What am I doing wrong

Author
Discussion

liner33

Original Poster:

10,758 posts

208 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
I can never seem to get decent pics out of my camera , I have a Panasonic DMC-G1 , even with all the idiot features on the pics just look awful

Example - This is on the IA mode



Compared to the same kind of angle with my Samsung S7 phone




Any ideas on what I can try I am sure I am not getting the best out of the camera

Drogo

735 posts

223 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
Top pic is a little over exposed.

Try the Panasonic on different metering/exposure settings.
Lovely colour by the way.


GetCarter

29,558 posts

285 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
Yep top pic has blown highlights (which you won't get back).

Try moving out of auto to 'P' mode and set the exposure to -0.7 for a while (so that it won't over expose), and see what results you get.

(I bet they'll be better!)


ETA ..in the manual it'll be under 'exposure compensation'.

Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 3rd June 11:41

toohuge

3,449 posts

222 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
2 things here...

Firstly, the top photograph, as mentioned has been overexposed / your camera has metered on the car and blown the highlights to smithereens.

The second image from your phone.. could have been a single exposure and the phone as lifted the shadows to preserve the sky and brighten the car. Or the phone has taken multiple images in a HDR way to expose for both the car and the background.

JonChalk

6,469 posts

116 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
IMHO:

Where was focus point, and what was aperture set to?

To me, the front of the car and hedge to right of it looks to be in focus (or better, at least), while back of car and hedge to left looks softer.

If you've got an aperture priority on the Panasonic, i'd be trying shots at f5.6 / f8 / f11, leaving the camera to sort the rest & see if that improves it.

GetCarter

29,558 posts

285 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
JonChalk said:
IMHO:

Where was focus point, and what was aperture set to?

To me, the front of the car and hedge to right of it looks to be in focus (or better, at least), while back of car and hedge to left looks softer.

If you've got an aperture priority on the Panasonic, i'd be trying shots at f5.6 / f8 / f11, leaving the camera to sort the rest & see if that improves it.
I think it was probably on 'auto'.

JonChalk

6,469 posts

116 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
I think it was probably on 'auto'.
...either stripped of Exif, or Imgur doesn't download Exif, so cant't tell what "auto" settings it was using either.

GetCarter

29,558 posts

285 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
JonChalk said:
GetCarter said:
I think it was probably on 'auto'.
...either stripped of Exif, or Imgur doesn't download Exif, so cant't tell what "auto" settings it was using either.
I suggested 'auto' as he said he had 'all the idiot features on'.

liner33

Original Poster:

10,758 posts

208 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
Just to clarify IA mode on the Panasonic is "Intelligent Auto" - ie Auto mode - "Optimum settings are made automatically from information such as "face, movement, brightness and distance just by pointing the camera at the subject, meaning that clear pictures can be taken without the need to make settings manually"

That's what I mean by auto and idiot features on

Largely the discussion has gone right over my head however I did nip out and have a play in P mode (Program AE) and tried setting the aperture back

In IA mode



P mode aperture back one point (click)



P mode aperture back 2 points



P mode aperture back 3 points/clicks




Shouldn't the camera do this automatically ? Can I do anything to help it or should i just play with the aperture every time/put the camera in the bin and use my phone instead ?




GetCarter

29,558 posts

285 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
A lot of cameras over expose. It's because much of the world doesn't notice... they just want 'bright' photos.

As you see, by exposure compensating, they already look better.

Next up... take photos in RAW + Jpg (not just jpg), and save the ones you like in RAW.

Down the line get some software like 'Lightroom' (or similar) and do so simple post processing, and the pics will take off.

Cameras are pretty stupid things and one needs to sort their mistakes after the images have left the camera. Hence shoot in RAW, so you can do that.


Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 3rd June 17:24

ukaskew

10,642 posts

227 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
I think it's a nice example of how well modern smart phones process images to make them look very acceptable with basically zero effort, and things are only going to get better in that respect with machine learning etc. You're very unlikely to get a similar exposure directly from an interchangeable camera without a bit of post processing.

Basic DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with kit lenses will really struggle (like compact cameras have) unless they can start pulling off the same tricks with ease.


DIW35

4,157 posts

206 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
The problem with cameras in auto mode is that as a rule they have no idea what you are taking a photo of (face recognition excepted) and therefore have no idea what part of the photo is the subject. As a result they meter the entire scene and make an exposure based on the average light value for that scene.

This works fine in most cases, but falls short when there is an excess of light or dark material in the frame.

Simpo Two

86,717 posts

271 months

Sunday 3rd June 2018
quotequote all
It is indeed bizarre that in many cases a telephone can take better photos than a camera. Perhaps DSLR makers should use the same software gubbins for their Auto mode that phones do...?

8bit

4,973 posts

161 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
It is indeed bizarre that in many cases a telephone can take better photos than a camera. Perhaps DSLR makers should use the same software gubbins for their Auto mode that phones do...?
This would surely push the price up, which would be annoying for those of us that don't want that. No thanks from me.

bakerstreet

4,812 posts

171 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
It is indeed bizarre that in many cases a telephone can take better photos than a camera. Perhaps DSLR makers should use the same software gubbins for their Auto mode that phones do...?
That is quite a sweeping statement. I'm currently learning DSLR photography (For the second time in my life) and there are some shots that I don't think the phone could match or get close to. However the phone is still easier to take a quick snap. I still utilise a small robust compact for work in the garage.

Also, I think the Pors would give you a list of things as long as your arm as to why they can't replace their rigs with phones. Zoom ability and aperture adjustment must be two of them. I know that the S9 now boasts aperture adjustment, but that has only just been launched. v

Kewy

1,462 posts

100 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
I think the answer to this is that if you want to just point and shoot, and get a good photograph with minimal effort, then cameras on phones these days are pretty spectacular at that. You'd struggle to blow those shots up much bigger than A3/A4 though.

Digital SLR's and Mirrorless are more suited to the photographer who is willing to post-process, and if you shoot with the right settings to begin with, plus do some subtle post-processing you can get outstanding photos that can be blown up huge.

I regularly shoot with my Nikon DSLR and my iPhone 7 Plus – fairly often I will just use the shot from the iPhone for Instagram or other social media because it is so much quicker and only ever going to be looked at on a phone screen really. If I'm photographing for a client or taking photos that I may light to blow up bigger one day, then I will spend the time to process the RAW files and most the time get a better final result than you could ever get from a phone.

There are many other benefits to using a camera rather than a phone to take photos, I'm not even remotely worried about phones taking over cameras in that respect. I often shoot a lot of flash photography and off camera flash using radio slaves etc, something phones will never focus on I don't imagine.

Kermit power

29,421 posts

219 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
bakerstreet said:
Simpo Two said:
It is indeed bizarre that in many cases a telephone can take better photos than a camera. Perhaps DSLR makers should use the same software gubbins for their Auto mode that phones do...?
That is quite a sweeping statement. I'm currently learning DSLR photography (For the second time in my life) and there are some shots that I don't think the phone could match or get close to. However the phone is still easier to take a quick snap. I still utilise a small robust compact for work in the garage.

Also, I think the Pors would give you a list of things as long as your arm as to why they can't replace their rigs with phones. Zoom ability and aperture adjustment must be two of them. I know that the S9 now boasts aperture adjustment, but that has only just been launched. v
That's all well and good, but it doesn't in any way answer the question Simpo was asking!

Nobody is suggesting that phones are better than cameras all the time, or even most of the time, but in some cases they certainly do seem to be.

From that point, surely the most logical question in the world, as asked by Simpo, is "why don't camera manufacturers therefore use the same software"?

Now there could well be a number of answers to this - maybe that software couldn't cope with interchangeable lenses? Maybe if you blow the resulting picture up to print out at, say, A1 or A2 (which I do a fair amount for printing to canvas) it'll look dreadful? Maybe it only works with a single depth of field and can't handle variable aperture lenses?

None of us here seem to know the answer, but it's still a perfectly logical question, and I don't believe it's as simple as not pushing up the price of a camera with a feature buyers wouldn't use, as it can surely only cost pennies if it can be put into a phone which costs less than the camera yet still has to do everything else the phone does.

GetCarter

29,558 posts

285 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
...and you do realise that Simpo is a pro!

Simpo Two

86,717 posts

271 months

Monday 4th June 2018
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
...and you do realise that Simpo is a pro!
But subs landscapes out to GetCarter 'cos he gets up earlier wink

sticks090460

1,094 posts

164 months

Thursday 7th June 2018
quotequote all
If you want to take decent photos of a car, the first thing you need to do is get a circular polarising filter to get rid of as many distracting reflections as possible (it also helps with contrast in the sky, but that's a peripheral benefit). Then get a decent location, get the exposure right (as detailed by other people above), and also get the depth of field set so that your car is in focus but the background isn't (unless you want it to be for some reason. Look on YouTube, there's some guys giving good advice and practical tips on how to do car shoots.