Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: Exegeter on May 11, 2008, 11:22:40 am
-
Hi everyone
My gear came in on Thursday, and I used it for the first time yesterday in Yosemite (20D, Canon 70-200 f/4, Canon 17-55 IS). This was with the 17-55 at 17mm, f/16, iso 100, RAW, on the tripod. Cropped, but no other processing. I was expecting the quality to be better. Sharper, more detail.
Are there any immediate things you can see that can help me improve the quality I get in the future?
-
I can't judge quality from such a small sample, but two questions come to mind - one, did you take several of this image, and do all copies have the same qualities, and two, do you see problems occurring in some parts of the image more than others?
-
Hi Dale
Thanks for the response. What would be an ideal image size to post?
I took the same picture at f/4. My other images seem to have the same feel. No bad, per se, but the details aren't jumping out like I thought they would. You don't see much separation in the grass or leaves; and the lines of tree trunks, branches, and mountains don't seem very crisp. That's primarily what I'm looking at.
-
Hi everyone
My gear came in on Thursday, and I used it for the first time yesterday in Yosemite (20D, Canon 70-200 f/4, Canon 17-55 IS). This was with the 17-55 at 17mm, f/16, iso 100, RAW, on the tripod. Cropped, but no other processing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You need to do some sharpening. The Bayer matrix is, by is very nature, somewhat soft. You need to do some "capture sharpening", that is, some correction for the loss of sharpness due to the sensor.
In addition, at low shutter speeds, you should consider using the remote release or the camera's self-timer.
Alan
-
Hi Dale
Thanks for the response. What would be an ideal image size to post?
I took the same picture at f/4. My other images seem to have the same feel. No bad, per se, but the details aren't jumping out like I thought they would. You don't see much separation in the grass or leaves; and the lines of tree trunks, branches, and mountains don't seem very crisp. That's primarily what I'm looking at.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might want to do some basic reading on photography to get more details, but some first hints:
0. Shoot at the lowest possible ISO,
1. Use f9 (instead of f4 or f16) for ultimate detail,
2. Use with a tripod,
3. Use mirror lock up and a release cable,
4. Compose and choose your timing so as to have a main subject that stands out relative to the other elements of the scene, this will increase its preceived sharpness,
5. Learn about sharpening in relationship with your output media of choice,
6. Manage your expectations, the 20D is a good camera but its sharpeness per pixel is said to be middle of the road. In other words, images when viewed on screen at 100% might still lack a bit of crispiness even if you apply all of the above perfectly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks guys. I spent the afternoon yesterday reading about capture sharpening. My adjustments didn't make much of a difference. I did some comparison testing with my 70-200 f/4, and it was quite a bit more detailed (I set up a still life with lighting and swapped lenses).
I studied media and production in college, but it's been three years and I've been doing a lot of reading to refresh my mind. Sharpening was never a problem for me in Photoshop. I'm using Aperture now and don't even have Photoshop loaded on my computer. I still need to become familiar with sharpening methods in Aperture.
The images I've taken with a 17-40 were sharp sharp sharp, but I bought the 17-55 because it was supposed to have L lens elements and had the constant 2.8. I'm having a hard time believing my lens has the same image quality now.
BUT I know it's also quite possibly my inexperience with it.
-
any better??[attachment=6557:attachment]
-
The problem is that we can JUST see the mountains in the background, so your mind wonders what happened. It looks overexposed in the background and yet the foreground isn't... So it looks odd.
The main problem that I see is that you don't have a wide enough dynamic range with the sensor. Bracketing a couple of stops and blending it together, since it's a static image/scenery would be a good thing to try next time. This also gives you extra data/pictures to work with. You might find that one of the shots a couple of stops off is actually better than what the camera thought it should be doing.
-
The problem is that we can JUST see the mountains in the background, so your mind wonders what happened. It looks overexposed in the background and yet the foreground isn't... So it looks odd.
The main problem that I see is that you don't have a wide enough dynamic range with the sensor. Bracketing a couple of stops and blending it together, since it's a static image/scenery would be a good thing to try next time. This also gives you extra data/pictures to work with. You might find that one of the shots a couple of stops off is actually better than what the camera thought it should be doing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With such a small file, artifacts creep in. But there is some data in the blown out skys that is recoverable. While this shot is not a piece of art, it has some merit and blending exposures would help a lot. But what was the original scene like? It could have been hazy/overcast in which only a better day would help much,
The haze in distance is literal and can be used to effect.
lets dig out some mountains. ooopppps ignore the obvious flaw in upper left hand corner, I'd doing this at work while I'm rendering some video. For illustration only.
bob
[attachment=6559:attachment]
-
I appreciate the critiques, guys. I was hoping to have more prominent mountains, too. Yosemite is pretty hazey right now, but I'm happy with the literal rendering of the scene. And I'll need to look into a shutter release.
Bob, those are too sharp for me, but would you mind telling me your workflow? I watched Jeff Schewe run through PhotoKit sharpener in the Camera to Print tutorial, but it isn't released for Aperture at this point. Would the RAW file be helpful?
These are 20D shots that are nice and sharp. Getting to this quality of an image would make me very happy.
http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288 (http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288)
http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977 (http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977)
Hey thanks for the help, guys. It's a learning process!
-
At f/16 the diffraction is a serious factor. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is the sharpest between f/5.6 and f/8, but you have to work with smaller aperture for DoF. Perhaps f/11?
If you post the raw file, others can give it a try. We don't know, if the problem is in the raw image or in the processing.
-
I appreciate the critiques, guys. I was hoping to have more prominent mountains, too. Yosemite is pretty hazey right now, but I'm happy with the literal rendering of the scene. And I'll need to look into a shutter release.
Bob, those are too sharp for me, but would you mind telling me your workflow? I watched Jeff Schewe run through PhotoKit sharpener in the Camera to Print tutorial, but it isn't released for Aperture at this point. Would the RAW file be helpful?
These are 20D shots that are nice and sharp. Getting to this quality of an image would make me very happy.
http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288 (http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288)
http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977 (http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977)
Hey thanks for the help, guys. It's a learning process!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was running through some video editing while reading the site in rendering moments, so I didn't put a lot of effort, just the basics for illustration,
In this case
level horizon - left to right is slightly downslope
crop- to repair rotation
levels - the pixels were barbelled, all on the ends - move the mid slider left to open lower zones
curves - tweek image, mostly from zone VI down, highlights too hot
Saturation-just a touch of saturation until grass looks like grass to me
Sharpening- in this case I just hit PK (sharpening is somewhat an artform, learn to use all well)
Creative sharpening - hit grass and boardwalk with a superfine brush
done with #1 time less than 2 minutes
#2 - selected sky
curves with strong slope to create contrast to pull mountain out w/o touching rest of picture - lots of ways to do this. Included some trees in contrast boost.
Walkway makes it a picture to me vs. a snapshot, I like the line working through scene,
I would spend more time on boardswalk if the shot were mine, and I had some pixels to work with.
All of this is basic stuff, you'll get the hang of it. The key is to see what you want first and attempt to pull, "YOUR" vision out of the file.
No magic formula. I just wanted to illustrate for you there was potential in your file. I've been to Yosemite on days like this. I can personnally connect with the haze more than when is everything is crystal clear, though I've seen both. But the world doesn't need another photograph of yosemite in perfect conditions.
Bob
-
These are 20D shots that are nice and sharp. Getting to this quality of an image would make me very happy.
http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288 (http://www.pbase.com/image/88724288)
http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977 (http://www.pbase.com/image/89357977)
Hey thanks for the help, guys. It's a learning process!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You certainly set your bar high, these are beautiful, but they just didn't happen, lots of planning here, time of day, having proper weather, good solid platform, composition, nailed exposure, and understanding how to get best out of a good file are apparent to me.
It shows you the potential of the camera, the rest is up to you, its not easy and requires lots of learning/experience to pull of shots like this at will when nature complies with your desires. Just don't get discouraged and just move your craft forward through trial and error.
Best of luck.
Bob
-
... the details aren't jumping out like I thought they would. ...
Yet another victim of the 'equipment matters' cult.
-
Yet another victim of the 'equipment matters' cult.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is the beginners forum. Any suggestions for the individual?
-
Yet another victim of the 'equipment matters' cult.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm a woodworker---I build acoustic guitars. I can sharpen chisels and plane blades to the point that they can shave the hair off my arm. It's because I've learned good technique . . . and because I'm using the right stones. There's nothing wrong with wanting to start out with the right stuff.
I greatly appreciate your help, guys.
-
It shows you the potential of the camera, the rest is up to you, its not easy and requires lots of learning/experience to pull of shots like this at will when nature complies with your desires. Just don't get discouraged and just move your craft forward through trial and error.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Bob. You mean getting this my first time out is asking too much? j/k
-
Of course, by 'equipment", with digital, that means a lot of time learning software and how to tweak things.
-
Thanks, Bob. You mean getting this my first time out is asking too much? j/k
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hehe, only if your name is Weston, Caponigro, or .... and you've been gophering for dad for years.
You'll do ok, maybe great, it's all up to you. The limiting factor is you and your desire. I've been playing Martins out of the custom shop for years now. Not as well as my gifted son though. Though his tastes have gone Ugggg, electric!!!. Good training wasted......
Are you famous?
bob
-
Are you famous?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=195565\")
Haha, I wish. No, I'm not famous I build for myself, family, and friends. What's funny is that on my luthiery forum, we were just joking about the rap electric guitars have among acoustic lovers. I LOVE both. Oh I love both. Listen the intro of this you tube video, and if it isn't enough to show electric can be beautiful, I'll upload one of my own
[a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/kM4m7NMcBvk&hl=en]http://www.youtube.com/v/kM4m7NMcBvk&hl=en[/url]
I'd love to hear about your guitar. Tell me about the qualities you like.
-
The color is a bit ugly, but I took this with tonight's test group. Getting closer to the detail I want. f/2.8, handheld, iso 400.
-
Haha, I wish. No, I'm not famous I build for myself, family, and friends. What's funny is that on my luthiery forum, we were just joking about the rap electric guitars have among acoustic lovers. I LOVE both. Oh I love both. Listen the intro of this you tube video, and if it isn't enough to show electric can be beautiful, I'll upload one of my own
http://www.youtube.com/v/kM4m7NMcBvk&hl=en (http://www.youtube.com/v/kM4m7NMcBvk&hl=en)
I'd love to hear about your guitar. Tell me about the qualities you like.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Other than the obvious tone, sustain,yada-yada what i enjoyed was the action. Like many from my era, a Yamaha got me started, bleeding fingers, slow action, I got good enough to be taken under the wing by an older player. He helped me buy my first real guitar a used D-18 in nice condition. Never looked back.
I think the only guitar I regret no longer owning of was a HD-28 LSH (the Clar. White). I had a bunch of blue grass buddies who constantly badgered me about my folk roots (Seeger et al) and got me playing with them. I had to have the large sound hole according to them. It played in beautifully and gained the wonder patina. I gave it to my son for graduation from HS 5 years later. A year later, I noticed it missing. he swapped it for some electrical POS and amp of dubious pedigree. I was heartbroken.
enough already,
I've been thinking about what book I would recommend for you to put all the pieces together. Most are either too basic or to specialized. I may stop by B&N on the weekend and see if I can find something that stitches much of this together.
Maybe someone else reading this might have a suggestion.
[attachment=6581:attachment]
a bit underexposed which brings up noise in the OOF areas.
bob
-
I always like the Martin sound. I've been able to visit Richard Hoover's Santa Cruz Guitar Co. a few times, and I love what they're doing. Their guitars have that fundamental sound of a Martin with a complex blanket of overtones.
Thank you for looking for a book. I have the Photo Workshop book. I was under the impression that stopping down to f/16 would keep everything sharp and in focus. The look Michael routinely gets in his images is out of this world.
I've taken about 60 test shots with my 17-55, and the results are consistently like the ones I posted above. I've only been able to bring back so much accutance with Aperture. I'm sending the lens back, and I'm going to poke around with a 50mm 1.4 for a while.
-
Thank you for looking for a book. I have the Photo Workshop book. I was under the impression that stopping down to f/16 would keep everything sharp and in focus. The look Michael routinely gets in his images is out of this world.
I've taken about 60 test shots with my 17-55, and the results are consistently like the ones I posted above. I've only been able to bring back so much accutance with Aperture. I'm sending the lens back, and I'm going to poke around with a 50mm 1.4 for a while.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The size of the individual pixel on a sensor has a direct impact on the optimum aperture you can use for maximum sharpness.
F16 is softening your images and wasting what good qualities your lens offers you. A great lens is reduced to OK by defraction which is a function of the little hole created by the iris in the lens.
F5.6 or F8 is almost always where a lens peaks. Now Depth Of Field (DOF) is a function of aperture, so everything can be a little fuzzy but defined (F16/22), or what you focus on can be sharp with a little fuzzy in foreground and background (F5.6). This is a generalization, BTW.
Autofocus reduces thinking, for example where do i focus to get my subject in focus. If its a mountain, then it will focus at infinity at the exclusion of things closer. Manually pulling in the focus closer where the mountains are still sharp enough, but more of the foreground is sharp will possibly create a better picture.
Many will help here, do not be afraid to ask questions. The only absolute (except for occasional luck) is the camera will do an "excellent" job of giving you "mediocre" pictures, only you can capture truely excellent ones by understanding how to adjust.
You need to learn when and when not to trust the camera, and how to analyze your results to make adjustment to your technique.
Aperture is an excellent program, while I use CS3, quality results can be had from the Apple product.
I would not send your lens back just yet, it's likely just fine. I'm seeing more, exposure issues and possibly camera shake than any lack of lens quality.
I will look for a book.
Bob
-
Went to Barnes and Nobel on Sunday. While I visit the photography section frequently, I'm a stranger to the "digital" photo section. It looks like everyone and their brother has written a photography book. For beginner purposes, almost anyone would work. I would match up your experience honestly, with the small difference in emphasis of each author.
What I don't know is, how "beginner" you are.
Then it dawned on me that this site (LL) has tons of info in the form of tutorials, LL dvd/videos with much available for free.
My suggestion is get photography down first, learn about providing a solid platform, correct amount of DOF, good focus, good exposure settings. Do everything in manual at first. Examine your histogram for immediate feedback to exposure, carefully examine shots in editing for critical focus. Create a feedback loop. You will progress rapidly.
Its all about managing light.
How much is available is the first decision point,
then comes what has to be in focus (aperture/dof),
steadiness (shutter speed/tripod/hand hold techniques) and
managing film/sensor sensitivity (iso of film or sensor).
The mechanics are relatively easy.
Please don't get hung up on the digital stuff until you have the fundamentals of photography down. If you want, shoot jpegs with in camera setting that fit your taste. Raw and raw conversion just adds another layer of complexity at first.
With the ability to get a good technical exposure, the most important comes next = what you point the camera at. Really to get a good photograph, this comes first. Composition, etc.
My recommendation is start with LL tutorials, then pay Michael and Chris for their videos.
Bob
-
Thanks, Bob.
I have VJ's 1-12, and now 15-17, the Lightroom tutorial, and From Camera to Print. I haven't gotten through the tutorials quite yet. I enjoy the VJ's, but I don't think their purpose is explicit teaching. Their purpose for me is more inspirational. Like periodical journals, it's like a pseudo-dialogue for people who already have the technical experience---and this is good. I enjoy them.