priority and around f/5.6-f/8, to start with. There will be a little more noise than with a larger sensor, but that is probably irrelevant, especially in smaller prints of around 8x10.

Later, you can drop the tripod in strong light, but I suggest trying it a few times to start. A lot of low-level blur is due to camera shake or too-slow shutter speed, so it is good to get an idea of what the camera is capable of when used on a tripod.

Use the regular autoexposure, or, if you want to get a little more complicated, use "expose to the right" techniques with the histogram.

Most jpegs are a little bland straight out of the camera. In post-processing, adjust contrast, black point, saturation etc. to taste but usually only a LITTLE simple slider adjustment is enough. (Most people like more contrast than regular jpegs offer.) Sharpening is probably not necessary unless you are enlarging to 12x18 or larger.

That is pretty much what the camera does. Everything else is up to you -- including composing scenes with appropriate lighting. Your sample photos have rather flat light and moderate contrast, so you might search that out.

I would suggest sending out for some simple c-prints. I use Adoramapix.com. You might have to adjust your contrast, saturation etc. to get good results from this. Prints never look like the screen. I think I would just use someone like Adoramapix for maybe a year, tweaking your results until you get the look you want on the print. You might have to print the same photo twenty times. (For color, contrast etc experiments, you don't need more than a 4x6, which costs $0.28.)

 

[sevo]

. which camera that he posted is noted for it's pixel level sharpness, exactly?

Any of the 6MP Nikons he's gone through should do well enough in that regard. Pixel sharpness is a bit more frustrating on higher resolution cameras as it takes ever heavier tripods to eliminate pixel scale shake...

2. he thinks the dynamic range is not good enough on m4/3

like I said, you cant magically make more DR appear. he is losing shots because his highlights are blown or his shadows are blocked that in the past he didnt have trouble getting on slide film.

Which is a bit hard to believe. Reversal film isn't exactly the king of dynamic range - at identical sensitivity settings, no MFT camera (the format being reasonably new) will have a worse DR than common "vivid colour" consumer reversal film.

3. other prints look fine, his dont.

well that's probably post processing.

If everything is fine on the computer, but not in print, I'd first of all check my screen calibration, and if that is fine, try another print service.

he came here to ask for advice in how to improve the technical quality of his images and most people responded by telling him he sucks at making pictures and he should ignore image quality and focus on making his pictures more "interesting". to me, that qualifies someone as a dick.

To me, that qualifies that someone as experienced - most of us have gone through passages of dissatisfaction which we blamed on the gear. An entire industry lives off it...

If you have thrown hardware worth a five digit figure (and known to deliver, in other hands) at a problem and still have no satisfying results, it is pretty safe to assume that it is not merely a matter of insufficient hardware.

 

[russelljtdyer]

My Rude Response

My Rude Response

Here's my somewhat brutally honest response. I'm sorry if I assume wrongly or if I sound rude. I hope that the harshness will provide you with better results.

You're trying to buy your way into better photography. You're blaming the equipment for your shortcomings. I've seen terrible photos from excellent cameras, which were operated by bad photographers; and I've seen excellent photos from good photographers with cheap cameras. In your job, if you had a subordinate who is a poor web designer, what would think if he said to you, "If the company would buy me a Mac Pro with four Cinema monitors strung together and 32gb of RAM, I could be an awesome developer?"

Focus on the essentials of photography: composition and exposure. Then increase your repetition; sheer numbers can lead to lucky photos--delete the crappy ones and show off the good ones. Do you think that every photo that Henri Cartier-Bresson (or whomever you admire) took was a keeper? Stop worrying about post-processing. It's better to have a good photo with which to start, than to fix it later on your computer. The better the original, the better the final version.

Stop indulging in self-photographic pity. You're looking at fabulous, picturesque photos and getting disgusted with your abilities. Be proud of what you do, no matter how much you think badly of it: you're probably much better than people who go on vacation and take pictures only with their iPhone. Sometimes look back at older photos you took and compare them to more current shots to see how much you've improved. But don't compare your shots to the best photos you can find from others.

If you want to learn about how to take good photos, look at bad ones that other people took--not yours in comparison to great photos. You'll improve plenty from learning what not to do. It's easier to criticize others (as I'm doing here) and less depressing--it gives you a more critical judgement without losing hope for your own efforts. As you figure out what not to do, you'll stop taking terrible shots and you'll occasionally get some you like. Post those good ones on this site to show off. Then you'll feel better about your abilities and your confidence will grown, which will lead to more good shots.

Finally, stop talking about it; stop looking outwardly for what is essentially first something which is inward. And stop deflecting each suggestion with an excuse: Someone here (notraces) said, to use any camera, one camera for a year. You said in response, 'yes, but which camera?" Stop that. The correct answer to his comment would have been something like, "good point. I need to get back to basics and stick with one camera and know it well so that I can learn to see the things I'm photographing and not be distracted by the tool I'm using." I've read that Henri Cartier-Bresson had one Leica film camera and one 50mm lens for most of his career. He had no obsession with photography equipment. His camera was like a best friend, his traveling companion. He did just fine.

If you want a concrete suggestion on equipment, though, I suggest like others here that you go with film. It'll force you to think about what you're doing when you photograph since you won't have an LCD screen to distract you. Get a used Leica CL camera for $500 from KEH.com and buy a used Zeiss ZM f/2 5omm lens (in the spirit of Cartier-Bresson) for about $650 (check KEH, B&H Photo, Adorama, or Pop Flash Photo)--you'll look cool using them. Also, get a small digital tape recorder to note your settings for each shot, or just write the settings on a piece of paper--it's tedious but it will help later when you review your shots. Shoot a roll of film every weekend if you can afford it. Get it developed on a CD with the highest resolution you can get. Skip the prints to save the money--the prints will only irritate you anyway. You can print at home the one photo that comes out good and put it on your refrigerator to remind you that you can take good pictures.

That's my two cents, which aren't worth a dime.

-Russell

 

[btgc]

How do we define sharp picture - looking at downsized image or at crop? Latter almost always look terribly, you can try peeping at your GF's/wife's face with magnifying lass. See? Her face looks terribly. Wait, do not replace your wife yet! Now step back a meter and look now by naked eye. It's much, much nicer now!

 

[Roger Hicks]

My advice several posts back was not entirely flippant. It's easiest to take pictures you like with a camera you like, and also, with a camera where you can be reasonably confident that if you can't get pictures you like, it's probably your fault rather than the camera's. Hence the advice to get an M9.

But maybe we're looking in the wrong place. Forget the camera. Think about the lens. When I put Zeiss primes on my lowly, ancient, 6-megapixel Nikon D70, it was like getting a new camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

Get a used Leica CL camera for $500 from KEH.com and buy a used Zeiss ZM f/2 5omm lens (in the spirit of Cartier-Bresson) for about $650

Do one really can tell difference between small prints (what we normally end up with) made by this ^^^ setup and $40 fixed lens rangefinder?

I am not against Leica, Zeiss or >$100 50mm primes, mind you - just asking 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

... well, print photography breaks down into a number of steps it always depends if the camera is the weakest link in the chain, I agree it probably isn't in this case

 

[doolittle]

In fairness to the Original Poster I think it is no harm questing your photographic process from time to time. Maybe though focus your thoughts on what are the specific areas that are bugging you. Break the problems down into their component parts and look at them separately. Write them down, keep notes! For example printing - look at each step in process: the raw picture, processing, screen calibration, printer settings, inks you are using, paper you are using, the printer profile for that paper, the light you are viewing the print. The raw picture - is there a problem with noise/camera shake/lighting of the scene/length of exposure and movement causes by wind etc. Is it the camera (ergonomics/size/familiarity with controls) or lens that is the limiting factor or is it something else?

 

[kbg32]

Everyone here is working quite hard. As said before, if the OP posted some images, maybe that would make some things clearer.

 

[dave lackey]

Three pages of discussions about why the OP's images "are terrible", and not one has been posted so far?

Ummm... everyone has been working hard all right but me thinks something is amiss here. Pics please.😛

 

[htimsdj]

I want to comment because I feel I have been in the same situation the original poster is in. I started out taking pictures in 2005 with a Nikon D70. I was frustrated I wasn't getting great photographs. I bought other lenses. I got a D300. I got 2.8 glass. I got a tripod (how stupid was I to get the tripod so late ..). I got an Epson 3800. I got a colorimeter. I was fed up an almost done with photography. But I didn't stop because I was starting to get some good results.

I don't know how it happened, but I picked up a film body to use with my Nikon kit. I started enjoying it more. The results were different, but I was okay with that. I have gone through a bit of the same equipment searching with film, but I have settled upon a few M bodies and a 4x5 kit. I also have a Rolleiflex, but that is more a curiosity right now.

I am not suggesting you use film, nor any of the equipment I used. I am suggesting you work more at it. Examine the photographs you like and figure out what you are doing wrong. Hint: Its not the camera.

Common theme among what you posted in the first post: soft, edge of day, lighting. Cranked up colors. For-web sharpening. As others have said, if you want to take post card photos, go ahead. Learn to be the best at it.

I suggest you look at your archive of your own photographs and find the ones you like. What are you good at now? Try to be better at that. Find your way rather than someone else's.

 

[zvos1]

none of those 12 cameras are bad, I've seen amazing photos taken with each of those. I don't think buying a new camera is an answer. We need to know more about OP's workflow and see some pics, otherwise we are wasting our time.

 

[jmooney]

Ok, Ok, Ok, pics are coming in a few minutes, I posted this right before I had dinner and went to bed, I'm not trying to pull a fast one here or anything I was just asleep.

 

[dave lackey]

Ok, Ok, Ok, pics are coming in a few minutes, I posted this right before I had dinner and went to bed, I'm not trying to pull a fast one here or anything I was just asleep.

Super! I think you will find that the comments will narrow in scope as they become more focused. And I think you may be surprised at some of the comments... can't wait to see them.🙂

 

[jmooney]

Two I had handy from yesterday.

This one has a lot of noise in it:


P1010017 by jmooney776, on Flickr

More noise and when I tried to bring up the exposure it got noisier. Same happened with sharpening. This was shot in open bright shade.


P1010024 by jmooney776, on Flickr

I've printed both of these at 8x8 and I can say that the prints match what you see above.

More thoughts coming in next post...

 

[btgc]

I do not see any noise there. They are clean digital-looking images. Am I alone?