KCook
Forum Pro
The focus is fine. These are not crisp due to being taken with a kit lens. So apply sharpening. There is no law against sharpening.
Kelly
Kelly
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 100D Landscape Photos
- Thread starter Lee92
- Start date
Just to add if you are really focussed on sharpness it would be better to buy the 24 mm pancake. I had similar problems with sharpness in landscapes and if you want a really sharp picture such a prime lens gives far better results. I too have the rebel sl1 with 24 mm pancake and 50mm 1.8. I still use the kitzoom on occasions where the sharpness of small details is not so critical. You can also enlarge contrast and possibly saturation to get a sharper look. The photoś I take with the 24 mm are really sharp and contrasty. You dont need to buy an other camera.
over exposed seahorse
Forum Enthusiast
I think these photos are really nice. Sure, there are a couple of things that the other posters have picked up on, but overall, they are pretty good. When you are focusing, it is perfectly acceptable to get the camera to autofocus on the mountains in the distance, rather than focussing so close, 9 times out of 10 you will get sufficient sharpness and DoF at f8.
Another point is, dont be afraid to edit your photos afterwards. Most of the landscape shots you see are edited to some extent, whether it be to lift the shadows on the side of the mountain, decrease the highlights in the sky, or to add some blue back into the sky. A lot of the time, you may not be at the site at the best light (i.e. golden hour, sunrise etc..) when a lot of the top photos are taken. Given that the light can be the difference between an average shot and a great shot, sometimes some creative manipulation on the computer is required to turn what would otherwise be an average shot taken at whatever time you were there into a better photo?
Another point is, dont be afraid to edit your photos afterwards. Most of the landscape shots you see are edited to some extent, whether it be to lift the shadows on the side of the mountain, decrease the highlights in the sky, or to add some blue back into the sky. A lot of the time, you may not be at the site at the best light (i.e. golden hour, sunrise etc..) when a lot of the top photos are taken. Given that the light can be the difference between an average shot and a great shot, sometimes some creative manipulation on the computer is required to turn what would otherwise be an average shot taken at whatever time you were there into a better photo?
Wow! Thanks very much for the huge reply! I completely understood everything you said and it all of a sudden becomes so obvious! In future I will try manual focus, although I've not got used to it yet I think I need to spend more time using my camera than anything else...
Those images are older ones but my newer photographs have improved thanks to the help on here! I will make my focus distance priority and see how it goes! Thank you
Those images are older ones but my newer photographs have improved thanks to the help on here! I will make my focus distance priority and see how it goes! Thank you
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
There's nothing wrong with manual focus but nothing special about it either. As I said in my earlier post, what matters is where you focus - how you do the focusing is immaterial.
Yes and no. Most cameras are available with a cheap, general purpose lens sold together as a kit; these are very often 10-18mm f/3.5-5.6 because that zoom range and aperture are cheap to produce and cover a large proportion of the things people like to shoot. So even when those lenses are sold separately they are often referred to as "kit" lenses. That is the "yes" part of my answer.Those images are older ones but my newer photographs have improved thanks to the help on here! I will make my focus distance priority and see how it goes! Thank you
A kit lens? What do you mean just a cheap standard one?
Before zoom lenses were common the "kit" lenses were typically 50mm (sometimes 55mm) on 35mm film cameras; that's about 31-35mm on APS-C cameras. Again, one reason was that they are cheap to produce, but they also approximate to what is often called a "normal" or "standard" field of view. So while it isn't universal, "standard" tends to be used to describe a prime lens of that approximate field of view. That's the "no" part of my answer.
Mark S Abeln
Forum Pro
And maybe post some of your newer photos when you have a chance!
KCook
Forum Pro
Yes, but not in a dismissive way. These "standard" lenses give new buyers the most bang-for-the-buck available. Fine as a trainer lens, lots of folks never outgrow them. In the more serious landscape game you end up pixel peeping, and then the softness begins to reveal itself. That is a subtle difference, not as bad as some big spenders proclaim.
Kelly
Attachments
KCook
Forum Pro
In post processing you can apply a lens profile and many other tricks, with the right editor. That would be far more cost effective than buying another lens.
Kelly
Kelly
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
First, f/16 is far too small an aperture. Read what I wrote in the first couple of paragraphs here https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59301242
Here is a few pictures I took from the weekend. Shooting on AV and 100 ISO...
1/40s ought to be fast enough for these shots but 1/320s would be a better way of avoiding any sort of motion blur,
The lighting is what it is: not outstanding but nothing really wrong with it. The real problem is the fact that you've let the highlights get too bright. Depending on how you set exposure you should either use some -EC or reduce the shutter speed.
The shots would look better if the horizons were level.
I hope this comment is intended as a joke. If not you should realise that until you've grasped the basics of exposure and editing you'll be wasting your money if you buy new kit.
--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]
Last edited:
KCook
Forum Pro
For the fundamental image adjustments there are several editors, over a wide range of prices.
The lens profile feature, so far as I am aware, is found only with professional editors. I happen to use ACDSee Pro, but Adobe's Lightroom is far more popular. Plus there are a few other pro level editors.
Kelly
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
It's worth noting that lens profiles are more numerous( in Lightroom and other Adobe programs, at least) for use with raw files than with JPGs. For instance, LR has 14 profiles for Canon lenses on JPG, over 100 profiles on raw.
Yeah that's a huge difference.. I always shoot in jpeg because I transfer them over to my phone and my phone cannot read Raw...
I built a computer last year I should probably start using it properly instead of editing on my phone lol
Thanks for the reply!
I built a computer last year I should probably start using it properly instead of editing on my phone lol
Thanks for the reply!
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
Well, yes. I shoot everything raw and edit; then I save as JPG and sync to my phone for portable viewing. Editing on a phone is very crude - like using a hammer to fix screws.
Okay I will try F8 then in future and keep my ISO to a minimum to minimise highlights!
And yeah i have to work on taking straight pictures lol
No, I was serious about a new lens lol. But you're completely right I still obviously have to get a grasp of it first!
Thanks again
And yeah i have to work on taking straight pictures lol
No, I was serious about a new lens lol. But you're completely right I still obviously have to get a grasp of it first!
Thanks again
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum