A few problems shooting with my first DSLR

[josh_e]

<p>It's a Nikon D5300 (that I talked about in a previous question). Before buying this I only shot in the auto or program mode with a mirrorless<br /> (not counting the old days when I had a film camera as a teenager). I shoot mostly in aperture priority mode with the Nikon and it gives good results but quit often it seems that it doesn't do the right thing. I've attached three photos. The first one is underexposed, the second one seems to be out of focus and the last one looks too "coarse" for ISO 200. Why does this happen?</p><div></div>

[josh_e]

<p>Second image</p><div></div>

[josh_e]

<p>Third image</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The first photo was fooled by backlighting from the light colored building in direct sunlight. Nikon's matrix metering is pretty good but can be fooled by situations like this. In auto mode you can dial in exposure compensation. Around +1 EV would be about right for this scene.</p>

<p>The second photo looks to be in focus on the center group of people. But that kit zoom at 38mm and f/4.8 is nearly wide open. Stopping down about one stop from maximum aperture will sharpen things up a bit.</p>

<p>I don't see any serious problems with the third photo. The lighting looked a bit murky due to the overcast sky. You can tweak it a bit in any editing software to boost contrast a little, and adjust white balance to be a bit warmer if you like - although the cool white balance probably looks pretty much like the original scene. There's no embedded color profile, so it may look different on different browsers and devices.</p>

<p>Looks like you're using GIMP. I haven't tried that in years and can't offer any specific suggestions for improvement. Some of the diagonal lines show jaggies from aliasing artifacts, which may be improved by trying other sharpening techniques.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>As an aside, the first two are not level. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Adding to Lex: camera exposure automatics seem to avoid burning out highlights. - Imagine the building beeing bright white without any structure in the wall - it would look rather distracting. In doubt: shoot RAW - memory cards beacame cheap and fix in postprocessing. Human vision can cope with way more contrast than any camera.<br>

Agreed upon the 2nd photo: the drummer seems sharp. <br>

No clue about the 3rd, sorry.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree with Jochen; the first image seem to me correctly exposed. It looks like metered with a hand held (incident) meter, the balance looks right to me. If you like a brighter subject, the right way is to use the camera`s compensation system (at the expense of even more highlight burning). I assume you know how to do it because the other images have received some compensation.<br /> The second one doesn`t seem too sharp to me... as said maybe it`s the aperture (depth of field issue), I`d say the speed is fine. Maybe the lens is not at its optimal aperture. Difficult to know in a reduced JPG.<br /> About the third image, I wonder if an "overprocessing" could happen, maybe due to the D-Lightning system. If you want more control over the quality of your images, just disable all automatic image processing systems (D-Lightning, Noise Reduction system, etc.).</p>

[josh_e]

<p>Thank you. I shoot JPG+RAW but have not got around to experiment with editing RAW images yet.<br /> @Lex Jenkins: Would a different lens give a better result in such a situation? Also can reducing the number of focus points from 39 to 11 help?<br>

And yes, I use GIMP but used it only to resize those photos ("cubic resizng").<br>

<br /> @Jose Angel: Good point. I can do all those corrections in post processing with more control over the outcome.</p>

[williams_gallery]

<p>Another way to deal with the lighting situation in photo 1 would have been to spot meter the shadowed area in your foreground and manually set your camera to underexpose by a stop or two based on that spot meter reading. This would mean it will still look like a shadow area (as it should if you are trying to depict the scene as you encountered it) but you would have more detail in your shadows. Assuming your file can handle highlights from the brightly lit building in the background, this is a way to control the density of your shadow areas. Another approach would be to hit your subject with some fill flash. I hate flash but this isn't my photograph, so it's an option. <br>

Photo 2 looks pretty sharp to me looking at the texture of the straw hat. Agreed stopping down would have helped increase depth of field but if you really want tack sharp you don't want to be hand-holding your camera - use a tripod. That said, tack sharp does not equal "good" in my opinion. Plenty of great work out there is not sharp. In a not-so-technical line of thinking, I notice looking at this image that you are giving your subjects a wide berth - I wonder what would have happened if you moved in a lot closer?Something to think about.<br>

Not sure about #3. Light and color looks fine to me. Digital images sometimes have noise in them when the light gets lower - maybe this is the case here. Again a tripod would have been useful in this case - you could set the ISO at 25 or 50 and get rid of the noise, but the longer exposure would require a still camera. Because this is a landscape you would be able to easily do this. </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Would a different lens give a better result in such a situation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You asked Lex, but my $0,02: it would not be my first suggestion. The problem is two-fold: hardly any lens is at its best at the widest aperture, so stopping down (to f/5.6 for example) will improve the optical performance of the lens. This shouldn't be taken as a sign that there is something wrong with your lens, it's normal.<br>

Second point is that depth of field is less with a wider aperture, making focus more critical, but mostly making things look out of focus easier, especially at larger magnifications (zoom in on the image, and things will seem worse). This is a bit a given, so changing lenses would again make no difference.<br>

The internet is good at talking down on the kitlenses and giving the impression that they're no good. In reality, they're quite good. Sure, there are better lenses, but it quickly gets costly and the gains are very incremental. You'll get a lot further playing and practicing a LOT with your new camera, and then when the time comes and you know exaclty how the kitlens is holding you back, start looking at a replacement.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>While I agree that shooting RAW will give you more dynamic range, let's work on one thing at a time. In Av mode, you need to be aware of the dynamic range in the image and adjust for very bright or very dark areas. I agree with you, the first image is seriously underexposed. The solution was to dial in +2/3 or +1EV. That'll wash out the background, but the background is not the subject. Judge exposure based on your primary subject. Take advantage of the ability to see a preview of your shots. Take a test shot, look at the Preview Screen after and adjust the EV up or down in response.</p>

<p>Later, if you go to RAW, you can gain even more dynamic range by Optimizing Exposure (Expose To The Right, or ETTR) and lowering highlights and raising shadows in RAW conversion. If you stay serious about photography, you'll want to investigate shooting in RAW and ETTR.</p>

<p>HOLD THE CAMERA LEVEL! Angles are only for special effect.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>A couple of suggestions that I didn't see mentioned above: first, learn to use and decipher the histogram relative to the scene, how it is captured and what you want it to look like. That will help you with exposure compensation and metering. Practice shooting a single scene using various metering modes and different exposure compensation settings and learn how your camera works each scene.<br>

Second, you can use exposure bracketing very easily with a DSLR (and it's free, compared to film) and capture a variety of exposures</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"not counting the old days when I had a film camera as a teenager"<br>

Since you are one of us (like me) who learned back in the film days, skip all of the automation and shoot like you did when you shot film. Put the camera in manual mode and set the shutter, aperture and focus yourself instead of letting the camera guess at what you want. If you had this skill one, it should easily come back to you, especially with the advantage of being able to immediately see what you're getting. With practice, you can get things right in the camera and not have to spend time tweaking them later in Photoshop.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I shoot in Manual mode, most of the time, when I'm shooting my super-telephoto lens (500mm, 700mm, 1000mm, depending on converter in use) but prefer to use Av, aperture priority, with my shorter lenses, most of the time. Unlike my Pentax Spotmatic and my Yashica 44, my Canon DSLRs have sophisticated meters and computers inside them that do a pretty good job of getting exposures correct. I use the EV wheel on the back of my Canons (Nikon has something similar, I'm sure) to adjust to the dynamic range in the scene, in order to get my primary subject properly exposed. Shooting Manual, you'll be constantly changing, ISO, shutter speed and aperture. In Av Mode, I mainly select ISO, aperture depending on subject and let +-EV take care of shutter speed and resulting exposure.</p>

<p>As for manual focus, modern DSLRs are not designed for MF, like our film bodies were in the 1950s, so I wouldn't recommend trying that.</p>

[kerry_grim]

All easy improved in Lightroom.

[josh_e]

<p>Thanks again. <br /> "hardly any lens is at its best at the widest aperture, so stopping down (to f/5.6 for example) will improve the optical performance of the lens."<br>

<br /> OK, but what if I use a lens whose widest aperture in higher than mine, say, 2 instead of 3.5 then 4.8 would be farther from the widest aperture of the lens. No?</p>

<p>Here is one more question: When the subject is too dark (say, a long exposure at night), the camera cannot autofocus and so I have to turn the switch on the lens to manual focus. But then the subject is too dark to see if it is sharp and the distance are not written on the lens, only the focal lengths. I can't remember how one can convert subject distance to focal length?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Focusing in the dark is really tough. Go to LiveView and 10x magnification and focus on the brightest star in the sky, if shooting the sky, then don't touch the focus. If shooting a street scene, then find something well lit and focus on that. For the sky, 25-sec. at ISO 1600 and f/8 is a good starting point, then adjust from there, but keep the 25-sec. Of course, a sturdy tripod is essential. If you don't have a remote release, use the timer to start the exposure in LiveView.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<blockquote>

<p> if I use a lens whose widest aperture in higher than mine, say, 2 instead of 3.5 then 4.8 would be farther from the widest aperture of the lens. No?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but... you shot the reenactors at ISO 160. - Is that already "pull" or just the default setting of your camera? - If you handled the situation conservatively you could have cranked up the ISO to 640, those 2 stops would mean a solidly handholdable shutter speed of 1/250 and a somewhat safe aperture of f5.6. - Increased noise should be manageable with a contemporary DSLR. If I am recalling Nikon gear right, there is a VR switch on the lens that ocassionally goes "off". (doublechecking it is "on") is a good idea but anyhow: <br>

Do test shots to get familiar with your gear. Don't believe in anything. - Yes VR is great, if(!) it works... if not keep in mind that 1/focal length was defined as a probably safe shutter speed when folks looked at a 4x6" print. Today with pixelpeeping I'd "weld" my shutter speed to 1/250 as long as the light allows somehow. - I am pretty sure you can spot a difference between 1/250 and 1/500 sometimes on the pixel level. <br>

Yes, you can probably sink a fortune into "good" glass. But not everything expensive has to be "good" not everything a couple of f-stops faster than your kit zoom will necessarrily outperform it and at 1/160 sec most of the "good" primes will be the subject of slight camera shake since AFAIK there is no 35mm VR lens... <-I am trying to say: buying a different lens will not necessarrily help you on auto pilot. - It can give an edge once in a while but I think for the average daylight shot you want a bit of DOF, no camera shake and should be best served with kit zoom at slightly raised ISO. Take some 1000 pictures until you know where you might like to go focal length wise. Dive into reviews ask around and make a well informed good choice then. But first of all let your current kit shine.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I don't know Nikon's VR, but I do know Canon's IS (Image Stabilization) and it does work. I can't believe that Nikon's isn't at least close to as effective. Hand holding shots at and below 1/50-sec. is very realistic with can. The old rules about shutter speed at the reciprocal of focal-length are simply that, old rules. They no longer apply.</p>

[fred_strobel1]

<p>David, I don't know that the old reciprocal of focal length does not apply any longer, but IS allows you to break the rule if you need to.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>1,000mm, hand held, 1/40-sec. Reciprocal rule blown away:</p>

<p><a title="Waxing Crescent Moon by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5476/9489935439_500a128597_c.jpg" alt="Waxing Crescent Moon" width="800" height="800" /></a></p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>But then the subject is too dark to see if it is sharp and the distance are not written on the lens, only the focal lengths. I can't remember how one can convert subject distance to focal length? </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You cannot do this. You can know the focus distance after measuring the size of your subject (magnification) and applying some calculations related to the focal length, but I think it doesn`t makes sense.<br /> BTW, the "old" reciprocal rule apply to non stabilized lenses; if not, we could say, "<em>boiling an egg doesn`t take 12 minutes anymore"</em>... maybe not if cooked in a microwave oven, but on the boiling pot things are still the same... <em>isn`it</em>? :)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Jose said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, the "old" reciprocal rule apply to non stabilized lenses; if not, we could say, "<em>boiling an egg doesn`t take 12 minutes anymore"</em>... maybe not if cooked in a microwave oven, but on the boiling pot things are still the same... <em>isn`it</em>? :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, but who uses non-stabilized lenses over 24mm? Not many. Kids, invest in stabilized lenses and reap the rewards of 21st-century technology. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The old rule is a rule of thumb that helped but is not precise, does not offer guarantees. Stabilization too is just something that helps. A lens with stabilization active is a lens that isn't as steady and still as it should be. It would be better if it wasn't necessary for a correcting mechanism to attempt to correct things.<br>Remember that, kids. ;-)

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G., apparently you don't hand hold super-telephoto lenses very often. Canon's newest versions of Image Stabilization are truly amazing game changers, providing 4-stops of stabilization. Even shooting a 24-105mm at night is possible, hand held, down at 1/15-sec. Combine IS with the sensor improvements of the last couple of sensor generation, allowing high ISO with little noise and almost all the rules have changed.</p>

<p>The old rule of thumb, with stabilized systems, is not only "not precise", it's not even in the same ballpark. Kids, it'll pay you to understand just how good, or not, the stabilization in your camera/lens is. If you're blindly playing by old rules, you may be missing out on a lot of photo opportunities that weren't possible just a few years ago. </p>