How do I get sharper images? NX1100

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

1. Get a tripod, if you don't already have one. Something around $15-30 could do well--just read reviews, as some are better quality than others. A ball head tripod is easier to deal with for a first tripod.

2. Use Aperture Priority (A) mode. Set the aperture to f/8 or f/9 (greater depth of field, but don't need to go smaller than that) when you want to show most of the shot in focus or maximum size aperture (say f/3.5 at 20mm) when you want to focus on a certain area and blur everything beyond it. Larger apertures will give you that artsy looking background blur. Smaller apertures will give greater depth of field to bring more in focus.

3. Set ISO to 100

4. Set your shots to a timed mode: a timer of say 2 seconds. Set your camera on a tripod, set up your scene, focus, press the shutter button, and don't touch the camera / shake the area around the tripod by taking steps until the camera takes a photo. At ISO 100, it may well be that exposures will be long, and your shots will be prone to camera shake if you try them hand-held. You may want to use full manual focus for this to make sure the exact area you want in focus is the sharpest.

That should give you what you want.

Thank you for the useful information.

Is it absolutely necessary to use a tripod? Does reducing the aperture automatically increase blur if there is hand movement? I guess it does, because it means longer exposures, right? So there is no way to get greater depth of field without longer exposures?  If I use higher ISO's, that will reduce exposure time, won't it?

Finding a tripod that will put the camera in the position I want may be difficult.

CMurdock wrote:

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

1. Get a tripod, if you don't already have one. Something around $15-30 could do well--just read reviews, as some are better quality than others. A ball head tripod is easier to deal with for a first tripod.

2. Use Aperture Priority (A) mode. Set the aperture to f/8 or f/9 (greater depth of field, but don't need to go smaller than that) when you want to show most of the shot in focus or maximum size aperture (say f/3.5 at 20mm) when you want to focus on a certain area and blur everything beyond it. Larger apertures will give you that artsy looking background blur. Smaller apertures will give greater depth of field to bring more in focus.

3. Set ISO to 100

4. Set your shots to a timed mode: a timer of say 2 seconds. Set your camera on a tripod, set up your scene, focus, press the shutter button, and don't touch the camera / shake the area around the tripod by taking steps until the camera takes a photo. At ISO 100, it may well be that exposures will be long, and your shots will be prone to camera shake if you try them hand-held. You may want to use full manual focus for this to make sure the exact area you want in focus is the sharpest.

That should give you what you want.

Thank you for the useful information.

Is it absolutely necessary to use a tripod? Does reducing the aperture automatically increase blur if there is hand movement? I guess it does, because it means longer exposures, right? So there is no way to get greater depth of field without longer exposures? If I use higher ISO's, that will reduce exposure time, won't it?

Finding a tripod that will put the camera in the position I want may be difficult.

I believe the complications are caused by the much larger sensor on your Samsung. The closer you move to the object you intend to capture, the shallower does the depth of field get. No, you do not need a tripod, but you will have to rethink your composition. And do make sure that you have more than sufficient lighting. And if you are not interested in learning exposure - and I don't blame you for that - you will have to experiment a bit before you get things right.

Thank you to both of you.

I notice that my camera is mostly selecting ISO 200 for the shots.  Since my product shots all get reduced for the web, I am going to increase the ISO to 400 and see if that reduces some of the softness I am seeing.  I will also start shopping for a tripod.  I have actually wanted a tripod for a very long time, but never found one that seemed right.

Thank you.

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

Do you live in the U.S.? If so, here is a suggestion:

http://www.adorama.com/DOST600B001.html

(I was looking a ball-head tripods at $30 or below up to 60" tall). Pan-heads seem to be cheaper, but I think ball heads are a lot easier/faster for product photography. I got my Dolica Proline 62" tripod on a good sale for $32 shipped, but that kind of a sale doesn't come around often. I like the taller version, but if you're just shooting at table surface or lower, you could do fine with a lower max height tripod. If you do need cheaper, you can get A reasonable tripod for half that price.

Let me just point out that using a tripod will drastically increase the time it takes to take my photos.  As it is, I arrange the beads on a plate, put it on a table in front of a window, and then take 35-40 photographs in rapid succession at different EC levels.  With a tripod, I'll have to attach the camera to the tripod, position it, and then use a remote shutter release.  What is now quick and easy will take much more time.  I'm not saying I won't do it, but it does mean more work.

So let me ask you, will increasing the ISO reduce the softness of the photos a little?  The camera will have to open the shutter for a shorter time, or use a smaller aperture.  That may be all that I need.

CMurdock wrote:

Let me just point out that using a tripod will drastically increase the time it takes to take my photos. As it is, I arrange the beads on a plate, put it on a table in front of a window, and then take 35-40 photographs in rapid succession at different EC levels. With a tripod, I'll have to attach the camera to the tripod, position it, and then use a remote shutter release. What is now quick and easy will take much more time. I'm not saying I won't do it, but it does mean more work.

So let me ask you, will increasing the ISO reduce the softness of the photos a little? The camera will have to open the shutter for a shorter time, or use a smaller aperture. That may be all that I need.

I agree with you. It takes time. As long as you shoot above 1/50 sec and know how to keep your camera still you will do just fine. Even with the ISO boosted up, your nx1100 should outperform your previous compact.

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

CMurdock wrote:

It's actually less work--you set it up once, then you only swap what's under the camera on your white surface and press the shutter button when you're ready to take the picture. I don't know why you want to use different EC levels--what you see on the screen of your camera is mostly what you get, so you can vary your lighting or EC until you like the result and then just keep using that setting until you move the camera. Anyway, having the camera on a tripod does not prevent you from doing any of your normal stuff--you just don't need to move it or hold it in your hands to take photos of more beads.

You can even keep the camera permanently mounted on a tripod in a certain initial position. You can get an active USB extension cord for cheap from monoprice.com and use it to connect your camera with your computer when you're ready to transfer photos. Just move it altogether with the tripod still attached.

You've convinced me that it won't be more work.  I just have to find a suitable tripod.

Thank you.  And thank you for not scolding me.

DominicVII wrote:

I agree with you. It takes time. As long as you shoot above 1/50 sec and know how to keep your camera still you will do just fine. Even with the ISO boosted up, your nx1100 should outperform your previous compact.

You commented before that the larger sensor might be causing the shallower depth of field, and that sounds right.  The softness I'm seeing isn't extreme, but the photos aren't as crisp as the old camera.  I think it's possible that camera shake is at least partly to blame; there's no doubt that the action of pressing the shutter release moves the camera a little.  I'm going to boost the ISO to 400, and if that doesn't work, I'll start looking for a tripod.

Actually ... Imaging Resource noted when they reviewed the camera that macro shots were soft, and they felt that it was a focussing problem (since they were using a tripod).  But the macro shots they were taking were very close up.  The shots that I'm taking are somewhere between macro and portrait.  What I'm saying is that the camera might actually be to blame; and if that's the case, there may not be a way to fix it.  However, I've noticed that if I take enough shots at each exposure compensation, that increases the chances that some of them will be sharp.

By the way, taking shots at different exposure-compensation levels is necessary.  It's impossible to tell from the LCD whether I have the EC just right.

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

Ok, I've just looked at your bead site samples and have a better idea. You can use a smaller tripod or a folded tripod and position it on your desk or work surface like this (with a zoom lens, or else you need a smaller tripod to get the camera closer to the surface. Or extend the tripod up and shoot beads on the edge of a table surface):

Place your beads underneath on a large white sheet of paper (can get huge white sheets for 99c from CVS pharmacy in the stationery isle, if you live in the U.S.--I remember budget was a great consideration). Use natural light from your window or a strategically positioned floor lamp with a translucent frosted hood.

Please don't get angry at me for expressing doubts, but this is getting very complicated. Whether I get a short tripod and put it on the table, or get a tall tripod and put it on the floor, I'm going to have to change my entire shooting setup. The fact is, I have a cramped space in which to work -- a single window partially blocked by a radiator. I don't want to use artificial light because natural light gives me the look I want, and lamps would take up space (and cost money). Years ago I bought a light tent and special lamps, and I abandoned them very quickly.

I'm going to have to experiment with camera settings while holding the camera, and only if that doesn't work will I buy a tripod. The tripod pictured does look like it might work.

As for my background, the plate works well for me. Paper would be a nuisance.

OrdinarilyInordinate wrote:

I just offer suggestions based on my own experience--it's up to you to take them in (or not) and implement as convenient for you

Yes, of course.  Let me try the simplest fixes first, and then move on to a tripod if I still need to.  Remember, I'm only taking photos for the web.  If I find the right tripod (like the one in the picture), I can stick it right in front of the table in front of the window, put the plate on the edge of the table (as you suggested), and then the photos will be perfect.

By the way, so far this camera really does have better color reproduction than my old Canon point-and-shoot.  With the Canon, aquas would look like blues, and reds would look like oranges, and yellows were washed out.  In my photo-editing program, I had to make constant adjustments to the hues; but I don't think that will be necessary with this camera.  I'm glad I decided to keep it.

Hello. I do product photography. it involves some accessories and could cost some money depending on what you take or what is your setup. it can be cheap also depending on setup.

I give you suggestion on easy and cheap alternative. one is use fluorescent bulb or lamp on stand or table, thin white linen cloth or white coupon paper, hollow frame or box frame or softbox.

use fluorescent because it produce natural light effect closest 5K temperature. use white linen on box frame or softbox for light diffusion. position lamp (outside of softbox) depending on where you want product illuminated nicely and get good balanced exposure and where you shoot with camera (front or top). if possible, use 2/3 lamps on different sides.

you should be able to shoot at f4-f8 at ISO 100 with fast shutter speeds without needing tripod or worry of movement blurring and get very sharp pictures and better field depth.

jennyrae wrote:

Hello. I do product photography. it involves some accessories and could cost some money depending on what you take or what is your setup. it can be cheap also depending on setup.

I give you suggestion on easy and cheap alternative. one is use fluorescent bulb or lamp on stand or table, thin white linen cloth or white coupon paper, hollow frame or box frame or softbox.

use fluorescent because it produce natural light effect closest 5K temperature. use white linen on box frame or softbox for light diffusion. position lamp (outside of softbox) depending on where you want product illuminated nicely and get good balanced exposure and where you shoot with camera (front or top). if possible, use 2/3 lamps on different sides.

you should be able to shoot at f4-f8 at ISO 100 with fast shutter speeds without needing tripod or worry of movement blurring and get very sharp pictures and better field depth.

Thank you for your suggestions!  I'll try some of them.