Digital Images Looking, well, Digital.

[samantha_bender]

I am currently shooting with a D200 - and have been getting images lately that

aren't crisp lately - and I think I need some advice. Ok, in the controlled

conditions of my home, my images usually turn out great. The problem comes in

when I am outdoors, moving around, and usually using fill flash. I'll post an

example of what I'm not happy with below. In figure 1, the image looks great,

small. But, in figure 2, I've zoomed in to show the couple and I just really do

not like the way they look - they don't look crisp and really look digital

(can't put my finger on the word I'm looking for here - I guess they just don't

look like film!)

Any advice you have would help. Thanks!

[samantha_bender]

figure 2

[michaelschrag]

What f stop? How are you focusing manual, automatic, what settings? What settings do you use for in camera sharpening? Do you shoot raw or JPEG? Do you then do any sharpening in photoshop? You don't provide much information to work with. Tell us more, please.

[john schroeder]

The amount of shapening you apply is directly dependent on the image size. After you have decided on the image size and final crop then apply sharpening while viewing your image at 100%. I realy like Fred Miranda's intelesharpen plugin for photoshop. "unsharp mask" is the worst sharpening tool available. I turn off all sharpening in my camera and only sharpen in the computer. The image you posted has a lot of compresion artifacts but I think you will see what I mean from the example I'm posting. I also burned in the corners a bit to focus the viewer's attention on the subject.

[akochanowski]

I know exactly what you mean when you describe shot 2 as looking "digital". If I had to venture a guess, the "digital look" is an oversharpened JPEG setting. You are shooting in an already contrasty environment, which will exacerbate the slightly smaller dynamic range that of digital has versus color negative film. That combination will get you that pasted-in look that your couple has. And your color balance looks off, at least on my monitor. <p>

 

I use a D200 as well, and find that it has a wonderful, film-like look. But I shoot RAW, do not add sharpening in-camera, and find my images plenty sharp to my liking. <p> What lenses are you using?

[aeaster]

Samantha, I really cannot help you with this, but the title of your posting screams aloud for it. Please don't think me a smart-ass troll, but if you don't want digital images why are you using a digital camera? It seems to reason that if you want film you have to shoot film. Would you order fried flounder then complain that it tastes like fish?

[samantha_bender]

Michael,

f 7.1 1/125th of a second, automatic focus. Nikkor Lenses: 80-200 f 2.8 and DX 18-70. I shot JPEG - but, before you all trample me with RAW praises - I am planning to purchase more CF cards ASAP - so can shoot RAW constantly and I don't run into this problem again. Now, that you all mention it, it really does look like sharpening - I will investigate further.

Thanks to those of you who tried to help!

Andre - your comment really was quite pointless. I'm just trying to understand a fairly new camera better - trying to get the best I can out of my equipment - and trying to learn from others.

[akochanowski]

BTW, you will often get a similar look when you use transparency film: try shooting Fuji Sensia at a subject into a harsh sky and metering for the darker subject. The edges will often get the same hard break look. It is not a matter of digital vs film, it's a matter of understanding your equipment's limitations. This shot would be easier to get right with a less-contrasty, more forgiving color negative film, but of course you can get it looking "non digital" with the D200.

[wmwhee]

First of all, I know next to NOTHING about digital photography.

 

That said, I would would like to add that the pictures look all right to me. (See what I mean by next to NOTHING?) John's version does represent a clear improvement to me, probably due to the burning-in of the edges. Also, I think I may prefer the "cropped" version to the original one. Because I received a d70 as a gift a year ago, I am interested in this discussion.

 

I like the picture, by the way.

 

Bill

[akira]

Hi, Samantha,

 

Judging from the ghost at the feet of the gentleman, "figure 2" is a "crop" of the "figure 1", even though you said you "zoomed in".

 

Although D200 is a gorgeous 10MP camera, your crop looks like it only utilizes about 1MP of the entire image.

 

So, to me, it doesn't seem to be either sharpening or JPEG artifacts. The "figue 2" seems just to suffer from lack of the pixel counts.

[larrybc]

Andre Easter , may 25, 2006; 12:39 p.m.

<br>> Samantha, I really cannot help you with this, but the title

<br>> of your posting screams aloud for it. Please don't think me

<br>> a smart-ass troll, but if you don't want digital images why

<br>> are you using a digital camera? It seems to reason that if

<br>> you want film you have to shoot film. Would you order fried

<br>> flounder then complain that it tastes like fish?

<br>

<br>WARNING: OFF-TOPIC

<br>I ran a fish-n-chip shop for a number of years and customers would sometimes complain that the fish tasted fishy. We used to make fun of them (in the kitchen, of course), saying, "OF COURSE it tastes like fish, it IS fish!" But we knew that good fish shouldn't taste fishy, and we complained to our supplier when it did (assuming it wasn't our fault).

<br>

<br>ANYWAY, I know exactly what the OP is talking about re: digital images looking digital. Good digital images don't need to look over-processed.

<br>

<br>larsbc

<br>

[phule]

But how do they look printed?

[richard_liu2]

You camera position seemed to make the lens take in lot of flare, which can lower contrast. And from the picture, the distance between you and the couple is a little too far from the way I usually shoot. I agree with Akira, your D200's ability is not fully used.

[arnabdas]

The picture looks quite a bit over-saturated. When you increase saturation it happens at the cost of tonality.. I think that's what's wrong with the pic.

[richard_liu2]

I'm interested in what focal length you used for this shot. The light condition is not very good based on the location of the sun and almost a whole frame of green. The exposure metering isn't easy for your composition. And personally, I don't feel it has much to do with Jpeg.

[samantha_bender]

I don't normally shoot this far away from the subject (actually, I like my photos to be quite close) this is just an experiment to add variety to the shoot - I've actually had quite a bit of success with this type of shooting (more art pieces to hang on the wall) but, here it didn't turn out as well and I was wondering why.

[richard_liu2]

Here is one version with only midtone adjustment and slight color correction.(not accurate cuz it's done on my laptop).<div></div>

[richard_liu2]

I think for your image, the metering didn't work well cuz the complicated light condition. The WB may not be set correctly. Then there is a lot of green, which usually requires at leat -1/2 stop exp. compensation. The sun was putting light straight into the lens, causing flare. And last you had flash. The metering system has to find a balance for all these condition. It's not easy to get the optimal exposure under this light condition.

[bruce levy]

Is there any post processing present, or processing in-camera, such as in-camera sharpening or are you using all default settings?

[Jerry_]

"I've actually had quite a bit of success with this type of shooting (more art pieces to hang on the wall) but, here it didn't turn out as well and I was wondering why."

 

 

 

You might also consider researching 'how to' posing for large-framed ladies. Dead-on shots tend to make sure she looks large... (Anything to twist her to a 3/4 profile would be a starting point, and putting her behind the guy would also make her a little less 'full.')

[cappoldt]

Shooting RAW or JPEG? This is where post-processing skills take over...you're your own darkroom, now...it takes a while to figure out how to get what you want out of a digital capture, especially from a capture with the potential like the D200's...you'll get it!

[ramon_v__california_]

when you get a larger memory card, you can still shoot jpeg if you don't want to venture into raw, yet. set your camera to the largest file and fine setting. that way you have room for several post-processing/saving tasks. and i agree with the others not to let your camera do the dharpening for you.

 

in your sample situation, i think the beter setting there is f/5.6 or f/11 at 125th, fill flash or not..... it is always helpful to shoot "auto" everything so you'll have a benchmark for your camera and lens combo.

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

<p>Hmm.. I see LOT of things wrong with this image.</p>

 

<p>1. extreme over-sharpening<br>

2. lens flare (do you want to go blind looking into the sun with a lens?!)<br>

3. Chromatic aberrations (since when is grass blue?) <br>

4. ridiculous cropping</p>

 

<p>You shot this in JPG, what resolution (sm, med, large) and what compression setting? Are you using "size optimized" jpg compression or "quality optimized"? If you don't want it to "look digital" don't use digital compression! I bet you could not tell the difference between an image taken with the D200 properly exposed in RAW and a Nikon film body with same lens properly exposed (with no tricks to push the film).</p>

 

<p>Nikon is known to have pretty poor JPEG rendering in-camera. Use RAW. Hi-speed 2GB CF cards can be had for $59 on eBay. I've bought 4 of the 2GB PQI cards from lasvegas_qtpie. (PQI is a very reputable RAM mfgr.) She is very slow to ship with her free shipping option, but the cards are great and the price is even better! You can get 230 compressed RAW images on one of these cards. I'm using them for weddings.</p>

 

<p>Aaron Lee</p>