QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2560 times:
Sorry to bring this up again, but I've been shooting away and have gotten nothing but rejections. I'm sure the fact that I'm a novice (pretty bad ) photographer is playing a part, but the quality of most of the photos has been disappointing. There's usually quite a lot of grain (particularly under dark conditions), and the pictures are generally soft/not-very-vivid. What I'd like to know is:
--Are there any lenses (not too expensive, please) that might improve the image quality (I currently have a UV filter, that's it)?
--What sorts of settings might improve the photos? As I said, I'm a complete -- I repeat: complete -- novice, and haven't quite gotten the hang of the various settings one needs to adjust to get a good shot.
--Is there any photo-editing freeware/other programs that you really recommend I use? All I have at the moment is Adobe Photoshop 6.0...
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 15 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2413 times:
It's hard to say anything without knowing a little bit more about what you've been taking photos of, and what settings you used to take them, and then how you post processed them.
A lot of grain could indicate that a high ISO has been used, or that too much sharpening has been applied, but that's purely guesswork. Photoshop is a decent editing program and what a lot of people use, so there shouldn't be many problems there.
Could you post a couple of images that you took and also say what settings you were using to take them (which mode you shot in, ISO and so on), then what you did in Photoshop before uploading the image. I'm sure then you'll get some advice on what else you could try for better results.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Alright, I still don't have photos up yet (I'll post them ASAP when I do), but I can give you the settings I have taken most of the photos with. As I said, I'm a complete novice, so don't laugh please ...
Pilothighflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
ISO is your sensors sensitivity to light, the lowest ISO your camera offers will give you the best quality. When u raise the ISO your pics will get grainy. Try to always use the lowest ISO possible
This should help http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensitivity
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
Thanks a lot, Pilothighflyer! So basically, under everyday clear-sky condition, I'd want to set the camera on the lowest ISO possible (50), correct? What would I do on partly-cloudy or cloudy days? Any other ISO tips and tricks?
PS: I forgot to mention another setting that I use: SHQ...
EDIT: Ah, I forgot something else you guys asked about -- what I do to the photos in photoshop. A lot of the time their quite dark (that reminds me, any settings that can help the darkness?), so I lighten them up a bit, and up the contrast a bit too. If the photo is grainy I usually do one round of "despeckle". Depending on the overall quality, I sometimes sharpen (not more than once, usually), and sometimes up the saturation. Photoshop tips are welcome...
Pilothighflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2354 times:
What would I do on partly-cloudy or cloudy days? Any other ISO tips and tricks?
With out seeing your pics it hard to tell but mabye this will help,
Try to keep the ISO as low as possible, 50 is ideal, but 100 shouldn't be too bad. With my D100 I shoot at ISO 200 all the time given its the lowest setting and produces the least amount of noise. On days with less light u need to find a balance between F-Stop, Shutter speed and ISO.
To compensate for these low light days put the camera in manual mode and adjust the F stop (Your camera's lens is F2.8 - F3.7) and the shutter speed (the long the shutter is open the more light hits the sensor).
The lower the F-Stop will allow the most light onto the sensor thus allowing you 2 raise your shutter speed to track a fast moving plane.
Its all about finding a balance for that paticular situation, the camera is very good at using the input data to figure the balance of settings out, but sometimes the eye ( and some experience) is better.
747 4-ever From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 604 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
Hey QantasA332 and others,
I'm using the Olympus C-740, which is basically the same camera, it just has less megapixels.
I am happy with it and most shots turn out good
I'm using the "auto" mode almost all the time, because I think it gives me the best results, if something isn't working, then I use the "P" mode.
One thing that I have discovered is that you have to be careful with the zoom. The less zoom, the better photos.
Here's a few examples, taken during different light conditions.
--important note, I'm just a happy amateur, so this is just what I've experienced with the C-740, might be the same as with any camera and it might just be mine :P ---
One important thing is to be steady on the hands, pan along with the subject or to hold the camera perfectly still. Of course this is not as important in good light conditions as it is during overcast days, during early morning, late evening or when the only light available is artificial.
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
I did not see it mentioned- but I would lose th UV filter if I were you unless it is of decent quality. I have found that unless you put an decent filter on your camera, you are just decreasing image quality needlessly. Sure, you protect the front element of your camera, but your camera has an automatically retracting lens for when you turn it off, right? Give it a shot without the filter and see if that helps at least a little. Just my two cents.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
Thanks so, so much everyone!! I really appreciate the help!!
@Planedoctor: Get rid of the filter, eh? It's a "Olympus Marumi" UV filter, 55mm, it has 45.6 > 55 on it, etc... Would you know offhand if it's any good and worth keeping on or not? Thanks so much for that tip...
@747_4-ever: Thank you very very much for those tips. So you don't adjust ISO settings or anything, you just use "auto"?
@everyone: I'm in the middle of getting some photos of mine up on myaviation, so just hang in there...(sorry it's taking so long).
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
I have never used the filter you mentioned, and I did a search on google and found very little about it. I'm not saying it definitely is a bad filter- I just know that filters can be guilty of optical troubles, and if there is any problem with image quality I often take a good hard look at the filter I am using. I have found from sad experience that cheap filters can ruin a perfectly good camera/ lens. I put a cheap promaster on my 75-300 lens (and my 75-300 was't that particularly sharp to begin with) and I coudn't figure out why all my images had had a double-image effect, and it took me a while to try shooting without the filter... and the problem disappeared. You are on the right track and I think you will get some photos accepted before too long.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
Thanks for that, Planedoctor. I'll try with and without the filter, and see how it goes. While we're on the subject of 'add-ons', are there any particular lenses that you recommend I get?
Sorry everyone, the photos are still on their way. Some I'm in the middle of having screened, and others are waiting to be uploaded to myaviation. I would just put them in photobucket, but they get compressed and the quality isn't as good there. As I said, I'll post them ASAP...
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
I finally have some photos for you guys to take a look at... Below are seven recently -- you guessed it! -- rejected photos of mine. Please check them out for all aspects of quality, etc., and let me know what you think. I'd particularly like to know if there are any of the badscans (the ones without any mork detail such as baddark or whatever) that you guys think are salvageable with some processing. The bluish/greenish pics were through tinted window, and I haven't gotten around to fixing the colour levels yet. Don't laugh too hard, please, I know they're quite bad...
The (slightly) good news is that one photo out of all those rejected ones passed the first screening...
I appreciate all of your feedback a lot! Thanks for the help.
(One more ISO clarification [sorry!]. If it's normal, clear/very slightly cloudy weather, the ISO should be set as low as possible, correct? How low, exactly? 50, 100...? Then if it's overcast, I want a higher ISO...but how high, exactly?)
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
I see your making the same mistake i did. That's the fact your downloading an image that's 1250 pixels in size (in my case 1600). I have been told that if you download at 1024 it hides a lot of the small problems in the picture. Giving a much improved chance of acceptance. Just look at the site as almost 80% of the pictures on here at only 1024 max pixels !!!
Give it a go like im going to do !!!
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Could someone let me know what exactly is wrong with the badscan ones, and if any of the photos are salvageable at all, with some processing? Otherwise, have a look at the photos, please, and let me know what you think I'd need to do while taking pics in the future, based on the examples I've given you.
OO-VEG From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1081 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
Hmm that last pic is definately a bit grainy that's probably why it got rejected. A lower ISO may have done the trick. You can get rid of some of the grain easily by editing the sky in Photoshop. You could blurr the sky a little bit (after all, the only detail you can see in a piece of clearblue sky is grain and dustpartikels on your lens).
When taking pictures on your digicam, do you store them on the highest possible quality?
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
When taking pictures on your digicam, do you store them on the highest possible quality?
As for the grain, I've been in contact with a few people and they determined at least part of the cause is my UV filter, and that I should shoot without it. I'll also definitely try a lower ISO, but I've also been told by people with my camera that Auto ISO works fine. Trying all of the options out is the answer...