Reading mode: Light Dark

Bad photos - is it the camera, the lens, or me?

Go to last post
D

DiscoveryMe

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Melbourne, AU
Hi all,

I just recently bought my first SLR camera, the E-520. I still consider myself a relatively beginner photographer so that's why I came here for your much more wiser opinions! :)

Here are some photos I have taken with my camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discoveryme/

I am finding that I am not getting the sharp, vivid photos that I see other people taking in the camera and I was wondering whether it is my camera, the lens or me? Is the lighting bad? Am I shaking the camera? I am focusing in the wrong spot? Bad composure? I am happy to take any tips or feedback.

I have to admit, flickr seems to make the photos look better than just opening the file on my computer. Maybe because it is a smaller size. I'm new to this forum so I'm not sure how else I can post photos.

The sample photos have been taken with 25mm, 14-42mm and 40-150mm. I have not edited any of the photos and I shoot in JPEG large fine.

Thanks in advance!
 
DiscoveryMe said:
Hi all,

I just recently bought my first SLR camera, the E-520. I still
consider myself a relatively beginner photographer so that's why I
came here for your much more wiser opinions! :)

Here are some photos I have taken with my camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/discoveryme/

I am finding that I am not getting the sharp, vivid photos that I see
other people taking in the camera and I was wondering whether it is
my camera, the lens or me? Is the lighting bad? Am I shaking the
camera? I am focusing in the wrong spot? Bad composure? I am happy to
take any tips or feedback.

I have to admit, flickr seems to make the photos look better than
just opening the file on my computer. Maybe because it is a smaller
size. I'm new to this forum so I'm not sure how else I can post
photos.

The sample photos have been taken with 25mm, 14-42mm and 40-150mm. I
have not edited any of the photos and I shoot in JPEG large fine.

Thanks in advance!
--
Click to expand...
--There are many posts just like yours, I've done it myself. The best thing to do is post just a few pictures (no more than three) and ask for specific feedback on those. To post a picture, right click on the picture and click on properties and copy the URL. Paste the URL to your message and there you go.



To me, your biggest problem is the gloomy day. Some white balance correction will help. Keep shooting & reading everything you can get your hands on. It'll get better.

Cheers,
Garrett

http://garrett-pearce.smugmug.com/
UK Photo Safari Group Invite:
http://www.alert-central.co.uk/personalinvite.php?by=Garrett%20Pearce
 
You can upload an image to a message in the following way:

Go to the Photopage in Flickr
Click on 'All Sizes" just above the photo
Click on the size you want to show in the message
Go to the bottom of the page
Copy the 'Photo's URL' (option no 2)
Paste the URL in your message on this forum
Submit the message and voila!

Regarding the photo's, I think they look OK in general. Just keep shooting and learning about your camera and they'll be great shortly!

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1
 
As suggested you would perhaps be better off to post a single picture that you are not happy with, reasons you are not happy with it, provide all the camera settings and then ask for specific feedback.

From what you have stated I would suggest:

1) If you are going to shoot jpeg - change to large super fine setting.

2) If you are not happy with out of camera jpegs as far as color, vivid appearance, sharpness you should experiment with the camera settings that affect jpeg output ie change from natural to vivid, boost saturation, contrast and sharpness. Take a picture of the same subject with the different variations of settings until you find the combination of settings that produces the jpeg output you prefer.

3) You stated you have not post processed any of the photos - learn some basic post processing. Most of the pictures you see posted here have been post processed to some degree and this can dramatically improve the appearance of a photo.

I have taken the liberty of applying a very quick levels, saturation and sharpness change to one of your photos to illustrate this:



Once you become more proficient I would also suggest trying Raw and learning that process as it can provide more latitude in post processing.

Gary
 
It takes a little time to learn your equipment.
Try using a smaller aperture when you shoot if you want sharpness.

I shot this at f8 because i remembered hearing here that all lenses are sharp at f8. I was surprised at the results comparet to what I was getting..



Practice holding your camera still.

When it comes to color you may need to try setting camera to vivid and use software to increase saturation.

Once you get what you like you will take it for granted and be displeased with something else. It's what makes you better...

Keep Shooting.
 
And don't see any major issues so far.

Most seem to have been taken in difficult conditons, with sometimes quite slow shutter speed and middle iso - there may be a small loss of sharpness there, but nothing really bad.

Like the others, i think your images could benefit from a few adjustments : some with colour cast correction, but the rest with a few quick levels, saturation and sharpening.

You'll be surprised at the results.

Marc
--
http://mdezemery.zenfolio.com/

 
The link to a photo like you have in mind would be helpful. It may be that the camera set up, lens, post processing may have a lot to do with the difference between what you are getting and what you think you should be getting.

Also what to you mean by vivid? Moderate to high saturation? Fair amount of contrast? I ask because the examples look good to me. Colors are realistic. Also the light looked a little flat which may mean you aren't getting the 'pop' you want.

--

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
 
trooplewis said:
Gary Blake said:
1) If you are going to shoot jpeg - change to large super fine setting.
trooplewis said:
Gary
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I would be very, very surprised if anyone on this forum or the OP
could see a visual difference on their monitor between Large Fine and
Large Superfine
************************************************************
Click to expand...
True, but the OP identified himself as a beginner and did not specify that he would be just looking at these images on a monitor.
trooplewis said:
The difference between Large super fine and large fine:
Click to expand...
LSF: compression ratio of 1/2.7, file size 6.8mb

LF: compression ratio of 1/4, file size 4.7mb

So the difference may not be visible on the monitor but will certainly make a difference on a print and obviously on the amount of information available for post processing.

I made this suggestion as the OP was looking for ways to optimize his output and this would be one way of doing that, assuming that he may wish to print some of his images at some point.

Jpeg compression is achieved by losing detail to achieve a smaller file size. This is desirable for some applications but not for printing.

I, personally cannot see the logic behind shooting at anything less than the maximum resolution of the camera. (Unless shooting for a quick web upload that you know you will never want to print)

File size can always be reduced after the fact for storage/upload considerations. Its pretty hard to add resolution later.

Gary
 
I think you have done all right at this point, I believe you want to get better and to do so I would recommend taking classes.

I would recommend taking one picture such as the rose and use different camera settings and see what happens, understand what you like and don't and which settings accomplish this. Than do this with a variety of subjects and different lighting conditions. Morning Noon and Evening.

Learn to use the manual setting.

Start using the different in camera settings and see what the differences are.

It is a learning curve, which involves a huge amount of options.

Often when I want to accomplish something technique I will spend the time to shoot away with all the settings I think or have read about that will create the effect that I am looking for. Take the series and open them in Faststone Viewer where I can compare 2-4 images at the same time on the same screen. After a bit I start to see what is working and what is not. When I want to add some post processing and to what degree.

The yellow rose could use a bit of sharpening, I think your compositions need work.

Hope that helps,
--
Gary S P



http://www.garysworld.net
 
Hi, I think the pictures are not that bad, but there are things to improve. Tha wide angle pics of distant things (Parc-pics) are good, still more sharpness you'll get by using a bit smaller arperture. Go to F5,6, instead wide open 4,0. Makes a hell of a difference.

The Macros are more tricky, some of them are definitely wrong focussed (the doughnut, the Chili plant, one of the roses), and in all of them the depth of field is a bit low for the motiv.

Reduced depth of field is a bonus and a malus of the SLR system, you gain a better blurred, so less disturbing, background, but you risc loosing part of your ojects. All of these macros would have needed mach smaller aparture.
 
Gary Blake said:
I, personally cannot see the logic behind shooting at anything less
than the maximum resolution of the camera. (Unless shooting for a
quick web upload that you know you will never want to print)
Click to expand...
--

The reason would be that jpeg output in some of the E-series camera (notably the 510, jury still out on the 520) is clearly better in HQ 1/4 than in other available modes.
 
Wow, thank you so much everyone for your quick and very helpful responses! Much appreciated.

Ok, from what I gather from your responses, my camera and lens are fine, it is me the photographer that needs work! That at least puts to rest me thinking that there is something wrong with my camera (somebody dropped it the first day after I got it!). At least now I can work on improving myself.

Here is an example of a random photo which is of a flower.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8835277@N03/3226704102/

Checking the EXIF data, it was taken using an Olympus E-520, 25mm at f/1.4. To me, this photo looks extremely sharp, the colours are very bright and stand out.

Dovi and Herfried both mentioned that for sharpness it is better to shoot at a smaller aperture but the photo above was shot wide open?

My example photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/discoveryme/3507390160/ looks pretty flat and not as sharp. Is it because of the lighting? Bad composition?

Up closer, the wide angle photo shot below is blurry. I shot at f/3.5 - would it be sharper if I go to f/8 or even more to f/11? Am I shaking the camera?



This photo below looks really flat. Is it just a bad photo to take on an cloudy day? Have I underexposed?



Sorry if my questions seem a bit "airhead" or repetitive, but I'm just trying to learn!

I understand that post processing is necessary, but I don't want to have to spend hours in front of the computer fixing photos if I don't have to!
 
Herfried said:
The Macros are more tricky, some of them are definitely wrong
focussed (the doughnut, the Chili plant, one of the roses), and in
all of them the depth of field is a bit low for the motiv.
Click to expand...
--

Say in the example of the doughnut, should I have used the centre AF point to focus at the top of the top doughnut and then held the shutter half way down and recomposed the frame?



Another general question, where do you focus when you are taking a photo of two people and there is a gap in between them? In the middle and use a smaller aperture? Or focus on one person and still use a smaller aperture? What if you want the background blurred or is this just not possible with this kind of shot?
 
The light on the subjects look different. The first shot has highlights on the flower showing that it is receiving more direct light than the other.

The thing to do, in my opinion is to shoot the same scene with varying settings and learn what your equipment does and what you prefer. I sometimes vary the iso as well to see what I get.

Goodluck
 
The donut shot would benefit from more depth of field = a smaller aperture, if you want front and candle sharp. Here varying the aperture would have shown you what it does. Practice

As for your second question, first select an object to focus on, Press shutter half way t lock focus , recompose as you like while continuing to hold half way and then press fully to release shutter.

Practice, Practice

the third issue is a little more tricky but the key is to either use a telephoto lens or to be close to your subject with a more distant background while using a larger aperture. Once again Practice.
DiscoveryMe said:
Herfried said:
The Macros are more tricky, some of them are definitely wrong
focussed (the doughnut, the Chili plant, one of the roses), and in
all of them the depth of field is a bit low for the motiv.
Click to expand...
--

Say in the example of the doughnut, should I have used the centre AF
point to focus at the top of the top doughnut and then held the
shutter half way down and recomposed the frame?



Another general question, where do you focus when you are taking a
photo of two people and there is a gap in between them? In the middle
and use a smaller aperture? Or focus on one person and still use a
smaller aperture? What if you want the background blurred or is this
just not possible with this kind of shot?
Click to expand...
 
DiscoveryMe said:
Here is an example of a random photo which is of a flower.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8835277@N03/3226704102/
Checking the EXIF data, it was taken using an Olympus E-520, 25mm at
f/1.4. To me, this photo looks extremely sharp, the colours are very
bright and stand out.
Click to expand...
Colors are just a matter of settings and/or photoshop. You are capable of creating the same beautiful colors. Depth of field is very small in this shot, bit it's not very apparent because of the small size. This small, any poto looks very sharp. If you look closely, you can see that the flowers directly in front and behind the flower on which was focused, are already blurry. Viewed on a larger scale, you'd notice that the DOF is only half an inch or so. In this case that was probably intended.
DiscoveryMe said:
My example photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/discoveryme/3507390160/
looks pretty flat and not as sharp. Is it because of the lighting?
Bad composition?
Click to expand...
Lighting. Boring midday sunlight doesn't pump your colors up. You could try to adjust the white balance to something a little warmer, but often that looks fake. No matter how good you are at photoshop or anything; capturing the right moment is critical for good-looking photo's. Things look especially great in the very early morning and late afternoon. Remember your sites and come back to shoot them when the time of day and/or the weather is better.
DiscoveryMe said:
Up closer, the wide angle photo shot below is blurry. I shot at f/3.5
  • would it be sharper if I go to f/8 or even more to f/11? Am I
shaking the camera?
Click to expand...
Yes, your DOF was too small at 3.5, and you focused behind the... what's it called... arch? And yes, your lens is a little sharper too at F8; the optimum is at about F9. With higher numbers, the DOF increases even further, but sharpness and contrast will go a little down again (if you wanna know, this is caused by diffraction).
DiscoveryMe said:
This photo below looks really flat. Is it just a bad photo to take on
an cloudy day? Have I underexposed?
Click to expand...
You probably shot this against the light, so the sky is white and the trees almost black. What you wanted to do here is not possible. There's no right exposure for this situation, it's either a detailed sky and black trees (silhouettes) or green trees and a white blown-out sky. You could buy a 2-stop ND graduated filter for stuff like this (darkens the top half of the frame). You can't always take a good, real-looking photo of anything; you'll still need the right light. Your eyes outsmart any camera, they adjust the exposure for every single 'pixel' individually all the time, and only then your brain which perceives everything kicks in and throws emotions and other 'distortions' in. It takes practice and time to learn to see what your photo will look like before you take it.

It's good you ask all this stuff; you'll only learn faster.

Make no excuses, everyone here can decide whether he wants/has the time to help you or not.
 
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions! I have read quite a number of photography books before buying my SLR so I understand general terms, but what I find helps the most is having specific questions answered so I know what to do/what not to do next time.

Yes, I can go out and shoot a gazillion photos, but with no feedback and no answers to my questions, how can I know what I am doing wrong and improve.

Thanks again Sipelpomp.
 
Thanks, I get the point now that I should think about what I want in focus and adjust the aperture accordingly.

I also have to be more selective about where I focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top