quick question

[jsimpson06]

i was just wondering why everyones pictures are so vivid and clear. if its your lens or your camera. i have a canon xti and my pictures aren't always like that. is it post processing?

[cfcRebel]

Many factors contribute to what you described. Some lens is more capable of producing nice color contrast than the other, but that's only part of the solution. Lighting is also important, and the control of exposure. And finally, digital darkroom could make a good photo great.

[eddarr]

As said, there are a lot of things that contribute, technique and practice are probably most important. Usually, I would say do not blame your equipment. However, I will say that they two kit lenses in your sig are notorious for poor image quality. Especially the 75-300. Get rid of those lenses and get something that will give you a sharp picture when you do everything else right. It's very frustrating to do your part correctly and still end up with soft pictures.

[Damo77]

There's a few things that you MUST get right while taking the shot, eg:
- Focus
- Composition
- Depth of field

There's also a few things you should get right while taking the shot, eg:
- Exposure
- White balance

... but in the end it comes down to the post-processing, to make the difference between a good photo and a "wow!" photo.

[jsimpson06]

are there any lenses you suggest?

[eddarr]

How much money your got. Just kidding. It's not all about spending big money. It's just that those two are really bad. Some people have gotten good copies but it's rare. Spend some time in the lens forum. There is a ton of info in there.

A couple of suggestions.
50mm f/1.8 for $80 new this is the best bang for your buck.
85mm f1.8 highly regarded as the best non-L image quality. $325
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - really good walk around lens. $300 from the for sell forum all day long.
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS good range with image stabilization
24-70 f2.8L about $900 used but great lens
70-200 f2.8L about $1000 used but even better lens

Edit: remember though that none of these lenses will improve a poorly exposed or composed picture. It's still up to you.

[jsimpson06]

id have to get one of the first few. if i were to sell my 70-300 how much do you think i could get? if anything lol

[PhotosGuy]

However, I will say that they two kit lenses in your sig are notorious for poor image quality. Granted the kit lens isn't great, but it's not that terrible, either.
Post your best shots from the "kit lens"-EF-S 18-55 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522)

[eddarr]

I understand and have seen many great pictures from the 18-55, I have yet to see a good picture from the 75-300. But I have also read many very negative reviews and have a hard drive full of pics to prove it. I finally gave up on mine. As I learned more and was able to do my part it got better but not good enough. I really tried to commit to it but it always let me down. It was fine for images that were from some distance and that didn't contain a lot of detail. Anything close up or detailed and the softness just killed the whole thing. And I'm not a pixel peeper, this was even with 8x10 prints. It just is embarrassing when I would reach for the Nifty when I wanted better IQ.

I am going to repeat some things that are important.
1. Spending money will not guarantee better pictures. It may improve the image quality but it will not fundamentally improve the overall picture.
2. You don't have to break the bank to get good glass. There are good deals all around.

[dirt lover]

Can you post a few pics so we can possibly get a better idea?

[Nouks]

Lighting, right settings (incl. WB)... It depends on a lot of things. PPing does a lot aswell, few photos are most optimal right from the camera. Do you do any adjustments to your photos afterwards?

[jsimpson06]

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc181/jessicasimpson06/photography/l_97da5a5438db650189fbf94a6139095a.jpg


This is a picture I took of my daughter on Easter with my 75-300. When I PP I just adjust some curves, brightness/contrast and sharpness. and I shoot in RAW.

[eddarr]

Can you tell us what the shutter speed, aperture and iso where for this?

[Nouks]

Try doing some more PPing. I just tried some curves/levels (and bit more red in it) and it will be a really nice colorful photo. So I guess it's just other people maybe being more "advanced" in PPing ;)

(I can post my correction/version later if you like?)

[jsimpson06]

f/4.5
1/400
ISO 200

[jsimpson06]

yea, could you post the one you edited?

[eddarr]

The sweet spot for the kit lenses is supposed to be between f/5.6 and f/11 for the sharpest aperture. 1/400 at 70mm should be fast enough to stop motion and camera shake. You might try taking some test shots of the same detailed item at different apertures to see what is sharpest. Try also comparing pic's from the 18-55 with the 70-300, the 18-55 should be sharper by default. Otherwise it is a picture of an absolutely darling little girl.

Softness I see in the image is most likely due to the quality of the lens. And what you are probably comparing it to is some of the really nice portrait/wedding photos you see. Again, it's not ok to blame everything on your equipment. Your technique and ability have to be up to the task. But your technique and ability will quickly outgrow the kit lenses. Sorry

[Nouks]

There you go:

http://www.anouktimmerman.nl/crap/jsimpson06.jpg

Just a quick try, might even be better possibly ;)

[jsimpson06]

do you use DPP for PP? or another program?

[Nouks]

I use DPP/PS CS3/Lightroom. This was a quick fix in Photoshop. You should be able to do this in DPP aswell.

[eddarr]

That edit definitely helps. It improves the lighting and color on her face.

[jsimpson06]

well then thats one of my biggest problems then. cause i cant get mine to look like Gebruikersnaams.

[Nouks]

I'll post you some detailed screenshots tomorrow ;)

[jsimpson06]

thank you :)

[Nouks]

What do you prefer, DPP or Photoshop?

[erthpro]

Do you have the 70-300 or the 75-300? The 70-300 is capable of producing very good images.

[jsimpson06]

i use both, dpp and photoshop.

i have the 70-300

[cfcRebel]

This is a picture I took of my daughter on Easter with my 75-300. When I PP I just adjust some curves, brightness/contrast and sharpness. and I shoot in RAW.Very cute daughter you have. When i first looked at the photo, i immediately thought of Schmoelzel's tutorial http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95468. You have to take a look :). As you can see, Julia was a tad underexposed in the original photo and there was slight blue cast which is similar to your daughter's photo above.
I hope this tutorial gives you some pointer. Good luck.