Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 16 Jan 2014 (Thursday) 20:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Poor Image Quality

 
Pagman
THREAD ­ STARTER
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,504 posts
Gallery: 1806 photos
Likes: 7800
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jan 17, 2014 22:16 |  #76

I am not gonna start to make picture taking an obsession, ok its a hobby but im not going to go out at dawn or dusk just to lay on the floor when its pooring with rain to get that sun setting against a rain cloud or sun rissing, i would rather have my beauty sleep, i would however make use of the beautiful winter atmosphere to get better lighting and even see how far i can push my camera with a sunlit plane pulling a nice sunlit trail,and hope 400iso and all them noise dots that break up fine detail of something so small, dont wreck my picture too mutch......"I wish"


P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 343
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 17, 2014 22:18 |  #77

Im going to say its the person behind the camera, not the equipment holding you back.


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,296 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 3560
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Jan 17, 2014 22:25 |  #78

I have a hard time believing that you have nothing more interesting where you live than the shots you posted.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bumpintheroad
Self-inflicted bait
Avatar
1,650 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 334
Joined Oct 2013
Location: NJ, USA
     
Jan 17, 2014 22:57 |  #79

Cameras don't take good pictures. Photoshop doesn't take good pictures. Photographers take good pictures, and they take them regardless of what camera or software they use. Look at people that shoot only Holga, or Polaroid, or pinhole; they all learn to work within their equipment's limitations to create the effect they like.

Creative photography is about developing your mind to and eye to recognize the potential for images that create an emotional response, tell a story, and then work the camera, angles and lighting to recreate that vision on film (in digital memory now). It is a creative, artistic, visual process first, and a technical process second. If you aren't excited by what you see before you capture the image, you won't be excited by what you see once you get home. Some people have a natural talent, others need to work at it. Read books on composition, exposure, perspective, lighting. Take lots of photos, compare them to other photos you like of similar subjects, determine what you could do differently with the camera, position, perspective, composition to improve. Go back and reshoot, compare, reshoot again. If you live in a remote area, save up and go someplace on holiday where you can take a workshop.

You complain about lack of subjects, but there's an endless world of subjects to explore. A bowl of fruit, a piece of cheese, a bottle of wine and a camera. Shoot until the all are consumed except the camera. A flower, a leaf, a coin, a watch, a particularly gnarly tree or post. A single drop of water or milk. Tools stacked in a toolbox. Cat sleeping in the glow of a single beam of light. Barbie dolls, transformer toys, a study of different colors and textures of rocks and soil, muddy boots, a puddle of water under a rain-drenched slicker. A calf feeding off its mother, the industrial quality of a milking operation. Sheep sheering. A solitary horse galloping. A farmer setting out at sunrise or returning home at sunset. Laundry on a line, blowing in a breeze. We know you have hills, hills, and more hills, but also scenic vistas, farmland, old churches and graveyards, clear open sky. The problem is looking at things in a new way, turning the mundane and commonplace into something that makes a statement.

Shoot more, process less. Although I don't necessarily agree with abandoning RAW, shooting RAW+JPEG will take the worry of post-processing out of the equation and allow you to focus on the fundamentals. When you've mastered, or at least improved the creative and camera end of photography, then you can work on refining your images with post processing.


-- Mark | Gear | Flickr (external link) | Picasa (external link) | Youtube (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Image editing is okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,055 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3421
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Jan 17, 2014 23:07 |  #80

Pagman wrote in post #16614598 (external link)
. . . trying to take a pic of a plane at several miles up, traveling across my path from distant-overhead-distant again . . .

. . . another well shot subject is birds . . . tiny little things flying several hundred feet up . . .

. . . a buzzard (bird of prey) normally flying at several thousand feet - yes thosand feet - I've not seen one in nearly a year any closer or lower than that. . .

. . . everything, and I mean everything, were I live that is interesting is far away . . .

Pagman,

Now that you have explained the distances involved in your photography, your frustrations with poor image quality make more sense. Air is not empty - it has a lot of stuff in it. Water vapor (even in a dry climate). Dust. And heat distortion (even on cold, below-freezing days).

The more air there is between you and your subjects, the more dust and water vapor is in the way. The problem is not only the particles themselves, but the fact that each particle has sunlight reflecting off of it in the form of glare. With "miles", or "thousands of feet" of air between you and your buzzards and airplanes, that means there are, literally, millions and millions of particles of water vapor and dust between your sensor and the airplane, or buzzard. There is no gear in the world that will get you clear, sharply detailed photos from those distances - not unless you could create a vacuum to shoot in.

The devastating effects of heat distortion are often underrated. It is particularly troublesome on clear, sunny days, even in sub-zero temperatures. A couple months ago, I was photographing Whitetail Deer. We had a stretch of sunny weather, and for several days in a row, no one could get an acceptable photo between 10:30am and 2:30pm. It was cold - well below freezing, even during those mid-day hours. And there were times that the deer were only about 30 yards away. Yet the heat distortion completely ruined all of the photos anyone took, even with only 30 or 40 yards of air between our sensors and the subjects. Imagine just how impossible it is to get a good clear image when you have thousands of feet between your gear and the subject!

I think that if you found ways to photograph these subjects at much, much closer distances you would get much better results. But getting closer would mean that you would have to drive to the airport to photograph the planes when they are taking off and landing. Or that you would have to set out bait for the buzzards, and photograph them when they finally come in to see what you put out for them. Driving to the airport might take you hours and hours. Sitting in a small camo blind waiting for buzzards to fly close might mean days and days of waiting. You have said that you are unwilling to invest much effort into your photographic ventures. Unfortunately, unless you are willing to invest such time and effort, you will probably not be able to take photos that are "stunning", and that exhibit the excellent image quality that you seem to kind of want.

Maybe you could take photos of other things - things that are much closer. And be sure to do so when the light is at its best - early in the morning or in the evening, on sunny days. And when shooting in such conditions, try to make sure that you are shooting with the sun at your back, so that the subject is evenly illuminated. This soft, even light, photographed from the "classic" position, should give you a chance at nice, sharp, clear, noise-free, contrasty images that exhibit excellent image quality. The available subjects may be boring to you, but at least you will start to see what great photos your gear is capable of.

Once you start to get truly excellent image quality, you will see that it is the conditions that you are shooting in that are giving you that great IQ. Then, when you do get some bad photos, you will realize that it was the conditions that caused the results to be bad - not your gear, not your settings, and not your perceived lack of post processing skills.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bumpintheroad
Self-inflicted bait
Avatar
1,650 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 334
Joined Oct 2013
Location: NJ, USA
     
Jan 17, 2014 23:09 |  #81

Pagman wrote in post #16614632 (external link)
I am not gonna start to make picture taking an obsession, ok its a hobby but im not going to go out at dawn or dusk just to lay on the floor when its pooring with rain to get that sun setting against a rain cloud or sun rissing, i would rather have my beauty sleep, i would however make use of the beautiful winter atmosphere to get better lighting and even see how far i can push my camera with a sunlit plane pulling a nice sunlit trail,and hope 400iso and all them noise dots that break up fine detail of something so small, dont wreck my picture too mutch......"I wish"


P.

Then it's not clear to me what you're complaining about. You have images that seem to faithfully capture what the camera was pointed at. If you are simply concerned with noise then buy a D800. If you want tighter images of birds and planes, save up for a 400/2.8 and a 1.4X TC.


-- Mark | Gear | Flickr (external link) | Picasa (external link) | Youtube (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Image editing is okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silma
Senior Member
Avatar
489 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 49
Joined Jul 2012
Location: italy
     
Jan 18, 2014 01:10 as a reply to  @ bumpintheroad's post |  #82

Just my humble opinion:
Get a monopod, at least. If you shoot handheld at 300 mm you should use at least 1/500sec shuttervspeed to avoid camera shake.


my flickr (external link)

my dreamstime (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,019 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
Jan 18, 2014 03:47 |  #83

Pagman wrote in post #16613665 (external link)
Here is another one just shot while out for a walk, again another quick pas shot.

This I suspect is your trouble. There are many magnificent photographers on here and comparing your ( or my ) pictures to theirs, can be deflating. If you're like me, you're probably comparing what you describing as a snapshot, to pictures others have sourced on Google maps, then anticipated sunrise/sunset directions and set out at ridiculous o clock to capture.

Am I understanding it right you only have the 55-250 lens ? Perhaps a shorter focal length lens, will allow you some more creative angles focusing nearer to the camera and giving depth to the picture.

Eric ( Snyderemark ) gave you some very good advice. Time to go back to basics and re learn photography.


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / :D Fuji X Pro1 / XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judder ­ Man
Senior Member
Avatar
759 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 182
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria + Wigan
     
Jan 18, 2014 06:35 |  #84

xarqi wrote in post #16613955 (external link)
The B+W landscape was f/6.3, 300 mm, ISO 100, 1/250s.

I think part of the problem is the Fstop and shutter speed for that 300mm focal length, those settings are border line in terms of depth of field and motion blur.
At the 300mm you are compressing the landscape image and would suggest F11 at 1/500 sec if handheld, alternatively shoot the image at 200mm @ f8 @ 1/200 sec. And crop the image in processing.
The other images chimney/bird shots look OK at that focal length because the depth of field is within subject.
Its fairly obvious that you really need another lens a 18-55 perhaps if you are going to shoot landscapes, a telescopic lens landscape is fine if rested on something solid , tripod, monopod etc.


Canon 5D mk3, 50mm 1.4, 17-40L, 70-200L, 100-400L, Canon 100L macro, Canon 2 x G1X, Speedliite 430 EX all supported by Gitzo and Benro.
Web sites: www.georgehopkinsphoto​graphy.com (external link)

An Image in Time is a Stepping Stone to Eternity

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,074 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Nov 2012
     
Jan 18, 2014 07:11 |  #85

silma wrote in post #16614907 (external link)
Just my humble opinion:
Get a monopod, at least. If you shoot handheld at 300 mm you should use at least 1/500sec shuttervspeed to avoid camera shake.

Or get a a tamron 70-300vc. I handheld down to 1/25 at 300mm with good results.
To the op: it must be something you're doing improperly to have gone through this many cameras with bad results. I'm not poking fun either. Also, I don't think some of the photos are all tha bad on the first page, the sunset pic comes to mind. What type of lens are you using? Do you have a tripod? Have you considered trying different exposures on the same scene? Are your hands shaky? Get a tripod. Have you tried setting te camera to default settings? I own a 60d and a T3i. With good exposure I don't start getting annoying noise until past 1600, and I can go to 3200 or 6400 and fix a lot, but not all of that in Lightroom. With the shots you've posted, your iso should be way lower than 1600 and the noise should be extinct. Do you have another lens to try?


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 18, 2014 10:16 |  #86

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16614707 (external link)
Cameras don't take good pictures. Photoshop doesn't take good pictures. Photographers take good pictures, and they take them regardless of what camera or software they use. Look at people that shoot only Holga, or Polaroid, or pinhole; they all learn to work within their equipment's limitations to create the effect they like.

Creative photography is about developing your mind to and eye to recognize the potential for images that create an emotional response, tell a story, and then work the camera, angles and lighting to recreate that vision on film (in digital memory now). It is a creative, artistic, visual process first, and a technical process second. If you aren't excited by what you see before you capture the image, you won't be excited by what you see once you get home. Some people have a natural talent, others need to work at it. Read books on composition, exposure, perspective, lighting. Take lots of photos, compare them to other photos you like of similar subjects, determine what you could do differently with the camera, position, perspective, composition to improve. Go back and reshoot, compare, reshoot again. If you live in a remote area, save up and go someplace on holiday where you can take a workshop.

You complain about lack of subjects, but there's an endless world of subjects to explore. A bowl of fruit, a piece of cheese, a bottle of wine and a camera. Shoot until the all are consumed except the camera. A flower, a leaf, a coin, a watch, a particularly gnarly tree or post. A single drop of water or milk. Tools stacked in a toolbox. Cat sleeping in the glow of a single beam of light. Barbie dolls, transformer toys, a study of different colors and textures of rocks and soil, muddy boots, a puddle of water under a rain-drenched slicker. A calf feeding off its mother, the industrial quality of a milking operation. Sheep sheering. A solitary horse galloping. A farmer setting out at sunrise or returning home at sunset. Laundry on a line, blowing in a breeze. We know you have hills, hills, and more hills, but also scenic vistas, farmland, old churches and graveyards, clear open sky. The problem is looking at things in a new way, turning the mundane and commonplace into something that makes a statement.

Shoot more, process less. Although I don't necessarily agree with abandoning RAW, shooting RAW+JPEG will take the worry of post-processing out of the equation and allow you to focus on the fundamentals. When you've mastered, or at least improved the creative and camera end of photography, then you can work on refining your images with post processing.

Spoken like a true photographer - we should all believe this one !

Except for specific situations, we keep hearing "I need this lens, I need this camera, I need another extender, my lens is too short, my lens is too long, my camera is CF but I need FF, my camera is FF but I need CF, my arms are to short, my arms are too long, I don't have a ladder. That's nuts -- you need A camera, you need A lens, and everything else is proper preparation and setting up, AND finding a target.

Now, someone will surely jump on this and describe a scene that can't be captured and tell us we're wrong (I join bumpintheroad here) and 'prove' we can't shoot a shot with what we have. Probably true, if you search that hard for a shot that can't be captured, you'll find a shot that can't be captured. Believe it.

I spend my time seeking the ones that can - but never turn down the opportunity for a challenge at the same time - just don't miss the good shots while looking for the challenge.

Know your limits, know the limits of your equipment - and you'll soon build a catalog that will capture and present your imagination to its fullest potential.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buylongterm
Goldmember
Avatar
2,080 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 53
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chi-town
     
Jan 18, 2014 11:28 |  #87

Tom Reichner wrote in post #16614728 (external link)
Pagman,

Now that you have explained the distances involved in your photography, your frustrations with poor image quality make more sense. Air is not empty - it has a lot of stuff in it. Water vapor (even in a dry climate). Dust. And heat distortion (even on cold, below-freezing days).

The more air there is between you and your subjects, the more dust and water vapor is in the way. The problem is not only the particles themselves, but the fact that each particle has sunlight reflecting off of it in the form of glare. With "miles", or "thousands of feet" of air between you and your buzzards and airplanes, that means there are, literally, millions and millions of particles of water vapor and dust between your sensor and the airplane, or buzzard. There is no gear in the world that will get you clear, sharply detailed photos from those distances - not unless you could create a vacuum to shoot in.

The devastating effects of heat distortion are often underrated. It is particularly troublesome on clear, sunny days, even in sub-zero temperatures. A couple months ago, I was photographing Whitetail Deer. We had a stretch of sunny weather, and for several days in a row, no one could get an acceptable photo between 10:30am and 2:30pm. It was cold - well below freezing, even during those mid-day hours. And there were times that the deer were only about 30 yards away. Yet the heat distortion completely ruined all of the photos anyone took, even with only 30 or 40 yards of air between our sensors and the subjects. Imagine just how impossible it is to get a good clear image when you have thousands of feet between your gear and the subject!

I think that if you found ways to photograph these subjects at much, much closer distances you would get much better results. But getting closer would mean that you would have to drive to the airport to photograph the planes when they are taking off and landing. Or that you would have to set out bait for the buzzards, and photograph them when they finally come in to see what you put out for them. Driving to the airport might take you hours and hours. Sitting in a small camo blind waiting for buzzards to fly close might mean days and days of waiting. You have said that you are unwilling to invest much effort into your photographic ventures. Unfortunately, unless you are willing to invest such time and effort, you will probably not be able to take photos that are "stunning", and that exhibit the excellent image quality that you seem to kind of want.

Maybe you could take photos of other things - things that are much closer. And be sure to do so when the light is at its best - early in the morning or in the evening, on sunny days. And when shooting in such conditions, try to make sure that you are shooting with the sun at your back, so that the subject is evenly illuminated. This soft, even light, photographed from the "classic" position, should give you a chance at nice, sharp, clear, noise-free, contrasty images that exhibit excellent image quality. The available subjects may be boring to you, but at least you will start to see what great photos your gear is capable of.

Once you start to get truly excellent image quality, you will see that it is the conditions that you are shooting in that are giving you that great IQ. Then, when you do get some bad photos, you will realize that it was the conditions that caused the results to be bad - not your gear, not your settings, and not your perceived lack of post processing skills.

Even more great advice. In fact, this is a great thread with tons of great information and advice.


Christian
flickr (external link)
@WerthLiving (Follow me on Instagram)
Canon EOS 5D MK III Gripped | 35mm f/1.4L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK II |100mm f/2.8L Macro | 24mm-105mm f/4.0L |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NBEast
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Aug 2005
Location: So Cal
     
Jan 18, 2014 11:35 |  #88

Pagman wrote in post #16613665 (external link)
Here is another one just shot while out for a walk, again another quick pas shot.

P.

EDIT: Post #44, page 3. For some reason the photo is not being quoted.

I think this is the best composition you've posted. I like it.

It does fall short on technique though. Again, over exposed and the B&W conversion technique isn't working. It almost looks like in-camera HDR is on.

While Composition is important, lets not overlook the importance of basic technical skill (focus, exposure, etc).

Regarding your comments about not returning to a scene at a good time of day for lighting. Well, maybe there's a technique for making harsh mid-day sunlit landscapes look good. If there is, I'd love to learn it, but it's got to be a *more advanced* technique than simply returning at sunset or sunup - or at least lower your expectations.


Gear List / Photos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Jan 18, 2014 11:44 |  #89

NBEast wrote in post #16615774 (external link)
Regarding your comments about not returning to a scene at a good time of day for lighting. Well, maybe there's a technique for making harsh mid-day sunlit landscapes look good. If there is, I'd love to learn it, but it's got to be a *more advanced* technique than simply returning at sunset or sunup - or at least lower your expectations.

I suppose you could strategically release a cloud of smoke between your subject and the sun to soften the light. :-P

Really. Cameras and photoshop technique can only take you so far. In the end, your camera is capturing what is in front of it. If you want something that isn't actually in front of the camera, I suggest painting.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 18, 2014 12:28 |  #90

QUOTE: "If you want something that isn't actually in front of the camera, I suggest painting."

Same thing for trying to shoot something that defeats the camera and lens - like a very dark stage and a dancing athlete (I know, can be done sometimes, and has been posted here). Nice challenge, but if it fails, don't blame the camera or the lens, or even the technique - blame the laws of physics instead. Some images simply will not transfer to film or sensors without using extremely advanced technology which does not exist in most non-specialized equipment.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

20,959 views & 0 likes for this thread
Poor Image Quality
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KenJerrard
1012 guests, 380 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.