Where am I going SO wrong?

K

kabooi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
284
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a thread of frustration. Just to make that clear. I love photography and have done for a long time. I know a little about it, but class myself as an absolute novice who has a lot to learn, who has yet to have the 'oh I get it' moment. Does that moment ever come? :cuckoo:

I took my camera out today, and I rarely do this....and probably should do more or I'm never going to get better. But I really want to learn how to get a good shot.

I went to my park, which isnt exactly eye pleasing but today it was pretty nice - the colours and leafs of autumn were pulling me and so I spent an hour or so taking some pictures. And I'm not happy with one of them. It's not my camera, (d7000) and it's not my lens (35mm 1.8) it's me and I know this. The only way I can describe my shots were they were lacking in the colours I saw; the pictures soft and flat and washed out. I want the whole picture to be sharp, bouncing with the autumn colours and vibrant but I got the opposite...and I'm frustrated, but I still love it and I still want to improve. But compared to shots I see mine...well, you might as well just chuck all of them away.

Rant over, help loved, sigh sigh sigh.
 
Can you post some examples so we can see what you're seeing? You're absolutely right when you say that you need to pick the camera up more, practice and reading books/articles and of course the manual are the only way things get better. There is a eureka moment but it took me several years to experience it!! Even then there's always more to learn, that's the beauty of photography. Keep at it. :thumbs:
 
I'm more than happy to post some examples, but whats the alternitve to flickr? Because they are so bad and I only put the ones I really like on my flickr:D

I'm going to invest in a book next pay day. I'm looking through the images now and the whole frame is so soft when I wanted them to be crisp and bright. :(
 
gallery on tp , photobucket, second flickr account , etc
 
yip post a few up lets see them im a novice to and i dont get to use my camera as much as id like to,it will help to see what mode/settings, etc you where taking the photos in
 
If the picture is soft i'd say either camera shake , or you had too wide an apperture set, or you didnt have the focal point in the right place

as to vibrancy that easily boosted in post production
 
kabooi said:
I'm more than happy to post some examples, but whats the alternitve to flickr? Because they are so bad and I only put the ones I really like on my flickr:D

I'm going to invest in a book next pay day. I'm looking through the images now and the whole frame is so soft when I wanted them to be crisp and bright. :(
Click to expand...

Set them to private on flickr, they wont be seen in your photostream, but you can still display them here using the relevant link :thumbs:

leave the exif intact too, that can contain a mine of information on what might be the issue
 
Cheers guys, I'm actually quite...sad???? about it. So going to need some cheering up. I'll post some on the TP gallery, just going to figure out how.
 
we all get disheartned about stuff but this is the place to find out where or how your going wrong and hopefully rectify where you have went wrong if life was simple/easy we would all be big well known photographers
 
kabooi said:
I went to my park, which isnt exactly eye pleasing but today it was pretty nice -
Click to expand...

it doesnt sound like park scenery is your dream shots..

you need to photogrpah somehting your pasionate about..somehting you love doing watching or seeing..somehting that excites you.... that will then reflect in your pictures...

you just need to find what that is.. IMHO :)
 
As I've said in previous posts, the colours arent bouncing, they are flat, washed out and really quite soft. help much loved !!!
 
Light.

Did I mention light, and light is very important too.

On days like today, your eyes might know that the colours were rich and vibrant, but in reality the flat grey sky will make them shadowless and featureless.

Photographers seem to think that gear and skill are the important things. But they always forget that subjects with appropriate lighting are the most important ingredients.

There's improvements that can be made in pp but there's no substitute for good light.

Find 3 inspirational photos, and look at the light on them. I'll bet my profits for the year that the lighting is awesome.
 
The first one looks a bit overexposed, but basically you need some good light striking the targets to bring out the classic autumn colours.

You've got a grey day with watery light. Not much you can do with that, other than some trickery in PP.
 
Maybe it wasnt the best day for it, then? The weather is miserable but hey, it's the UK...ha!

The images viewed bigger are quite soft, the whole picture isnt sharp like in my camera view back ... any ideas why?
 
Agree. Doesn't seem to be much wrong technically (other than first looks a bit over exposed)
They could all be improved with simple editing (exposure, levels etc,.) but you are fighting a bit of a losing battle as others have said, the light on days like that never look as great.
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much guys. I do feel a lot better. I'm playing with some in photoshop elements and messing with the levels (though I dont really know what im doing) and it's making them a bit better, but they are still really soft ... for landscapes do I need to use a smaller f stop? do you think thats where I went wrong with the sharpness?
 
kabooi said:
Maybe it wasnt the best day for it, then? The weather is miserable but hey, it's the UK...ha!

The images viewed bigger are quite soft, the whole picture isnt sharp like in my camera view back ... any ideas why?
Click to expand...
Hard to tell without access to the larger images, and can't see the EXIf because of this too.

Guesses :-

1. Camera Shake - exacerbated maybe due to low shutter speed in low light.
2. Large Aperture for lower light making DoF very shallow?
3. Where focussed? 1/3 in or on a specific object?
 
What were the camera settings? Aperture, shutter etc,.

Can't see from the images as you have them as private.
 
Bear in mind that if you're used to compact cameras. the in-camera sharpening in DSLRs is a lot more conservative. You can usually sharpen things up nicely in post-production. I can't see the EXIF data, but if you're wide open it's likely to be soft anyway. F5.6 to f8.0 is the sweetspot for this lens.

Secondly, the light is flat but that's not your fault - remember, lighting is the biggest factor in landscape photography. In the right light, a back garden looks stunning. Maybe come back in the morning/evening on a clear day?
 
getting it right in camera is great
however, sometimes that doesn't happen so you can post process
make the colours pop more, tone the shadows etc
also sharpening with unsharp mask is a nice way to improve the punch

what about getting down to a lower angle so that you take a shot that people don't often see, pretend you're 5 for example. what do they see in the park?

also books? I like scott kelby's begineers books
very easily digested with some decent tips and very irreverent

also if exposure is tricky, try auto bracketing
there's a nice button on the back of the nikon's that does this very quickly for you
 
Last edited:
Hey guys.

I am trying to find the exif info on my flickr and even I cant view it. I drifted from apenture priority to manual, my f stop never went higher than 5.something, shutter speeds from 80 to maximum 200...but this is a guess. so I will have to double check for you later, as I've now lost my memory card :shake:
 
kabooi said:
Hey guys.

I am trying to find the exif info on my flickr and even I cant view it. I drifted from apenture priority to manual, my f stop never went higher than 5.something, shutter speeds from 80 to maximum 200...but this is a guess. so I will have to double check for you later, as I've now lost my memory card :shake:
Click to expand...

in short yes the apperture was too wide giving you a shallow depth of feild and thus lacking front to back sharpness (remember the higher the f number the smaller the apperture)

it sounds like you were using f5.6 where as ideally as a very rough rule of thumb (and a masive overgeneralisaion) you might have been better with arround f11 (although if the light is poor a small apperture will mean either high iso or a slow shutter speed so take a tripod.)

Also if you want front to back sharpness after seting a small apperture focus on the hyperfocal distance (1/3 of the way into the scene) rather than on infinity -this is because the plane of focus is 1/3 in front of and 2/3 behind the focal point.

I'd be wary of going to very small appertures like f22 and above as the massive dof will show up any cack on your sensor
 
I have edited one picture I took today in photoshop elements. I dont really know what I am doing in it but does this look better than the other ones?


DSC_0933_edited-1 by kabooi, on Flickr
 
in someways , but its also overcooked because the colours are too vibrant for the apparent light conditions - you need nice light , you can only do so much in post.

Incidentally flat overcast light is great for detail shots where you don't want harsh shadows, and colour is less important - its also good for long exposures - you just need to pick the technque that fits the conditions
 
Yeah, it looks too vibrant. Maybe if I tone it down. Or just scrap it, cos I'm not sure if they are savable. If anyone wants to have a bash, go for it. Once again, thanks guys:)
 
I'd scrap it, and call the day a write-off, unless you really want to practice your PP.

Get it right in camera, on a day where the light is appropriate for the shot you are trying to take. Then, any PP needed, is so much easier.
 
Yeah, I am gonna scrap the ideas of saving the photos. And save it for another day. :( Might have a play with PP cos I need pratice, but thats about it, really. I'll remember to pick a better day, think more outside of the box and also use a smaller f stop...thanks :)
 
kabooi said:
Yeah, I am gonna scrap the ideas of saving the photos. And save it for another day. :( Might have a play with PP cos I need pratice, but thats about it, really. I'll remember to pick a better day, think more outside of the box and also use a smaller f stop...thanks :)
Click to expand...
Get a good book, Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, The Digital Photographer's Handbook by Tom Ang.

While you're waiting for either of those to come, check out this :-
http://www.youtube.com/user/photoexposed/videos?query=exposure

I like this guy's style, but he may not be for everyone's taste :D I've watched lots & lots of his vids.

Have a look at all the Exposure, Aperture, Shutter Speed and Aperture, Aperture/F-Stops vids.

Something to do whilst the weather's not so hot :D

HTH.
 
Last edited:
kabooi said:
Maybe it wasnt the best day for it, then? The weather is miserable but hey, it's the UK...ha!
Click to expand...

As has been said weather/light is just as big a factor with landscape photography as the location, perhaps bigger.

While its not as simple as "good weather" and "bad weather" since certain shots can only be taken on overcast days when the contrast is lower but a clear day in the morning and the evening is what you need to get results like this...

OJwWa.jpg


Just turning up the saturation won't give you the same effect, its the high contrast that makes it more striking.

Wait for a clear day and head to the park either an hour or two after sunrise or before sunset, look to have the sun hitting the trees either from the side or from behind you.
 
Last edited:
The Photographers Eye! (book recommendation)

Technical is less than half the story (I'll get flamed for this) - and why forums are full of dull pictures. One of the photo's is overexposed - but they're generally in focus and correctly exposed. Anyone can get the technical right - it's simply a matter of learning to use a machine - like driving. But if you want to produce 'good photo's' there's so much more to it.

That's not what the photography books or camera magazines lean towards though - because it's not so easy to explain or sell.

Listening to Joe Cornish talk about getting up at 3AM to wait for 2 hrs at a location hoping for the right light (repeating 4 or 5 times until he's successful) isn't going to turn people on. Unlike a discussion of the beautiful image quality from his Leaf back:suspect:.

And like Tony said - you're not going to put the effort in until you find something you really want to photograph well.

All of your description about this trip and the photo's sounds like you're finding it an effort. Read the threads on the photo sharing sections where people have got great results - they're passionate about their subject. It's the passion that drives them to great results.
 
Something to think about and this may sound strange but are you taking pictures of things you like? I will explain.

I went through a similar thing about 6 months ago. I kept asking myself why I didn't like any of my own photos. After watching a seminar that Scott Kelby held I had a bit of a Eureka moment. What he advised was to go through an online gallery and if you see a picture you like, write down using bullet points what it is you like about it. Then compare do this with your own portfolio and see if they match. I carried out this excercise and found that actually I'm not that fond of portraits and people. Apparantly its wildlife, low light and long shutter speeds that I like. I now enjoy going through my portfolio :D
 
Weather like that has been the majority of days this year or at least it's semed like that

If you can take photos that don't include the sky, so maybe denser woodland/forest, they actually come out well in this ropey light.

Never rely on the LCD for judging picture quality unless it's zoomed in to check around the image. Get to grips with using the histogram to sort out your exposure and the highlight alert is handy too

If you want a good book that explains exposure rather well, give this a try http://www.amazon.co.uk/Digital-Landscape-Photography-Barbara-Gerlach/dp/0240810937

Really excellent and if I could only keep one book, this would be it, might even help you to get that eureka moment
 
Its only just recently, I've realised how many photos are photo-shopped and such.

I just use to think that most photos were straight out of the camera. :thinking:

I'm having enough trouble learning how to use the basic.......never mind starting on photoshop :lol:
 
Phil-D said:
Its only just recently, I've realised how many photos are photo-shopped and such.

I just use to think that most photos were straight out of the camera. :thinking:

I'm having enough trouble learning how to use the basic.......never mind starting on photoshop :lol:
Click to expand...

ditto,

And op i feel your pain, i have been doing exactly the same, i also think getting used to the fact that i imagine most of the pics we see day to day, here and out and about are not strait from camera.

i do wish we had a strait from camera section on this forum.

i also think the more you learn the worse your pics look :bonk:

i was quite happy with a few i took last year, but just looking back at them, they suck :'(.

i got the same issue in my little album, link below.
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
Its only just recently, I've realised how many photos are photo-shopped and such.

I just use to think that most photos were straight out of the camera. :thinking:

I'm having enough trouble learning how to use the basic.......never mind starting on photoshop :lol:
Click to expand...

scott199 said:
ditto,

And op i feel your pain, i have been doing exactly the same, i also think getting used to the fact that i imagine most of the pics we see day to day, here and out and about are not strait from camera.

i do wish we had a strait from camera section on this forum.
Click to expand...
The SOOC myth.:lol:

There's no such thing as straight from camera - well, not as a standard you can believe in.

Camera sensors and film create an unfinished image, the film needed processing, then usually printing, which required a complete 2nd development process. Your digital Raw data needs turning into a picture. In order to do that, an assessment is made of the colour information and a judgement made as to what the image should look like.

Now whether you allow the camera to do that, you do it yourself in software, or you allow your processing lab to do it, it still happens.

You can keep your hands off the process, but that doesn't make you a better photographer, it just means you're allowing someone else's influence into your workflow, and if they produce rubbish results, you throw them away because 'you' took a bad picture?:thinking:

If you want straight out of camera, shoot some slide film. But even then you're getting a colour balance chosen by the film manufacturer, in the film days, serious photographers chose their film to suit the subject and the 'look' they wanted. So where is this 'straight out of camera' myth from?
 
Many people including myself shoot in raw, they are just not meant to be straight from the camera

Think of them as the negative and post processing as developing

Of course you can use Jpegs straight from the camera, but why use the onboard processor when you can use a far better one on the PC with much more sophisticated software

*edit* ditto the above in fewer words
 
Phil V said:
The SOOC myth.:lol:

There's no such thing as straight from camera - well, not as a standard you can believe in.
Click to expand...

Oi......don't laugh...............I thought it was all down to your expert ability :notworthy: ;)


Phil V said:
So where is this 'straight out of camera' myth from?
Click to expand...

For me, it was lack of knowledge......:amstupid:.....but am keen to learn :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top