Finally got a DSLR & took some pics!

[Davi]

Birthday this year brought with it the arrival a long awaited toy, my first proper DSLR - a D60 body with a nikkor 18-70 lens replacing the 18-55 usually in kits. So far I've spent a few hours looking through all the settings, trying to work out what everything does, taking about 400 pictures of a toy on our sofa and seeing what difference each makes!

First trip out was MiniDavi's 1st Birthday trip to Marwell. Spent the majority of the day trying different settings, got a few pics I'm happy with considering these were my first "I think I need to..." where I tried to decide how to set the camera up for the shot, now the real learning starts

[mikee boy]

Your photos seem a little soft so I don't know what post-processing you did on them. PP makes a HUGE difference to the look of a digital photo and is as important as getting the correct photo in the first place. I sharpened up the picture above and bumped the contrast up a little too.

Keep up the good work.

[Davi]

mikee boy said:

Your photos seem a little soft so I don't know what post-processing you did on them. PP makes a HUGE difference to the look of a digital photo and is as important as getting the correct photo in the first place. I sharpened up the picture above and bumped the contrast up a little too.

Keep up the good work.

Ta! No PP at all other than re-sample resolution for screen dpi and compress for d/l speed. Thought I'd show my first efforts as raw as possible as I'd like to learn how to get the camera side as good as possible (already know the PS side inside out, used to be a graphics designer)

What am I likely to be doing wrong to get them too soft on the camera itself?

[mikee boy]

Assuming the focus is spot-on and there is no camera motion as you press the shutter then the pictures will be as sharp as they can be. It's worth setting up a couple of test shots with perfect focus and a self-timer to see what the camera can do without you involved!!

Photographers generally add poor focus (not getting the correct part of the photo in focus) and a bit of movement at shutter release (a tripod makes a big difference as the shutter speed gets slower). Each lens will also have a 'sweet spot' where the optics are best (i.e. for my long lens it's f8).

Every photo I've taken with my DSLR has been PPd to get what I want and I guess that's no different to film work in a darkroom. If you understand PS then this is my workflow (others may vary):

USM x 2 at quite a low rate (i.e. 0.8 to 1.2 px)
Contrast, hue, levels etc
Resize for internet
Sharpen (not USM) about 10-15%.

Good luck

[Davi]

mikee boy said:

Assuming the focus is spot-on and there is no camera motion as you press the shutter then the pictures will be as sharp as they can be. It's worth setting up a couple of test shots with perfect focus and a self-timer to see what the camera can do without you involved!!

Photographers generally add poor focus (not getting the correct part of the photo in focus) and a bit of movement at shutter release (a tripod makes a big difference as the shutter speed gets slower). Each lens will also have a 'sweet spot' where the optics are best (i.e. for my long lens it's f8).

Every photo I've taken with my DSLR has been PPd to get what I want and I guess that's no different to film work in a darkroom. If you understand PS then this is my workflow (others may vary):

USM x 2 at quite a low rate (i.e. 0.8 to 1.2 px)
Contrast, hue, levels etc
Resize for internet
Sharpen (not USM) about 10-15%.

Good luck

Cheers, I wouldn't be at all surprised if both poor focus and movement apply I'll try a tripod and get some test shots done!

As you say PP is no different to darkroom work and agree forms just as much a part of the whole process as it always has for film - once I've started getting the camera to produce the raw data I'm happy to show I'll start tweaking them

I've never been keen on image-wide USM actions due to artefacts and haloing of edges when the file hits the press (even when used with extreme diligence) but I have noticed it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with "digital prints" for some reason. Not really had much to do with digital prints so must remember to investigate that further.

[Simpo Two]

In my experience sharpening, the type and how much you apply is very dependent on final image size.

Assuming you start at 3,000 x 2,000px, you can make the image as visually sharp as you like, but then if you resize (eg to 750px for PH) it will go soft again. So if you're aiming to post here, resize the image first, then add sharpening to taste. Besides, digital sharpening is an illusion anyway

While I'm on, I must also applaud the OP for saying 'So far I've spent a few hours looking through all the settings' - because it seems so few people do, and therefore never learn what's really going on.

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 1st April 17:24

[mikee boy]

Yep, should have added I use the workfow listed to reduce from 3000x2000 to 758x500 and something. There are different ways to skin the cat and it will depend from image to image.

[Pvapour]

didn't realise you guys use PP so much to enhance, gives more more hope to achieve something half decent

was looking at some of the sample photos within the 'which lens' thread, (very useful as I'm just about to buy my 1st equipment) was a gasp at the some clarity & sharpness, especially the underside of the aircraft (70-300 from memory)

Yours looked quite good to me Davi, nice to see what someone new to it can achieve but to see what Mikee has done to it gives a good idea where to head once on the laptop, seems taking the picture is just the start now......

Love working in PS though so a good excuse.

decided to go for the Canon EOS 450 with maybe - Tameron AF 18-270 as a compromise lens for long & wide work + Canon EF 100 for Macro work, does this sound a good mix?

been talking with the 'live pro help' at the warehouse most of the afternoon

[mikee boy]

Pvapour said:

decided to go for the Canon EOS 450 with maybe - Tameron AF 18-270 as a compromise lens for long & wide work + Canon EF 100 for Macro work, does this sound a good mix?

The camera is a good choice but I'm not familiar with the Tamron lens. The 100 Macro lens is well-respected.

[Pvapour]

mikee boy said:

Pvapour said:

decided to go for the Canon EOS 450 with maybe - Tameron AF 18-270 as a compromise lens for long & wide work + Canon EF 100 for Macro work, does this sound a good mix?

The camera is a good choice but I'm not familiar with the Tamron lens. The 100 Macro lens is well-respected.

DPR seem to rate it so here's hoping!

At least I got the camera this morn, WAHOO! but no additional lenses as yet so only got the std 18-55, still had fun & took this at night long way to go....

[Nolar Dog]

OP: Are you shooting in RAW/NEF's or JPEG?

[Davi]

Nolar Dog said:

OP: Are you shooting in RAW/NEF's or JPEG?

While I'm just playing around I was using jpeg - I did mean to have a look into the benefits of RAW but got distracted by shiny buttons to press!

[tim-b]

TBH it looks like more of a compression issue - try saving them at a higher quality. won't be massive files so unless you're using dialup it shouldn't take too long to upload...

[Davi]

I didn't want to upset people with a load of large pics, I'll do one at lower compression in a bit for comparison

[Davi]

Just noticed that my upload on pb was set to auto reduce them to 15" screen whereas I don't reduce mine that far, so they will have been altered by photobucket - think it makes quite a difference! I've left the compression a lot lower as well - much better.

Edited by Davi on Friday 3rd April 11:56

[mikee boy]

Davi said:

Just noticed that my upload on pb was set to auto reduce them to 15" screen whereas I don't reduce mine that far, so they will have been altered by photobucket - think it makes quite a difference! I've left the compression a lot lower as well - much better.

A huge improvement over the originals. Good shots.

[furtive]

mikee boy said:

*overly sharpened photo*

sharpened up the picture above and bumped the contrast up a little too.

That looks absolutely horrid to my eyes - really over-sharpened and nasty looking