jiwooseok

This is one of those images that would benefit, perhaps, with use of a polarizing filter. It would minimize much of the reflection in the water, and would darken and de-haze the sky without unduly impacting the rest of the image. I find the partial reflection distracting, whereas a more complete reflection of the mountain and sky would be more meaningful to my eye. This image also suffers from the time of day. The high-angle light is quite flat, particularly when filtered through the smoky skies. As Mike notes, a nice photo, but the opportunity appears to have had much more potential than was realized in this particular image.

Thank you! Well noted.

Mike, I don't get why you're generally not attracted to landscapes, but you are to this one. All the elements; reflection, mid-frame figure, close material in focus, etc. are all there, BUT I see nothing at all special. The person in the scene seems contrived. The sky has no interesting clouds.

 

You know that I'm in Colorado, so I'm certain that at least 1000-pictures like this were taken today, within 100-miles of my desk. To me this image says, "I went to the usual place, not at the best time of day and took this picture to document it." It's okay for a vanity book to show you mother and the wife and kids, but it's not special. IME, the "special" landscape shots usually happen when you go back, over and over, year after year, in all weather conditions and one day, the light, reflections, sky, mountains, etc. all come aglow at once and you capture it in a bottle. This was an ordinary day, caught better than average.

 

I think Sam's advice gently hit it on the head, but this image will never make it on any wall, accept maybe the photographer's mother's.

I just wanted to get some advice from experts like you and Mike. I know my photo sucks. But you don't need to talk down like that. I just needed to know what I could do better that's all.

When I look at the original, I'm mostly mindful of the exposure, and not just because of the way the sky looks. @jiwooseok, how did you figure and decide on your exposure here?

To be honest, I was just looking at the camera meter to be exposed evenly. The exposure bar was in the middle. I hope what I'm saying is understandable.

"I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod."

 

Which is it? Were you shooting at f9.9 or f1.4.

 

I'm going to assume it was f1.4. As noted above, the primary problem with the image is noise which you can alleviate. The tripod isn't helping you because the head that you are shooting can also move in and out changing where the plane of focus falls on the face. You're using a long, fast, lens and focusing very close as well. All of that adds up to a very difficult capture.

It was 1.4. I'm not sure how 9.9 was registered.

I would crop off a lot of the weed etc from the bottom of the picture. It's out of focus, bright and distracting especially the reflection at bottom left. This would make the figure, which is hardly noticeable at first, a little more prominent.

 

With plenty of light there's no point shooting a landscape at F/4, which may not be where the lens performs best, and has caused the limited depth of field. I would shoot this at F/8 or most likely F/11.

 

It would be interesting to see the original shot before de-hazing how was this done, by the way?

Here is the original version

A fluid head for under $34 isn't going to support that camera and lens adequately at all. Combine that with shooting through a window and I would say that your results were remarkably good.

Do you have a recommended fluid heads?

Shot through a window - you need to redo the test without the window; no conclusions about the lens can be drawn from the shots you already took.

 

I have strong doubts about that cheap tripod being up to the task.

Which tripod would you recommend?

What tripod and head--that is a pretty heavy camera/lens combination. Also, a 500 mm lens at f/5.6 won't have much depth of field.which seems to be part of your issue.

I bought a tripod from amazon GEEKOTO AT24EVO and Fluid Head, Pangshi VT-1510

I didn't notice blur due to camera shake, but notice that you shot wide open, which is often not the sharpest aperture to shoot at....usually stopped down about 2 stops produces the sharpest photos...film and digital. ISO 2000, rather than base ISO will also degrade the image somewhat introducing digital noise. Did you use a lens shade...there seems to be some flare in the shot. In your settings, did you introduce any sharpening. Most digital images need at least a touch, either in camera or in post processing.

I didn't use the lens shade because I was shooting from inside the house through the window.. And also I don't think i introduce any sharpening and I know how to introduce in the settings.

Shot through a window by any chance?

 

What's the black vertical obstruction to the left of the frame?

 

There's also air turbulence to take into account. This can easily take the edge off sharpness when you have 50ft of air between camera and subject. This happens quite readily if there's a temperature interface - like shooting from a warm interior to the cold outside through an open doorway.

I did shoot through window.

That is a blind.

Did you shoot raw or JPEG? what's the dark on the borders? Were you shooting through a window? That certainly could degrade the image. Where did you focus? How did you focus (single point?). The camera may not have focused where you wanted. Did you have VC on? I don't know Nikons, but that's a no-no with many lenses. How far away was the plant? That affects depth of field. As SCL said, ISO 2000 is going to cost you in terms of image quality.

 

It's good that you are asking about what you can do. That's very high-end equipment for someone starting out, and many newbies falsely assume that good equipment produces good images. It's good that you aren't falling into that trap. Ansel Adams supposedly said that the most important photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

it was JPEG.

It's a blind.

It was through a window.

I focused on the flower. single point.

I did have a VR on. I don't know what VC is..

I think i was about 100 ft away?

Thank you all.

Looks as if the OP is willing to start threads, but not engage with anyone that answers!

 

I think we might be wasting our time.

I'm not trying to waste anyone's time. I'm reading and running. I have a full time job that keeps me occupied. Sorry I couldn't be more responsive.

I'm having a hard time getting my model's eyes focused like dead-on..

NIKON D850 Focal Length: 1050/10 Shutter Speed Value: 10287712/1000000 Exposure Time: 1/1250 Aperture Value: 9.9 F-Number: 9.9 ISO Speed Ratings: 5000 Flash: 0 Metering Mode: 5 Exposure Mode: 1 White Balance: 0 Focal Length In 35mm

I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod.

I can see the clarity and details in the viewfinder but when I take the shot, 10 out of 10 come out blurry.

Is it because of the lack of lights? What am I doing wrong?

Thank you all for your opinions!

Helps a lot!

Hello All,

I just came back from Wyoming. I took some photos, and I would love to receive some constructive criticisms.

Could you folks please help me on this? It was very smoky that day. I tried to dehaze the photo and ended up with the weird looking sky.

NIKON D7500 Focal Length: 240/10 Shutter Speed Value: 7965784/1000000 Exposure Time: 1/250 Aperture Value: 4.0 F-Number: 4.0 ISO Speed Ratings: 50

Hello, I just started doing some photography.

I got D850 and Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6.

I took some practice shots. And as I zoom in, the detail of the photo is lacking severely. It looks hazy and blurry.

Can anyone give me any advice to get clearer and sharper images please?

The photo was taken @500mm f/5.6, 1/2000th, ISO-2000

Also I used a tripod too. So I do not believe that I had a shaky shot.