Fao ?Hoppy Garry Edwards .. anyone

for normal shooting try this

How about YOU take control of your camera

Turn off auto ISO, set to ISO 100

Use aperture priority. choose the aperture that works creatively for you. Remember too wide and your DOF tightens and you get a lot more distortions. Too narrow and you edge towards diffraction issues

Keep an eye on the shutter speed. Whilst you are not using a telephoto lens, if it drops below 1/60th second, manually bump up the ISO slightly

--

At a pixel level, barley anything looks sharp - that's the point, they are just little squares that differ to each-other. just fiew your images at "full screen on a computer monitor. if they look sharp there, they are sharp. When you understand a lot more, doing micro adjustments to sharpness at 100% zoom is going to help extract the last drop out of a shot, but until then accept that 99.89% of the time a full screen shot is more than good enough
 
Richard King said:
for normal shooting try this

How about YOU take control of your camera

Turn off auto ISO, set to ISO 100

Use aperture priority. choose the aperture that works creatively for you. Remember too wide and your DOF tightens and you get a lot more distortions. Too narrow and you edge towards diffraction issues

Keep an eye on the shutter speed. Whilst you are not using a telephoto lens, if it drops below 1/60th second, manually bump up the ISO slightly

--

At a pixel level, barley anything looks sharp - that's the point, they are just little squares that differ to each-other. just fiew your images at "full screen on a computer monitor. if they look sharp there, they are sharp. When you understand a lot more, doing micro adjustments to sharpness at 100% zoom is going to help extract the last drop out of a shot, but until then accept that 99.89% of the time a full screen shot is more than good enough
Click to expand...

I'm not using auto ISO
SS was in these, 1/125

I do view at fs and over all they are soft

Anyway today I have more important things to take care of, a sick dog going to the vets for an op

Have a good day all

H
 
Hell on earth said:
No sorry I did not mean 2x of Actual pixels, if I did that, pixelation would be clear

To me they are soft with a lot of detail missing, maybe my eyes are better or I'm being more critical.

H
Click to expand...

Then what is 2x?
For most of my images "pixelation" doesn't start to become obvious until 3x (3:1), even with my editing glasses on.

I compared image 8, +5, -5. The +/- adjustments are indeed "changing" the point (depth) of focus slightly. But no, it's not making the lens sharper...that's not what AFMA does.

In those tests, you may have simply reached the limits of the lens as far as IQ. You could stop down further than f/8 but then you'll be pushing diffraction limits.
IMO, the D7000 is just as demanding on lenses as the D800 is (for the part it's using).

More "detail" could be pulled out of the subject with different lighting. But I think you are being "more critical." Perhaps "too critical."
 
HoppyUK said:
Helen, are you trying to do a focus check? If so, you are too close and a lot of lenses are not at their most accurate when you push to the edge of their operating envelope.

You need to be at a realistic distance, with a flat target square to the camera, plus a three-dimensional element so you can see where the point of sharpest focus actually is, at lowest f/number. Very easy - try a cereal box and ruler, see post #40 here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=310467&page=2
Click to expand...

Hi Richard
I did that set up today as best I could. May not have been perfect,
I'll post pix later but I think as the over Richard has said, it looks like at some fl's it's back focusing but will wait to see what others think
H

BTW my dog is home after her OP.
 
Last edited:
Hell on earth said:
Hi Richard
I did that set up today as best I could. May not have been perfect,
I'll post pix later but I think as the over Richard has said, it looks like at some fl's it's back focusing but will wait to see what others think
H

BTW my dog is home after her OP.
Click to expand...

Ok

6" being the level mark, I could only get hold of a tape.

Focus on the green area with text.

Distance was x50 the focus length like 50mm = 2500mm All cropped in

25mm


20-25 by HS-uk, on Flickr


50mm


20-50 by HS-uk, on Flickr


105mm


20-105 by HS-uk, on Flickr

The lens is crap at 18mm I never use it that wide.
H
 
Last edited:
Between 4-5 looks best, I'd would suggest setting the camera to -20 for the lens and take another pic

Also take one using live view for comparison.
 
Last edited:
Ivan S said:
Between 4-5 looks best, I'd would suggest setting the camera to -20 for the lens and take another pic

Also take one using live view for comparison.
Click to expand...

Well that would be the max, ok on a prime but the 50mm looks to me.., the best of the 3 and 105mm way out (but may be the f stop DoF) ?

I'm not sure if I can balance this, if not the lens is useless.

H
 
Last edited:
Make sure to use the same f stop while testing for focus, use 5.6 as that will cover the whole range
 
Lighting the background, and lighting the subject are 2 separate tasks. To begin, ignore the background, and just light the subject. I guarantee you, if you get great lighting on the subject, the shot will look great

Chavgrounds are overrated anyway
 
Ivan S said:
Well I'm not sure what you mean there, i'd say generally f8 will be sharp, still if it's back focusing it wont make much difference, it will still be out of focus
Click to expand...

Should have just said 7 8 9....
 
Helen, I'm a bit lost with this thread. Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, been busy, but it seems to be jumping around a bit.

You have some lighting problems around flare. That's one thing, common enough with white backgrounds. But now your looking at general sharpness issues outside the studio. Have I got that right so far?

Can you tell me what lenses you have, what cameras you're using, and what you are not happy with - both in general and also specifically if it's one lens in particular. Please give full details clearly ;)

Also, your last test with the dog food was shot from too far away this time. DoF is naturally too deep to see the focus point with certainty. Suggest frame the shot as you would for say a top-half portrait, at the kind of distance you normally shoot at, lowest f/number, and put a mark on the rule in line with the face of the box.

It's sometimes not easy to sort these things out remotely on a forum, so Hugh's offer of a meeting might be a good idea.

Hope your dog is making progress :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Helen, I'm a bit lost with this thread. Maybe I haven't been following closely enough, been busy, but it seems to be jumping around a bit.

You have some lighting problems around flare. That's one thing, common enough with white backgrounds. But now your looking at general sharpness issues outside the studio. Have I got that right so far?

Can you tell me what lenses you have, what cameras you're using, and what you are not happy with - both in general and also specifically if it's one lens in particular. Please give full details clearly ;)

Also, your last test with the dog food was shot from too far away this time. DoF is naturally too deep to see the focus point with certainty. Suggest frame the shot as you would for say a top-half portrait, at the kind of distance you normally shoot at, lowest f/number, and put a mark on the rule in line with the face of the box.

It's sometimes not easy to sort these things out remotely on a forum, so Hugh's offer of a meeting might be a good idea.

Hope your dog is making progress :)
Click to expand...

Hi Richard, this is about this one camera and lens,about focus D7000 18-105 f3.5-5.6 ,lighting.flare after.

I have a 50mm 1.8 prime on it's way to me, may have it tomorrow

I'll re-shoot tomorrow hopefully with both lens

With the dog I really can't meet Hugh

She was worse than thought but hopefully will be ok, it's a wait and see

H
 
Last edited:
Okay, one thing at a time - probably looking after your dog first. Always a worry, so good luck with her (y)

What's wrong with the camera? You need to rule that out, but if everything is fine with other lenses, probably not a problem. Cameras are usually not the main issue with this kind of thing, and D7000 is pretty good.

18-105 is basically an upgraded kit zoom, ie you may simply be asking too much of it. Certainly no professional would give it house room; focusing may not be dead accurate or consistent, ultimate sharpness not the best, particularly towards the longer end at max aperture. Sorry to sound elitist but you should look to retire that from being your main lens.

I recall you've been looking at other lenses but not sure where you've got to there. Is that the Nikon 50/1.8 G you're getting? Hope so, good. Then my choice would be the 85/1.8 G to go with it for solo portraits. I've used both of those recently and if you want sharp, those two will deliver and not too costly. You'll obviously also need something wider for small family groups in your studio area. The 18-105 may be okay for that, at say f/8 and used towards the wider end.
 
HoppyUK said:
Okay, one thing at a time - probably looking after your dog first. Always a worry, so good luck with her (y)

What's wrong with the camera? You need to rule that out, but if everything is fine with other lenses, probably not a problem. Cameras are usually not the main issue with this kind of thing, and D7000 is pretty good.

18-105 is basically an upgraded kit zoom, ie you may simply be asking too much of it. Certainly no professional would give it house room; focusing may not be dead accurate or consistent, ultimate sharpness not the best, particularly towards the longer end at max aperture. Sorry to sound elitist but you should look to retire that from being your main lens.

I recall you've been looking at other lenses but not sure where you've got to there. Is that the Nikon 50/1.8 G you're getting? Hope so, good. Then my choice would be the 85/1.8 G to go with it for solo portraits. I've used both of those recently and if you want sharp, those two will deliver and not too costly. You'll obviously also need something wider for small family groups in your studio area. The 18-105 may be okay for that, at say f/8 and used towards the wider end.
Click to expand...

I have a 85 but it's in Gibraltar at the moment, back in a couple of weeks
I had a 70-300 but broke it
My D600 is faulty and back with Nikon
Not having a good time am I ?

The 50mm is the D as want it on the D600 as well as the D7000 as a fill for now, half the price of the G, did not want the G as looking for a prime Tamron 28-75 and something longer just don't know what yet.

The 18-105 BD is horrible wide open

In truth I've never been happy with this lens just don't want to bin it before finding out for sure whats wrong.

When I have suggested its the lens at fault, people (apart from Garry) have said it's me and not the lens.

Studio lighting is new to me and I can take the advice and criticism and work on it.

H
 
Last edited:
No, you're not having much luck at all :(

You need to think clearly and stop flitting from one thing/lens to the other. I thought you'd replaced the 70-300... Anyway, 50/1.8 D (only £40 less than the G version) will be a big step in the right direction and the 85 will give you a couple of good portrait options. Not sure what the Tamron 28-75 will bring to the party - suggest leave that for now and see how you get on with a pair of quality primes (y)
 
Hell on earth said:
When I have suggested its the lens at fault, people have said it's me and not the lens.


H
Click to expand...


I just need to ask, the previous shot's of the batteries are all shot in manual mode with 1/10th of a second shutter speed and using flash, why would you use such settings on a focus test?

I am not suggesting it's you at fault, but I have to ask to why choose settings like that as they don't make much sense.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, you're not having much luck at all :(

You need to think clearly and stop flitting from one thing/lens to the other. I thought you'd replaced the 70-300... Anyway, 50/1.8 D (only £40 less than the G version) will be a big step in the right direction and the 85 will give you a couple of good portrait options. Not sure what the Tamron 28-75 will bring to the party - suggest leave that for now and see how you get on with a pair of quality primes (y)
Click to expand...

28-75 I guess as a one fit, a bit wider

I did get another 70-300 but that was broke and returned it, may try again or the Tamron

Anyway going to bed I'm tired and stressed, just hope tomorrow is a better day.

Nite

H
 
Ivan S said:
I just need to ask, the previous shot's of the batteries are all shot in manual mode with 1/10th of a second shutter speed and using flash, why would you use such settings on a focus test?

I am not suggesting it's you at fault, but I have to ask to why choose settings like that as they don't make much sense.
Click to expand...

I think I was following the setting on the link, I had to add the flash as was in a not to light room and did not want to up the ISO

or was it Womans logic :shrug:

Nite
H
 
Helen, as several of us have said several times, you're trying too hard and you're trying to understand too many things at once.

I think we established, getting on for 100 posts ago, that most of the apparent focus problem is due to flare, and you now know how to avoid this.

Which brings us to your focussing tests, and like everything else in life you need to learn from Goldilocks - not too little, not too much, and you've done both in terms of distance.
There's no point is trying for an elysian standard that your lens isn't capable of, you need to test at a reasonable distance, at a reasonable lens aperture and at a reasonable magnification - something typical of your normal photography, as Richard has suggested.

And bear in mind too what I said about anti aliasing filters - I'm 100% in favour of posting test images that are straight out of camera, but you do need to sharpen your finished images, everyone does, regardless of camera or lens.

It's up to you of course, but you may find that a threshold of 5 is far too high for many subjects, you may find that a lower threshold (and a lower amount) may suit your needs better. Just try it, and click on the image in the sharpen box to take away the effect so that you can judge it.

It's easy to be negative about our own work, and to compare it unfavourably with shots posted on forums by other people, but maybe they're just had more practice at sharpening their images
 
The sloped ruler does show what looks like a bit of back-focus. It actually looks like quite a lot, but there are a lot of variables. You could do AFMA....here's an easy/quick/free way DotTune.

But keep in mind AFMA will be different at different focal lengths and at different focus distances. If you optimize for one, you may (probably will) be making others worse. With the Nikon, you only get one adjustment/lens.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Helen, as several of us have said several times, you're trying too hard and you're trying to understand too many things at once.

I think we established, getting on for 100 posts ago, that most of the apparent focus problem is due to flare, and you now know how to avoid this.

Which brings us to your focussing tests, and like everything else in life you need to learn from Goldilocks - not too little, not too much, and you've done both in terms of distance.
There's no point is trying for an elysian standard that your lens isn't capable of, you need to test at a reasonable distance, at a reasonable lens aperture and at a reasonable magnification - something typical of your normal photography, as Richard has suggested.

And bear in mind too what I said about anti aliasing filters - I'm 100% in favour of posting test images that are straight out of camera, but you do need to sharpen your finished images, everyone does, regardless of camera or lens

It's up to you of course, but you may find that a threshold of 5 is far too high for many subjects, you may find that a lower threshold (and a lower amount) may suit your needs better. Just try it, and click on the image in the sharpen box to take away the effect so that you can judge it.

It's easy to be negative about our own work, and to compare it unfavourably with shots posted on forums by other people, but maybe they're just had more practice at sharpening their images
Click to expand...

Good Morning Garry
Yes you are right, this has gone a bit to far in many ways.

I should have gone with my gut feeling that this lens is just poor, moved on and deal with the other things like the lighting and flare so I'll leave this thread now.

I hope the 50mm turns up today and I can get back on track.

Just a few words on PP and maybe this should be another thread.

I've never really liked it, while wonderful images can be created it's a massive cheat.
Thousands of £pounds on cameras and equipment, then even using free pp programs, all overwritten.

I have many photos taken over many years that I took on film that I could never want to touch over in pp, sure I must have thrown many away... but maybe I tried harder using film to get it right in camera.

If someone has a go at me for posting an unedited image, more fool them if they have only ever posted an edited image.

I never tried to get every aspect right in theses tests, different setting may or may not have made a difference to the focus of this lens
I do have one or two keepers from this lens, I know the settings that produced the good results but they are very narrow.

Am I a purest, No. I understand pp is a tool... just an over used one IMHO

Helen
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
The sloped ruler does show what looks like a bit of back-focus. It actually looks like quite a lot, but there are a lot of variables. You could do AFMA....here's an easy/quick/free way DotTune.

But keep in mind AFMA will be different at different focal lengths and at different focus distances. If you optimize for one, you may (probably will) be making others worse. With the Nikon, you only get one adjustment/lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I do know about that.

H
 
Hell on earth said:
I should have gone with my gut feeling that this lens is just poor, moved on and deal with the other things like the lighting and flare so I'll leave this thread now.

Just a few words on PP and maybe this should be another thread.

I've never really liked it, while wonderful images can be created it's a massive cheat.
Click to expand...

Helen

I don't think the issue is the equipment here. The issue is that you need to accept that all lenses and cameras have flaws, and limits. However, once you find them and work round them, the "sweet spot" is usually very good. You are in danger of just equipment hopping.

While I would be a little crazy to shoot a wedding with a D7000 and a lens with a plastic mount. I know I could easily shoot with one all day long, and get great results from it. Once I get past the peripheries of the settings / range on a lens like this I know the results will be good

Garry talks about the full frame Kodak - I still have a similar one in my bag that I use for a specific set of shots. What is really obvious from that camera and more modern ones is the amount of sharpening you need with a modern digital camera with an AA filter. If I flip the "very sharp 60mm 2.8" between the Kodak and a Nikon D3s you can see the D3s looks soft at 100% compared to the Kodak

Yes some lenses are better than others, however they all follow the basic laws of physics.

It is the nature of digital cameras that the RAW images all require a slight amount of sharpening in post. Some more than others

So even if you has a D3s and a 60mm 2.8 prime, if you pixel peep, you still see soft images before sharpening

Now if I shoot with that lens at the 2.8 end, or above f16, again the images are even softer

If I shoot with that lens and I dont flag my lighting, or I use a slow shutterspeed hand held - I am just introducing one more reason after another fr a softer / blurry image

As I eluded above. I know that "whilst it would not be my first choice" for reliability issues a D7000 + 18-105 zoom is a perfectly good camera to go and shoot a wedding with. Much better than any camera available more than say 6 years ago

I think Garry is right. you need t wind back to basics. work with one camera, and one lens and crack one goal at a time. There are no short cuts on this one
 
Richard King said:
Helen

I don't think the issue is the equipment here. The issue is that you need to accept that all lenses and cameras have flaws, and limits. However, once you find them and work round them, the "sweet spot" is usually very good. You are in danger of just equipment hopping.

While I would be a little crazy to shoot a wedding with a D7000 and a lens with a plastic mount. I know I could easily shoot with one all day long, and get great results from it. Once I get past the peripheries of the settings / range on a lens like this I know the results will be good

Garry talks about the full frame Kodak - I still have a similar one in my bag that I use for a specific set of shots. What is really obvious from that camera and more modern ones is the amount of sharpening you need with a modern digital camera with an AA filter. If I flip the "very sharp 60mm 2.8" between the Kodak and a Nikon D3s you can see the D3s looks soft at 100% compared to the Kodak

Yes some lenses are better than others, however they all follow the basic laws of physics.

It is the nature of digital cameras that the RAW images all require a slight amount of sharpening in post. Some more than others

So even if you has a D3s and a 60mm 2.8 prime, if you pixel peep, you still see soft images before sharpening

Now if I shoot with that lens at the 2.8 end, or above f16, again the images are even softer

If I shoot with that lens and I dont flag my lighting, or I use a slow shutterspeed hand held - I am just introducing one more reason after another fr a softer / blurry image

As I eluded above. I know that "whilst it would not be my first choice" for reliability issues a D7000 + 18-105 zoom is a perfectly good camera to go and shoot a wedding with. Much better than any camera available more than say 6 years ago

I think Garry is right. you need t wind back to basics. work with one camera, and one lens and crack one goal at a time. There are no short cuts on this one
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that

I know the sweet spot on "this" lens is f8 to 11 around 60mm at speeds of 1/320 and above will give ok images

I know I can go to like 160+ and up the ISO but rightly or wrongly I've grown to hate the lens.
Maybe I'll come back to it another time but I'm more likely to sell it and put the money towards a better lens.

H
 
Last edited:
Hell on earth said:
...

Just a few words on PP and maybe this should be another thread.

I've never really liked it, while wonderful images can be created it's a massive cheat.
Thousands of £pounds on cameras and equipment, then even using free pp programs, all overwritten.

I have many photos taken over many years that I took on film that I could never want to touch over in pp, sure I must have thrown many away... but maybe I tried harder using film to get it right in camera.

If someone has a go at me for posting an unedited image, more fool them if they have only ever posted an edited image.

I never tried to get every aspect right in theses tests, different setting may or may not have made a difference to the focus of this lens
I do have one or two keepers from this lens, I know the settings that produced the good results but they are very narrow.

Am I a purest, No. I understand pp is a tool... just an over used one IMHO

Helen
Click to expand...

Maybe the PP one is for a different thread* - but I'll add to what Richard (King) and Garry have said.

It's an essential tool. Forget what you believe about others over-using it, you simply can't produce top quality results from any gear without some processing.

Or to put it another way, you're comparing images from your gear unfavourably with other peoples with similar gear, and you're unhappy with yours:shake:. Other people are sharpening their images and you're not. There ought to be a clue there;)

My images rarely look 'processed'. I'd say the same for most other photographers who's work I admire. But the reality is that what comes out of the camera isn't pro quality results**. To get the best from your gear requires spending some time on PP, if you don't want to do it, farm it out, if you insist on eschewing it entirely - you'll have to get used to the fact that your pictures will never be as good as other peoples:). That might sound a bit dramatic - but I'm deadly serious.

The last member here who made a big fuss about all of us 'modern' shooters 'relying on Photoshop' turned out to be responsible for some of the worst work from a 'Pro' I've ever seen.

* There are already hundreds of threads, usually started by newbies who don't understand the difference between processing and image manipulation.

** You could set your camera to sharpen, saturate and otherwise process your images, shoot JPEG and it'll get you 'close' to what you can get from PP, but your technique has to be spot on (including custom WB).

Short version -
  • A modern DSLR fitted with an Anti Alias filter will require some sharpening
  • All RAW data off the sensor requires more information to turn it into a usable image, whether you let the camera do it (shoot JPEG) do it with presets or meticulously tweak with software.
  • It's no more cheating than using your own light source, or posing a subject. As soon as you've intervened, you have failed to capture 'reality'.
 
Phil V said:
Maybe the PP one is for a different thread* - but I'll add to what Richard (King) and Garry have said.

It's an essential tool. Forget what you believe about others over-using it, you simply can't produce top quality results from any gear without some processing.

Or to put it another way, you're comparing images from your gear unfavourably with other peoples with similar gear, and you're unhappy with yours:shake:. Other people are sharpening their images and you're not. There ought to be a clue there;)

My images rarely look 'processed'. I'd say the same for most other photographers who's work I admire. But the reality is that what comes out of the camera isn't pro quality results**. To get the best from your gear requires spending some time on PP, if you don't want to do it, farm it out, if you insist on eschewing it entirely - you'll have to get used to the fact that your pictures will never be as good as other peoples:). That might sound a bit dramatic - but I'm deadly serious.

The last member here who made a big fuss about all of us 'modern' shooters 'relying on Photoshop' turned out to be responsible for some of the worst work from a 'Pro' I've ever seen.

* There are already hundreds of threads, usually started by newbies who don't understand the difference between processing and image manipulation.

** You could set your camera to sharpen, saturate and otherwise process your images, shoot JPEG and it'll get you 'close' to what you can get from PP, but your technique has to be spot on (including custom WB).

Short version -
  • A modern DSLR fitted with an Anti Alias filter will require some sharpening
  • All RAW data off the sensor requires more information to turn it into a usable image, whether you let the camera do it (shoot JPEG) do it with presets or meticulously tweak with software.
  • It's no more cheating than using your own light source, or posing a subject. As soon as you've intervened, you have failed to capture 'reality'.
Click to expand...

I understand this and what it really means is buy a cheap camera and spend all your time in PS

I've just saved yaall thousands of £'s but most of your time at a pc ;)LOL
I'm not being flippant, I do understand what you are saying and respect that view.

H

Edit Photoshop is a very misleading name, it was not invented for photography but for graphic design.
 
Last edited:
Hell on earth said:
I understand this and what it really means is buy a cheap camera and spend all your time in PS

I've just saved yaall thousands of £'s but most of your time at a pc ;)LOL

H

Edit Photoshop is a very misleading name, it was not invented for photography but for graphic design.
Click to expand...

Well sorta - not all cameras with AA filters are cheap. But all cameras without are expensive;)

And you don't have to spend hours in front of the PC. Like I tell all my 'other' customers*, learn to use the software it'll save you many more hours than it takes to learn.

*My day job is IT support

If all you're doing is PP rather than image manipulation - Lightroom is the tool of choice. And it's name perfectly describes what it is(y)
 
Helen,

Just in case you don't know, let me tell you it is who is advising you here...

"Hoppy" is a technical writer. He tests equipment and writes reviews for photography magazines. H probably knows more about cameras and lenses (+ other gizmos) than anyone else here.

Richard King is a qualified optowhatsit Optometrist, he understands the physics of lenses etc better than most.

With no disrespect to the other people who have given helpful answers, you need to take notice of what these people say.
 
Just to add.
Garry Edwards is a technical genius who currently works as Technical Support for Lencarta and has forgotten more about lighting than most of us could ever dream of knowing. :D
 
Ha ha Garry I did know

I don't mind anyone giving advice, most is given in good faith even if it proves to be wrong

I did not like the few who slagged me for not pping my images before posting, missing my whole point to start with, other than that it's cool.

H
 
The 50mm has arrived and from the few test shots Wow no issues
H
 
People tend to forget that labs invest 10s of thousands in printing gear - all prints at places like boots had a certain amount of operator intervention, it was never just a straight print as in all prints from a roll done at the same settings - mostly it was done by the machine interpreting and adjusting automatically.

You are now the replacement for those machines even if it is only a bit of sharpening, levels, whatever.

Garry is quite right that you need to see the image out of camera, (possibly some sharpening) anybody that says any different is a first class fool - you need to know your starting point before you can progress.

When you have the fifty just start with one thing and work from there.

Mike
 
Haha :) Case closed (y)
 
That last photo is really good.

Sighs of relief all round! :)

I had "softness issues" a few months ago and, like Helen, spent time banging my head against the wall trying to figure out just where I was going wrong. I eventually reached the following conclusions:-

1) The lighting I was using was terrible

2) I am rather "shakier" than I thought

3) A kit lens is O.K. but will never produce the same quality of images as one that costs hundreds & hundreds and my expectations were way too high.

4) It seems most people sharpen their images.

P.S. (Off topic but never mind) I hope your dog is O.K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top