why are my pictures not sharp like other peoples?

[chris_smoke]

<p>ok, I have been taking pictures for a few years, owned top of the line point and shoot cameras for years as well as SLR camera's, I am just your usual photographer nothing fancy, read a few books learned a few tricks, try and get out every now and then and try something new. <br>

I usually just point and shoot the family and family dog etc, go on vacation and shoot the sights etc..<br>

I use different modes on my DLSR, I don't use Auto, I have a kit lens the canon 18-55m IS<br>

and a 60D body, <br>

I have always looked at photo sights, flickr or magazines, or other sites and seen some great pictures, with bright colors, sharp images, very clear you know.. and I think to myself.. why don't any of mine come out like that? why don't mine look like the ones on flickr or in magazines.<br>

I don't use photoshop, is that the problem? are all sharp magazine quality images photoshopped?</p>

<p>is it my lenses? cheap lenses? <br>

I use to get great colors from my P/s, <br>

is it my monitor on my HP notebook? <br>

is it me? hahahahaa <br>

the weather? the lighting? <br>

I'd like to say it's the glass.. or maybe I am comparing to pro work, and just want to shoot something as sharp and bright as I see on websites ..<br>

any idea whats happening?</p>

<p> </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>When an image comes right out of the camera, it usually needs some adjustments beyond those given it by the camera.....as in some editing program. I suggest you read some of the articles here on photonet, and download one of the free editing programs available. I like Faststone......many like Picasa......read and try.<br>

You will likely be happily surprised by how good you actually are. Also, there are parameters you can set in you own camera dealing with things like sharpness....contrast....saturation and so on. Check the camera manual and see what you may have been missing.....Regards, Robert</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Chris, In particular, you really need good quality lenses. About the best you can get (optically) are the 50mm lenses (even a less expensive 50mm f/1.8). Once you use great lenses, you won't settle for anything else. Some people never use good lenses, and never realize how it can affect their images.</p>

<p>Secondly, you need to learn how to post process images. Lightroom can do a great job for quite a bit less money than full PhotoShop software. Look to sharpen your images. They won't be as sharp as they could be, right out of the camera. Then learn how to adjust brightness and contrast. There are some good articles here on Photo.net that can help.</p>

<p>Finally, I think you need good light. If you don't have good light, then you may need to make good light, using flash or reflectors.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong>The Kit Lens on a 60D is perfectly capable of making sharp images.</strong><br>

Why you are not making sharp photos could be because of a number of reasons, and not always THE SAME REASONS.<br />it would be counterproductive to list all the possibilities and pick and choose between them.<br />Perhaps if you post two or three samples of you work in your portfolio here at Photo net and also include the Shooting Details (or leave the EXIF attached), alert this thread when you have done that then more specific comments detailing what might assist you will be forthcoming.</p>

<p>As a general note: All Digital Images generally require post production sharpening: yes.<br />Not necessarily using Photoshop, but Photoshop is a common Post Production programme used.</p>

<p>WW<br />Also - Welcome to Photonet.</p>

[hannah_givas]

<p>If I may ask a question regarding this subject. In regards to POST Production sharpening, is there a general way of setting for sharpening in photoshop, without overdoing it, I know this seems like aquestion that could have a broad answer, but I am just speaking in general.</p>

 

[hannah_givas]

<p>If I may ask a question regarding this subject. In regards to POST Production sharpening, is there a general way of setting for sharpening in photoshop, without overdoing it, I know this seems like aquestion that could have a broad answer, but I am just speaking in general.</p>

 

[chris_smoke]

<p>does shooting in Raw make a real difference to the quality of the image also?</p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>In regards to POST Production sharpening, is there a general way of setting for sharpening in photoshop, without overdoing it,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>General answer:<br />I use Canon DSLR cameras and shoot RAW + JPEG.<br />I often use the JPEG File and when I do, I use a two stage sharpening technique using UNSHARP MASK, which I adapted (after a lot of trials) after reading lots of stuff and the “two stage” techniques described by a user here: <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3674958">Colin Southern</a><br />There are automatic batch processes one can use I don’t use those often: I did send my wedding work to Specialist Post Production Person and so for that, I shot in Lighting Batches (another topic) so she could use “Batch Processing”.<br />Using the JPEGS, SOOC suits my workflow, my small number of images per any one shoot and my final outputs – it might not suit you.<br />When I use the RAW file, then I individually attend to the PP, uniquely on each image.</p>

<p>I think a “general” sharpening suits many applications, perhaps more than many folk who have the desire to “tinker” will admit and much of what that general approach is (for you) will be decided by your fiddling and testing to find what is best for the “general” final product you produce</p>

<p>Also, what I suggest is you read and ask SPECIFIC questions in the (Digital Darkroom Forum here for example). There are many talented PP folk here on Photonet for example <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=453741">Marc Williams</a> and <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4714311">Tom Mann</a> continually amaze me with their skills and knowledge and the willingness to share same. (Just two names who came to my mind there are many more).</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"does shooting in Raw make a real difference to the quality of the image also?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple answer: Yes.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"does shooting in Raw make a real difference to the quality of the image also?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. Depends on the output. For a typical web size reproduction, around 800x600 more or less, nope, you won't see much difference in most photos between in-camera JPEGs and JPEGs prepped from raw. One notable exception would be a landscape or other scenic with lots of blue sky.</p>

<p>With large prints, especially when lots of tweaking is done, yes, raw will matter. Especially when using tone mapping, HDR or other tricks that heavily manipulate the midrange where posterizing will quickly show up in heavy manipulation of JPEGs rather than raw.</p>

<p>Your existing equipment is fine. Take a few test shots at your zoom's sweet spot. Typically for an 18-55mm zoom that would be between 30-45mm and f/8. That usually minimizes problems with either barrel or pincushion distortion, edge/corner softness and light falloff/vignetting.</p>

<p>Eliminate camera shake as a factor. Set the camera on a tripod or stable surface. Use mirror lockup if the camera has it, but it's not really critical for most daylight photos where the shutter speed will be above 1/60th sec. Use a self timer or remote release.</p>

<p>Use a lens hood or shade the lens to minimize flare. Remove any unnecessary filters, such as protective filters.</p>

<p>If your camera allows simultaneous capture of raw and maximum resolution and quality JPEGs, use that. If not, repeat each shot to duplicate each test photo in raw and maximum quality in-camera JPEG.</p>

<p>Set the in-camera sharpening to maximum or the next step below maximum. Set contrast to medium or a little high. While contrast is separate from resolution, many folks perceive "sharpness" as the combination of resolution and contrast. Same with color - set to medium or vivid. Again, some folks perceive low color saturation as "unsharp" without being able to explain why a photo seems unsatisfactory. These are just guidelines for getting an in-camera JPEG that you can use to evaluate against your edits from raw files.</p>

<p>This may not be ideal for your camera, but it helps for evaluating how to process the raw version of the same photo. I regard in-camera JPEGs as a sort of proof print. In many cases in-camera JPEGs are good enough for web display or printing. At the very least they're useful as a guide or reference point for maximizing results when editing raw files.</p>

<p>Sharpening in post is among the trickiest tasks to master. And no single technique is best for every photo. When prepping a web sized JPEG, around 800x600 or so, often a dash of global sharpening is good enough for some photos. For others that same technique may introduce too many artifacts and jaggies along hard edges. One of the best tutorials around was written by photo.net member Patrick Lavoie. See his <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00UZQR">"3 Step Sharpening" thread</a>. And try to ignore the digressions and arguments in that thread.</p>

[hannah_givas]

<p>I almost always shoot in RAW. Also, is PS CS5 Camera RAW sharpening anygood, as for end results and printing?</p>

[chris_smoke]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1487895">Robert Cossar</a> <br>

hahahaha dude! you are the like the guy who shared the secret with the guy who was losing his mind not knowing how the trick was done! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>Faststone.!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

<p>I just tried it, ohh man, the difference is like night and day..<br>

thank you so much....</p>

 

[naomi_johnson]

<p>I was using a kit lens (worth maybe $100) and didn't think too much about lenses until it broke and I needed to buy a new one. I don't like to spend money, but wow - I will never again buy a kit lens. Save money and buy a good one - totally worth it. :-)<br>

I like the comments on shooting in RAW...I'm still trying to be convinced that RAW is the way to go. I hate how SLOW they process (and I have a fast computer) and how large the file is and so far I've been able to do everything I need with jpgs, but the more I read, the more I think I'm missing something... Thanks!</p>

[SCL]

<p>Naomi - you definitely are missing something. Try shooting in RAW and doing some post processing. You might find that the results are truly what you had intended and you like the flexibility. OTOH, you might find that your usual subject matter, in-camera settings for JPEG processing, and ultimate usage of the image are just fine without RAW and the post processing. The slow processing you refer to may well be a function of the program you are using or insufficient memory in your PC.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Hannah, I have an action set for LAB sharpening per Kelby. It sharpens in the luminosity channel after converting RGB to LAB, sharpening the L channel then converting back to RGB as an action with one click in a couple of seconds. He notes it in his books and it may be on line. Since most noise resides in the color channels, it allows sharpening with minimal increase of noise. His setting is low enough that one press of the f key gives a modest amount of sharpening, then a second on a separate layer allows use of a mask for specific areas- as mentioned above, eyes, lips, hair, jewelry, clothing texture- and then fine tuning with the opacity slider.</p>

[hannah_givas]

<p>Bob Bill,<br>

Where can I find this wonderful action? Please let me know.<br>

Thanks</p>

[morthcam]

<p>Hannah, before you go chasing after any Kelby actions, you should really post some pictures here with the EXIF data so that the very knowledgeable, helpful PN members can give you some advice. Nothing personal, but most times when people complain about not taking sharp pictures it's something they're doing wrong, not their equipment. You need to make sure that your technique is good before you start looking at software and equipment changes.</p>

[ricd]

<p>Hi Naomi,<br>

There are a gazillion tomes written about shooting raw (raw is a word not a acronym as in RAW). Ah, the furious debates on each side of the raw vs JPG. Who is correct? Both are. One can manipulate a RAW to the n-th degree, and one can manipulate JPG (not to the same degree) quite well. <br>

<br />Here is my take and what I found. Unless you are almost nose to nose comparing the final print raw to JPG, raw does not matter. Raw shooting is more about computer skills than photography skills. <br>

<br />Most folks print at 4x6, at the most 8 x10, and post to the web. At those sizes stand back six feet look a the photos you cannot tell a difference raw and JPG appear identical. With a photo album on ones lap one would be hard press to say which was raw or JPG.</p>

<p>Enjoy the photos for what they are not what format they were shot in. When it comes to photography folks major in minors.<br>

<br />Shooting a good JPG, do a CWB, and set the best exposure you can obtain, when possible I use my incident meter. Set your camera internal settings to obtain the look you want. From there it is your technique that matters most; not JPG vs raw. Doing as much in camera will lessen computer time.<br>

<br />All the raw shooters I know are more enamored with their computer PP skills than their photography skills. If it makes one feel superior or more professional to shoot raw then do so, but the client will not be able to tell the difference. Regardless of the format a beautiful photo is a beautiful photo. There is a YouTube video of a pro shooting a fashion shoot with a iPhone. Photos are outstanding. Many commercial pros shoot only JPG, their clients love the photos. Their PP is quite reduced, and their turnaround for their clients is much faster.<br>

<br />YMMV<br>

<br />Cordially,<br />RicD</p>

[morthcam]

<p>Sorry Hannah, I got confused, you're not the original poster, never mind!</p>

[andrew_morton2]

<p>Chris - as an "advanced beginner", my experience with photos that are less than sharp have revealed a few recurrent issues:<br>

1. Shutter speed to low for the situation (especially in low light) resulting in camera shake or subject movement<br>

2. Using an aperture that just isn't that sharp. I recently took a shot of some books on a shelf with the same kit lens using an external flash at f/8 and I was blown away at how sharp it was compared to many other photos with the same lens. More light helps.<br>

3. Shooting wide open with a prime lens (or the kit lens) too close to a subject. When I finally got around to understanding how the relationship between focal length, aperture and distance from subject impacts depth of field, my photos looked better. <br>

AM</p>

[hannah_givas]

<p>Matt O, not a Problem, I was just wondering if there is a 'generic' sharpening action to achieve basic, minimum sharpening that doesn't over do it.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Hannah .... In my Paint Shop Pro editor I have four sharpening options Hi-pass, Sharpen, sharpen more, and unsharp mask. I use 'sharpen more' most frequently becuase my usual camera is set to 'low sharpness' but another camera is on normal sharpness setting and usually don't need more than the sharpen option. On other occasions simply increasing contrast appears to sharpen up and image enough. PSP also has a 'one step fix' tidy-up tool which gets used occasionally.<br>

LAB is an Adobe tool and the PSP equivalent, or similar, is CMYK tool where you sharpen just the K or luminence channel. You split the photos into its LAB/CMYK layers sharpen the L or K layer and then put it back together again. </p>