This is Photography

[mrsleeve]

^
More ISO and faster shutters speeds will help a bunch and a micro adjustment to your A/F drive if needed can help too

[BlackbirdM3]

20171225-IMG_1169 by Wschnitz, on Flickr
20171225-IMG_1208 by Wschnitz, on Flickr
20171224-IMG_1084 by Wschnitz, on Flickr

Took some okay pictures over christmas, really need to get better at taking sharp photos though, have to give the sharpness filter the beans in lightroom and it feels terrible, Or mask the blur with editing.

Here is the thing, you are shooting with a 50mm lens and only 18mp. Your camera doesn't have the resolution to make things super sharp at distance. I don't see any motion blur, but I do see a lack of resolution. The thing I find really odd in your bridge shot is that the water doesn't show more movement. 1/40 sec should show at least some, but I don't see any. I don't think your settings or technique are wrong, you simply don't have the resolution for a super sharp pic. I discovered this same problem with my Nikon D7000. It was a 16mp body, and I was pulling my hair out trying to get sharp pics at distance. As it turned out, it wasn't my settings or technique, it was simply the camera's inability to capture the details at the distances I was shooting at. When I upgraded to my D600 with 24 mp, things totally changed. Here is an attempt to show the difference.


D7000 with 70-300Vr lens

D600 from the same location and same lens at about the same distance

D600 with my Nikon 200-500, same location.

The Nikon 70-300 lens isn't the greatest lens beyond 200mm, it goes very soft, very fast, much like not having enough resolution. Still, I shot all 3 shots from exactly the same spot (within about a foot or so). All three shots are within about a 2 second flying time distance of one another, so all at nearly the same range. (They were shot 3 years apart from the first to the last.)

I hear time and time again "Oh you don't need crazy high resolution" After shooting nearly the same picture from the same place with 2 different bodies, and 3 different lenses, I beg to differ. That said, more resolution means its less forgiving. If your F stop is too high, it becomes a really noisy shot, if your panning isn't perfect, the fine detail will be blurred.



I think this was my best shot from the hillside this year. I was using a D810 (36mp) with my 200-500. The shot is good, its pretty sharp, but you can see the digital noise and there is a hint of motion blur if you look at the rivets in the plane. More resolution is a double edged sword, yeah its awesome when you get everything right, but if you don't, it shows.

Will

[Wschnitz]

Make a good point, Im not upgrading to full frame/more MP's for a while though, I guess I may be being overly picky with my shots. I definitely need to expand my lens lineup first, My mother seems to want to switch to sony mirrorless so ill pick up her 24-70mm Prime, then I think I want to grab something even longer for macros or for telephoto.

The lens for those shots have IS? Ive been kinda wondering how worth it an IS equipped lens is.

[Reichart12]

IS or VR whatever your brand calls it, actually makes a difference when handholding. I like it better than not having it.

For the MP discussion, I had a d3100 for three years and it worked great for most pictures. Obviously upgrades are always helpful but images can be nice with the older models. They key thing really is, an interesting subject will make the most difference in how captivating your images are.

[BlackbirdM3]

You don't need high resolution for up close shots with wide angle lenses. Its when you want detail at long range that you start needing more resolution. You can have the best glass in the world on a low resolution camera, and at distance you will still fail to have the detail you want, simply because the camera is incapable of capturing said detail. I very nearly went down that road with my D7000. I was almost ready to drop $2200 on a lens hoping that it would fix my lack of detail issues (since my 70-300 had such a huge fall off at 300mm) On a whim I went looking on ebay for the D600, found one that was fresh out of being retrofitted with the D610 shutter under warranty (zero shutter count) I ended up buying it because it was only $950. I was blown away by how much better things looked using the same 70-300 lens. (It was like it was a new, totally different lens.)

Landscape shots with a wide angle lens from distance, you need maximum resolution. Up close using a wide angle lens, you can get away with lower resolution because the details are larger and easier to capture. Its all about how you are planning on using the camera. If you are trying to shoot a bridge in its full span, you will need more resolution because those details in the distance simply won't be sharp without it. The ones up close will be ok, as they are likely big enough to be seen by the lower resolution.

It doesn't matter whether its a full frame or crop frame body, you still need the resolution of the sensor in order to capture the detail.

Will

[mrsleeve]

My initial response was just looking at your images here not looking at your EXIF and gear used...

Will brings up a good point, and he is very right, especially with what he seems shot the most, (fast) moving targets, landscapes and general daily photo is a little simpler, and I feel like he may have overlooked a couple of other things to try before getting new gear for your situation at least. That being said after looking at your EXIF data I think you have a little more going on than just older gear. Would a upgrade to a higher resolution sensor help, yes it would but it would not fix some of the underlying factors causing your complaint. 18MP is plenty in a crop to make good sharp images. I will post some examples at the bottom with some distance to in them.

1 you look a little under exposed, (about a stopish) other than the 3rd. Under exposure will lend it self to lack of resolution in general.

2 White Balance. You have it set to auto, in general a good idea save when you have total over cast that washes out any color you have,I would have shot all 3 of those in B&W you would have a much nicer over all image IMO. When you have a very monotone day with the heavy overcast/inversion conditions you might want to set it to shadow or over cast at least. Like when I shoot sun rise/set I use a custom WB of about 8200-8600k to help enhance all those warmer tones (the higher the Kelvin the warmer the tone bias). IME, auto WB on my Canon rigs struggle with those lighting conditions with the auto WB, it gets close, but you lose your darker colors that you do have as "shadow"

3. Aperture. in 2 and 3 your EXIF shows shot at F1.4, thats a very narrow depth of field of in focus and would look as if there is a lack of sharpness in all but the focal point (pass front bumper marker on the 2ed gen). That said I would expect more foreground and back ground Bokeh in that image at a f1.4

Another point is that the USM 50 1.4 is generally well known for being a very sharp lens once you stop it down to F4 area and down, and NO its not a IS lens. So you might be looking a little soft on the 3rd shot even in the central focal area ( where I assume you set your focal distance) when shot wide open like the EXIF shows even with that much distance, and coupled with the shitty lighting, and large amount of moisture in the air causing the shitty lighting. Staying in the "sweet spot" for sharpness base on your aperture of your chosen lens will help a lot with what your noticing, I am betting.

I think some slight tweaking in technique and experimentation with your gear, to find what produces the results you want. When you have lighting like that again, play with WB and see if you get something you like, and stop down to F3.2 or smaller unless your looking for Bokeh. But in all honesty shoot those in B&W. You might consider playing with your "photo style" in your menu, if your set to portrait and shooting landscapes your going to get some funny results rendering colors. Though its not going to be causing the "sharpness" issues your noticing. Like your bridge shot looks much better than the other 2, because your stopped down to F7.1, but your at 1/40th shutter, with a 80mm (ff equivalent) on the front so your likely getting a little hand shake, as rule of thumb is shutter time no slower than effective focal length of the lens to avoid that, unless you practice a lot like Will dose with his epic panning shots............

Here is some examples from my M4/3 16.1mp 2.0 crop factor with 2012 tech (olympus OMD EM5) for resolution at longer distances.

PC101225 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

PC011195 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

P3090198 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

P7160193 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

Here, is one from old 40D a 10.1mp with my old 28-135USM on it
_MG_2857 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

[Wschnitz]

Yeah I think I'm just being picky and being too hesitant to up my ISO to 'crutch' any hand shakiness so I can run a faster shutter.

Gonna have to play around some more this week, its not like I have anything to do on break.

[BlackbirdM3]

I have to agree, your shots would have been better in b/w. Trying to get good color out of a day with little good light is always going to be tough.

Back in August I made a very fast run to Washington state. I took a very quick trip to Lake Crescent on the Olympic Peninsula. The light was tough, and yes it was raining as well... I shot some color, and made some b/w. Unfortunately when I uploaded them the data didn't get uploaded so I can't tell you what I shot the stuff at. In my typical tendency I went low ISO and long exposure with most of the shots. All I had was my monopod.








I rarely shoot higher than ISO200. Yes, in keeping the ISO low, I usually have to shoot a slow shutter speed. The upside is that the color is more developed, and there is very little noise.

You can shot some epic shots with a lower mp camera. I shot these with my D7000. For the most part, they have pretty good detail.





Will

[Wschnitz]

Im honestly fine with noise, its something I actually like in some pictures.

But yeah, honestly just need to shoot more, do too much sitting then lazily taking pictures when im out.

[Reichart12]

Washington state and Oregon are definitely on my "to shoot" list. Right after I go north a bit and explore Glacier NP.

How are things with a monopod? I always take out my Walmart special tripod wherever I go. Can't imagine trying long exposure without the extra support.

[BlackbirdM3]

Washington state and Oregon are definitely on my "to shoot" list. Right after I go north a bit and explore Glacier NP.

How are things with a monopod? I always take out my Walmart special tripod wherever I go. Can't imagine trying long exposure without the extra support.

I could spend days shooting Olympic national park. As for the monopod, it helps when you need to shoot a stationary subject at slower than 1/60 sec. Its totally worthless if your target is moving.

Cheap tripods have their place. I broke mine climbing up a cliff after shooting this out near Bolinas Ca.



I also had my monopod with me and after breaking the tripod, the sunset was really starting to go off, so I broke out the mono pod and pulled these off.



Those were my most epic sunset shots ever. I've gone back out there a couple times and come up empty.

Will

[Reichart12]

Snagged a few photos in Pennsylvania the other day. First one is a 30 second exposure and my ND filter always gives a purple tint that is pretty hard to remove. I think they look good on my computer but when I exported to my phone they just look a bit flat. And I always feel like every photo I take is crooked in some way lol.

[BlackbirdM3]

Snagged a few photos in Pennsylvania the other day. First one is a 30 second exposure and my ND filter always gives a purple tint that is pretty hard to remove. I think they look good on my computer but when I exported to my phone they just look a bit flat. And I always feel like every photo I take is crooked in some way lol.

Nice shots. What type of ND filter do you have? You might try running those images through color effex 4, part of the google NIK collection (free to download) That might really pull some details out. There is a function called detail extractor that seems to work wonders on shots with sunsets and clouds and that sort of thing. I often have the same issue with shots looking lopsided, I always check them in lightroom when I process everything.

Will

[mrsleeve]

Snagged a few photos in Pennsylvania the other day. First one is a 30 second exposure and my ND filter always gives a purple tint that is pretty hard to remove. I think they look good on my computer but when I exported to my phone they just look a bit flat. And I always feel like every photo I take is crooked in some way lol.

I do see a bit of a purple cast but its not really a deal breaker, still a well executed shot. What are you using for a ND filter, Lee or B&W should not be giving you that type of trouble so I assume your using a something a "bit less refined". That said you could invest in the Lee and likely solve much of your issue in one fell swoop. Though there is more than 1 way to skin a cat, in this instance like I mentioned in the last post, White Balance is a key player here, but not just the WB settings to compensate for lighting conditions but the secondary setting of of WB shift, you can adjust based on color shifting within the camera itself.

I would think some experimenting with the WB shift to compensate for the the magenta, magenta/red shifting of your ND(fillers) might take care of a lot of the "purple hazing" for much cheaper than a Big stopper. I would assume you have the ability to save custom user settings in a D7100.... so once you have a setting your happy with save them and select it when you need it.

Just something to consider.

[Reichart12]

Its definitely a cheaper screw on ND filter. Not entirely sure of the brand. And yeah I put everything through Lightroom so I change the colors a bit to begin with. Some of it I figure is getting used to the screen (better resolution and color) of my laptop that I got earlier this month.

Custom settings is an interesting idea and not something Ive looked into yet.