Photo quality

[BratNikotin]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am not even sure how to phrase the question I am having, so forgive me if it sounds unclear<br>

I am using Nikon D7000 with the Sigma OS 17-50mm/f.2.8 lens<br>

The problem is that I "do not like how my photos come out". This is the best way I can describe it. Basically, I think they come out shallow. Lacking that that juiciness and depth I would expect from such equipment. <br />Is it anything, I am doing wrong?<br />My one guess on what is going on, is that "I do not know" how to focus properly" (autofucus combinations, range selecting, etc...) can it be? If so, are there resources to read/watch to study this? I also use Nikor 35mm/1.8 and Nikor 55-300/3.5-5.6, but these are not my regular lenses. The result are better with them, but still .. something is missng</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's hard to tell without seeing an example of what you don't like.</p>

<p>And it's usually the lighting or the post-processing.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Yes, this is THE big question in photography. Jeff is right about examples. </p>

<p>You mentioned "juiciness and depth." My advice is to get close to your subject and really try to fill the frame with interesting details. Experiment with large and small apertures to see the different effect. Personally, I like large apertures and shallow depth of field, which can help the subject really pop. Good luck, and practice, practice, practice!</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Another thing to consider is that perhaps your lens is back or front focusing? </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Juiciness" and "depth" are meaningless adjectives when talking about 2 dimensional pictures. I'm sure that everyone has their own understanding of what those expressions mean, but whether any two people will agree on their meaning is a different matter.</p>

<p>A picture is worth a thousand words in this instance, so please post examples Dima. Together with a description in more objective language of what you think is lacking. For example: Lack of contrast, colour saturation, sharpness, etc.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>Dima; take a look at: <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/06/05/defining-cinematic/">http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/06/05/defining-cinematic/</a> .<br>

It may resonate with you, or not.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Juicy is a tough one. Depth on the other hand, is common parlance in photography. What is meant by "depth" is somewhat subjective, but I like photography that conveys a sense of depth. This article helps to illustrate my point: http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/how-to-create-a-sense-of-depth-to-your-photos--photo-10194</p>

[donbright]

<p>Low contrast, or high, color saturation, sharpness are a few of the issues already mentioned that are certainly contributors to the issue. As a film shooter I've noticed there are conditions that will suit depth and that 3rd dimension look, but its not always a given therefore its not the medium in particulate, its light, light, light. Its also knowing, or being very familiar with the chosen equipment and how it responds to conditions in general. Just as each film has a characteristic, there are digital cameras that have their DNA, but then there's the jpeg verses the raw mode so then the plot thickens for the issue. Its important to squeeze out all of what a piece of equipment will offer before casting it as a limitation. This is a complex issue. I have just put an end to my contribution in the thread knowing I could be here for the next hour, but I've got to go.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>without examples from the OP, it's hard to go any further. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not even sure how to phrase the question I am having, so forgive me if it sounds unclear...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dima, it looks like you have some decent photo equipment. If they are not the source of your perceived problem, I would suggest learning more about photography. There are a lot of available books and video tutorials on many photography topics and many levels. If you like videos, perhaps Lynda.com is a good place to start. I suggest subscribing for one month and give yourself a deadline. Then move on from there.</p>

[rconey]

<p>I agree with all the above comments about the uncertainty of the problem, but if you are beginning with this equipment perhaps resetting Picture Control in the camera menus and setting landscape mode would help. If it is set to neutral mode those tend to be flat, low contrast renderings. Other settings increase contrast, color saturation, etc. It is a good place to start experimenting. Good luck getting to the place you want.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Know also that most of the really great photos you see in magazines and even online were subjected to rigorous post-processing. color balance, sharpening, and other sometimes very drastic photo editing is the key to great photos.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>color balance, sharpening, and other sometimes very drastic photo editing is the key to great photos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree PP is important but I have always found my favorite photos looked great from the start. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Know also that most of the really great photos you see in magazines and even online were subjected to rigorous post-processing. color balance, sharpening, and other sometimes very drastic photo editing is the key to great photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The software can help to enhance an image. But there were no such things way back in the days of film. And "great photos" were great photos. :) I do agree with Chip that my best images are good from start.</p>

<p>I believe Dima needs to know more about the nuances of photography. Good equipment makes it look easy but a good image usually involves more than a casual click.</p>

<p>Happy New Year everyone!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>The software can help to enhance an image. But there were no such things way back in the days of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Actually, there always was a lot of color correction and masking and dodging and burning. Most of what photoshop does in those regard was based on analog techniques.<br /><br>

<br>

Even in B&W, photogs like Ansel Adams did an amazing amount of wonderful stuff in the darkroom after the photo had been taken. Many of his finest images are totally dependent on it.<br>

<br>

You are NOT wrong about learning the nuances of photography though. I find that the percentage of bad images I take that are my fault is pretty much 100%. And spraying and praying is never the answer either.</p>

[BratNikotin]

<p>Thank you,oh dear community for all the suggestions. My biggest problem seems, I do not always know what information to look for in my learning .. you are helping with that to the great extent<br>

Here are some examples with my comments.<br>

1) what I mean about "juiciness" and "depth"<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18150705-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /><br /> To me, this photo looks flat. In that sense, that it seems that a drummer and guitarist are on a same level, though drummer was about 8 feet behind. And I was very close to the stage. The photo doesn't convey those 8 feet <br>

2) focusing - 2 shots approximately similar in settings<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18150664-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /><br /><br>

and the next one is somehow out of focus. Why is it the camera did not pick it up? <br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18150663-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="450" /><br /></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dima, that helps tremendously.<br /><br />Are you a reader? If so, get this book. http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Edition-Photographs/dp/0817439390</p>

<p>Others can chime in with suggestions of web sites that explain this stuff perhaps, but that book would be very helpful I think.</p>

<p>The focus issue is different. You may have had a subject moving too much for your focus mode. Might have needed to be in AF-C instead of AF-S for instance.</p>

<p>You want to learn more about harnessing aperture. The band photo taken at a wider aperture would have given you what you wanted I think, focused on the guy in front. Also, if you're at the wide end of your zoom, depth of field is not your friend for such thoughts.</p>

[BratNikotin]

<p>Thanks, Peter.<br>

And it is not that much of an issue when I am doing landscapes or portraits, since I can stay longer and adjust.<br />However, with action photos, like with the Saxon concert above, it becomes a problem</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, there always was a lot of color correction and masking and dodging and burning. Most of what photoshop does in those regard was based on analog techniques.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, sure there were. These were the debates when digital was new. Some people dodged and burned in a cumbersome wet darkroom, but the huge majority of film shooters had their slides and negatives processed in the shop. In today's world, however, most anyone can use some graphic software to do something on their images. I believe our discussion was based on your assertion that "great photos" go through huge amounts of post-processing, which I know is not true. Yes, usually some enhancements, but most good shots are good from the start.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The main problem appears to be lighting Dima. Lighting is key to getting that feeling of "depth" in a picture. If the lighting is flat, then the picture will look flat.</p>

<p>The picture of the rock band fails because the drummer is better-lit than the guitarist. Yet the guitarist is the focus of the composition. Imagine the guitarist as brightly lit as the drummer and the drummer more in the shade. That distribution of lighting would make a much better composition, and the eye would be drawn to the guitarist, rather than the drummer. As much as I hate on-camera flash, in this case it would have thrown more light on the guitarist and completely changed the balance of the composition. As well as adding "depth".</p>

<p>The second cat picture isn't out of focus. It shows motion blur because you used too slow a shutter speed. It's also very flatly lit. Using an off-camera flash, or other strong source of directional light, would have helped in this case, or raising the ISO of the camera. The colour balance is also poor, with the general pink cast making the natural colours subdued and monochrome.</p>

<p>I've taken the liberty of adjusting the colour balance (not easy), adding artificial eye catchlights to simulate better lighting, airbrushed out the messy background, cropped off the distracting bit of blanket on the left and generally brightened the image up. I think it looks much more "deep". Although none of those alterations have in any way made it more than a two-dimensional image. Each of them is simply addressing one aspect of composition/lighting/colour balance, etc.</p>

<p>In short, what's missing from those pictures is not the Picture Control settings, but a general lack of - sorry to say this - technique and appreciation of lighting.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>As I said in the first response to your post, it comes down to lighting and post-processing. Your concert shot could probably be improved by lifting the exposure and then taking down everything behind the guitarist, but it would have been better to wait for the guitarist to be in the right spot, assuming there was either different lighting or lighting variance across the stage. I do music shoots regularly and always look at the light first. Here's an example where the singer moved into the spotlight and the bass player stood in a shadow area. When I shoot, I always spend the first 30 seconds watching the lights, seeing where the front lights are located, etc. Try it the next time you're out doing this. Also, less depth of field can help.</p>

<center><img src="http://36.media.tumblr.com/8acb71bdb48391b9c6723b02e46724db/tumblr_nm7a5jNvEb1sckts7o1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br /><em>Barb Wire Dolls</em></center>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Here's a re-crop and alteration of lighting on the rock band picture as well. Although everything has been done with the free "GIMP" Image editor, I'm not suggesting that this is the answer. Just that it can be used to amend some faults. It would have been far better to have waited for better lighting/added some flash before pressing the button, rather than trying to rescue a poor composition, poor exposure or poor lighting situation.</p>

<p>BTW, it also takes considerable time and practice to be able to use an image editor competently!</p>

<p>Edit: A quick composition tip - if it ain't relevant, leave it out!</p><div></div>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Rodeo got it. Light (and warm colors) advances, dark (and cool colors) recedes. This combination plays on our optical perception.</p>

<p>You positioned the subjects pretty well, with the main subject being off center. If Nibbs Carter(?) had been brighter than the drummer, you will see more depth. However, you had no control of the lighting. An important thing (to me anyway) is to make the subject(s) look good, and the rest is secondary. So I applied levels and darkened the top of his head a bit to reduce the significance of the bare spot. Then reduced the digital noise with Imagenomic's Noiseware.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there's an art to shooting live music; "juiciness" as you call it doesnt just happen automatically. understanding the lighting as Jeff suggests is important, but you also have to pay attention to composition and framing. the shot you took of Saxon is pretty busy, even with shifting the lighting in post -- which i wouldnt recommend as a substitute for proper technique. what i'm trying to say is, there's a learning curve. it probably took me about a year and a half of shooting live music regularly to get good. some of that was figuring out the technical settings i needed, and some of that was figuring out how to properly compose shots. live music is challenging because the lighting is constantly changing and will vary in intensity. so you have to work around those things. in general, i'll use a wide aperture to isolate subjects, which the 17-50 lens is capable of doing at f/2.8-4. unless you want the entire scene in focus, in which case you'd stop the aperture down. controlling depth of field is probably one of the most critical decisions a photographer can make. so, my advice is to keep shooting until it becomes second nature, and get better by analyzing your shots, seeing what didnt work, and correcting those mistakes. practice really does make perfect. </p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>In addition to the advice from Jeff, Mary, Eric and others, I think you may need to get a better understanding of some general photography concepts as well as a better understanding of your camera. In your examples, you had to deal with lighting and depth of field, as well as motion blur. In the case of motion blur, you have to understand that your shutter speed has to be fast enough to freeze the action, yet need to balance that need with the relative lack of lighting.</p>

<p>I've seen a lot of these types of question here at photo.net (and other forums), where relative beginners dive into 'advanced' photography without first learning basic rules--including concert and available light photography, macros, indoor and outdoor sports photography, etc... Jumping into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to tread water is just asking for trouble.</p>

<p>What I would suggest is to first practice your photography skills with 'easier' subjects, i.e., static and well-lit. Then review what you like and don't like about those, address what you don't like, and then move forward.</p>