LOOK & EXPLAIN

[mdaddyrabbit]

Take a look at these photos and tell me why no matter what I do when taking photos why my dont look clear, sharp, they always look a little fuzzy or not sharp enough. I get really disappointed with my work even though I am a newbee with the DSLR. http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/10617184066.jpg&s=x2

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/10617181843.jpg&s=x2

[CappuccinoDavid]

Where is the picture???

[eastcoast909]

They don't look too bad, the depth of field seems to be very shallow though.

What are your aperature settings and what distance are you from you subject?

If you have a very large aperature then you depth of field will be very shallow and even a flower's petals might seem to be out of focus compared to the spot where you are focusing at.

[CappuccinoDavid]

Oh I see them now...
Yes I agree with eastcoast909

[mdaddyrabbit]

I actually had aperaure set to the highest, I think I am confused and backards with this aperature setting.

[LadyHawk]

Even with a wide aperture setting, your focus points should appear sharp. Are you shooting in raw or jpeg? Raw files need a good dose of post-process sharpening as they are naturally soft. Also, if you are using the 18-55 kit lens, I don't think it's the right choice for macro-type shots. I'm learning too - this is just my 2 cents and I hope it helps.

[khtwo]

Well, the low depth of field is what I'm look forward because I'm currently using a DC but not a DSLR. :)

[jfrancho]

Aperture value is the divisor (bottom number) in a fraction. like f4, or 4.0 is 1/4 stops of light. A smaller aperture value (say, 3.5) then means large aperture, or higher aperture value (11) means small aperture. Try this trick, take your 18-55 and set the camera in Av mode. Set the aperture to 22. Now take off the lens cap and peer straight into the lens. Now press and hold the Depth of Field Preview button. You should see the blades close like an iris of an eye. Now set the aperture valu to 3.5, and repeat. A much bigger opening this time. Just remeber, low aperture value, big iris, fast shutter speed, narrow depth of field. High aperture, smaller iris, slower shutter speed, greater depth of field. Now go take some pictures of the same thing with different settings so you can see how this new knowledge works. Then post the nice ones for us to see.

[jfrancho]

Are you shooting in raw or jpeg? Raw files need a good dose of post-process sharpening as they are naturally soft. Also, if you are using the 18-55 kit lens, I don't think it's the right choice for macro-type shots. I'm learning too - this is just my 2 cents and I hope it helps.I disagree. I think the maligned kit lens gets a bad rap. Yeah, it has the biuld quality of a PEZ dispensor and is almost impossible to manual focus, but I've taken some sharp pics with it. The first was shot in jpeg/fine with no post processing. I think I shot wide open, f3.5 or whatever the kit lens let open it up to. The second was a much higher aperture value, maybe f/15+, can't remember; shot in raw and converted and cropped in ps, but no extra processing after the conversion. The last was shot raw with TONS of sharpening and color correction. At any rate, these don't really demonstrate my point above about aperture and DOF, but they do show that the kit lens is capable of quasi-macro or up really close pics.

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/14555265-S.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/16037586-S.jpg

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/16647393-S.jpg

[mdaddyrabbit]

I touched it up with a couple of programs, does this make it any better or does it make it worse. http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/10706062326.jpg&s=x2

[jimsolt]

It made it a whole lot bigger.

Jim

[bennyboy]

It made it a whole lot bigger.

Jim

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not very easy to tell how much difference there is when it's that big.

[jfrancho]

I took the liberty of saving this and resizing to a viewable dimension because I do think it is a slight improvement over the original, although I think you could get a better shot using a higher aperture setting and a flash.

[mdaddyrabbit]

Thanks for the resizing and also thanks to everyone for the helpful advice. I am trying really hard to get this stuff in my head to the point I can become a advanced amatuer.

[LadyHawk]

I disagree. I think the maligned kit lens gets a bad rap. Yeah, it has the biuld quality of a PEZ dispensor and is almost impossible to manual focus, but I've taken some sharp pics with it.

Whoops! I wasn't picking on the kit lens.:-| I have always been under the impression wide angle lenses were best for landscape photography, zoom and especially macro lenses were best for macro photography. Is this not true?

My other point, about raw images needing sharpening, is a valid one. Check out this site for some good video tutorials: http://photoworkshop.com/canon (Tips and Techniques > Sharpening Raw Images)

[jfrancho]

Whoops! I wasn't picking on the kit lens.:-| I have always been under the impression wide angle lenses were best for landscape photography, zoom and especially macro lenses were best for macro photography. Is this not true?

My other point, about raw images needing sharpening, is a valid one. Check out this site for some good video tutorials: http://photoworkshop.com/canon (Tips and Techniques > Sharpening Raw Images)Awww, it's OK! I don't do very much landscape photography, but I'd assume you're correct. I use wide angle lenses due to my proximity of the subject. I don't have room to back up, and if I could, I can't shoot through people. So I go wide.

As far as macro lenses for macro photography, yes, they are more suited, since that's what they were designed for. However, if you can get it focus, and compose a meaningful shot, why not pull the trigger?

I am a bass fisherman. I have a small arsenal of bass tackle. Sometimes, when the weather is nice, I use that tackle to fish for trout. Sometimes I catch a beauty with it. Catch my drift?

I guess I was only considering sharpening as used in post processing, such as USM on the lightness channel. Since I do all my sharpening before I process the raw (actually it occurs during processing, but anyhow) into 16 bit tiff, I guess I was overlooking that part of my workflow since it's just innate now. So, yes, raws need sharpening.

[mdaddyrabbit]

I was wondering how do I attach photos on this page such as jfrancho (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=23749) vbmenu_register("postmenu_501956", true); did with mine?

[jfrancho]

Staright from the FAQ, using "upload attachment":

What Are Attachments?
The administrator may allow you to use the attachment feature of this forum, which gives you the ability to attach files of certain types to your posts. This could be an image, a text document, a zip file etc. There will be a limit to the file size of any attachments you make, as the forums should not be used as an extension of your hard disk!

To attach a file to a new post, simply click the [Browse] button at the bottom of the post composition page, and locate the file that you want to attach from your local hard drive.

Only certain types of files may be attached: these are the valid file extensions for files to be attached to this forum: gif jpeg jpg pdf png txt zip.

After posting, the attachment will show up in the body of your message. To view the contents of the attachment (if it is not already displayed) simply click the filename link that appears next to the attachment icon .