is this a good picture?

hello. just wondering if the resolution and detail is good on this picture . not the best subjet but is just a test of my camera and lens.
is it sharp enough. i dont like to do photoshop pictures.
i know it can be fixed , but i like natural pictures. not computer fixing.
thnx for all the opinions

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Seems a little soft to me and could stand a bump in saturation as well. The colors seems really flat.

It's a bit noisy for me. Can you post the Exif?

What the heck was the backround ?

the back ground is a building about 75 yards away, the file has be reduced to less than half. i can not post the original cr2 file. too large. the noise is the iso i used. i'll get one on the 200 iso setting. tomorrow.
like i said im just testing the limits on my t1i and "is 75-300 usm" lens. not the best but thats all i can afford so far.
keep the coments going.
thnx

75-300 is clearly not the best lens, hence, the lack of contrast, detail and sharpness. You can also experiment the parameters of the Picture Styles.

It's really not that "natural"; all jpegs are processed. Especially with those DIGIC processors

Shoot raw and fix on the computer rather than shoot jpeg and let the camera computer fix it. To get the most out of a dslr image some post-processing needs to be done.

illrooster132 wrote in post #8399677
hello. just wondering if the resolution and detail is good on this picture . not the best subjet but is just a test of my camera and lens.
is it sharp enough. i dont like to do photoshop pictures.
i know it can be fixed , but i like natural pictures. not computer fixing.
thnx for all the opinions

What did you think of it before you read the replies?

My opinion is that if you're not selling your prints and you're not shooting for money, as long as you like the shots, that's all that matters.

I've been taking pictures for 50 years and, so far, I've got two good ones. But I have thousands that I love.

The camera's good.
The lens sucks (note the overall soft image and the chromatic aberration).
The image is over-sharpened (note the "cardboard cut-out" effect on high-contrast edges). That may be because you've got the in-camera sharpness set too high, or possibly it was aggressively sharpened in post-processing, maybe to try to redress the soft image.

I agree with the previous poster too - digital photography is just that, digital. Every image has been manipulated, whether it is by the firmware in the camera (without you necessarily playing a part), or in post-production (where you can control the process yourself).

Since the issue doesn't seem to be gear related, you might post this in the RAW/post processing forum for more advice...

Hi,

Here is a quick play in Photoshop (posted in RGB)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I don't like excessive post processing to the point where the original shot is hardly recognizable either. And I really try to stay away from clone tools and such, except maybe to clone out dust. But in my opinion, it's perfectly ok to fix exposure, WB, contrast and that sort of thing. Almost everybody here does it. It's difficult to get the exposure and contrast you want without at least some PP.

Firstly, you should've shoot it at a much lower ISO and you don't need to stop down to f/16 - it's prolly one of the reasons that photo is soft due to diffraction. Of course noise will cut details too.

runninmann wrote in post #8400534
What did you think of it before you read the replies?

My opinion is that if you're not selling your prints and you're not shooting for money, as long as you like the shots, that's all that matters.

I've been taking pictures for 50 years and, so far, I've got two good ones. But I have thousands that I love.

i like your opinion a lot. thats why i shoot. for fun and yes i have thousands of pictures . i love them all. i delete the ones that make no sense.