I am still so new at photography, my first photo on this project was my first photo... ever. I still have soooo much to learn.
And as I look through some of your photos with similar cameras as mine, i have a Canon Rebel T1i, and your photos have such great clarity, I notitice mine are a little grainy.
So I wonder, how do you guys get such clear shots?
@deforauls53 I tend to start at 100 ISO and if i can't get the exposure right, I start upping the ISO. I have a Rebel Xsi and at around 800 ISO i start noticing the noise more.
it depends on what your lighting situation is Meghan. I almost always use 100 for natural light. But when I'm inside, I have to bump it higher (my camera goes up to 3200) and those get super grainy, so those are the ones I try to make more artistic looking, etc.
Personally ive hardly ever used my 50mm 1.8 prime because out and about I find I use way too much sneaker zoom. I hate cropping aggressively in post processing. In the studio because I have a crop body I find I'm too far away from the model. So all up I've had it a year and maybe used it 5 times.
Wow. Looked at some of your images. Yeah, you're shooting at 1600 ISO. Whew! This will also blow out highlights. I have never even gone past 400 (but I am old school too).
Also, when processing digitally, if you use a Photoshop program, properly using an unsharp mask "properly" (the name is actually a misnomer) can really help details in your images.
@icywarm I almost always agree with Jordan, but on this one point I don't: "specifically spherical aberrations.... for those who want to good why a $100 f/1.8 lens is not a good deal... "
Aspherical lens elements are expensive (in the extreme at times). They do a remarkable job of eliminating spherical abberations. But the real question is, does it matter when you consider for what the lens will be used? A 50mm prime is not, generally, used for astro-photography, or any other photography where it needs to focus points of light at a great distance. It is used for portraiture or as a "standard" lens, where the subject is typically near the centre of the frame, and the depth of field is shallow. Such lenses, specifically the few 50mm f/1.8 $100 lenses on offer, do that job just fine. They are a lot sharper than the kit lenses, and sharper than many of the pro zoom lenses. There is softness at the edges (corner drop-off), but those areas are usually out of focus anyway. They suffer very little chromatic abberation and, stopped down a little, produce crystal clear shots capable of being enlarged a long way. At wide open apertures they tend to produce sharp-in-the-centre images with some vignetting and edge softness - big deal. If one understands the limitations of such lenses, they are easily worth their $100 price tags, if not more. One also should consider at what size the user is likely to be printing. At normal print sizes, the limitations are not even visible. And at mid-size enlargements (8x12 / 11x14 or so) there are very few people (read: pro photographers and printers) who would notice anyway. In my opinion, these lenses are excellent value for money. The final image quality is rarely discernable from more expensive f/1.4 glass ($400+) unless one is looking at 100% zoom and knows what they're looking for.
Anywho, that's just my opinion, having once used such lenses. I don't anymore, but that's because I need the absolute quality the f/1.2 variety provide. But if I wasn't earning money from photography, I'd take a $100 lens over a $3200 lens any day (that is what my 85mm lens cost at the time I bought it).
Back to more general matters at hand - I think you are often underexposing your images. ISO can be a problem, but 800-1600 isn't extreme and shouldn't be as troublesome as you're finding it. I think you just need more light in your shots, so need to pay better attention to where the light is falling, and get some reflected light into some of your shots where they're too dark. Noise is mostly in the shadows, and when your subject is the darkest part of your image, that's where the noise is going to be most visible.
Consider a prime lens if you don't have one - they are sharper than the kit zooms, whether you get the $100 or the $400 variety - and being that they have wider maximum apertures, you can shoot in lower light at lower ISO. I know some people don't like primes, mostly because of the "sneaker zoom" (I love that term, Weng!), but mostly it is a matter of getting used to it. My absolute favourite lenses are my primes, and I regularly use them out and about as well as in my studio (even the 85mm), because the image detail is just so superb.
Ok... my point was not to knock the $100 value of the glass... nor was it to say you needed corrected glass... rather... it was that one could use a higher f-stop ie 8+ and almost any lens is sharp at that point... it was not that the $100 lens was bad... rather that the kit lens was good enough... I used my kit lens today with some studio lights to show what I mean... i will post and update this link at that point... but I shot between f11-f16 at 1/160 at ISO 100... so I used TONS of light... which I think most people forget they need... fast glass NEVER makes up for better light...
I think too often in modern photography we have grown lazy with fast glass and high ISO cameras...
my point to the original poster is that you can make your kit lens sharp... just have good habits... tons of light... faster shutters(so you have no shake)... and low ISO... any glass should be sharp then...
EDIT:
Ok this is a 309% crop on the lace on her top...
f/11 ISO 100 1/50 at 21mm on a 18-55 Pentax DA kit lens...
the little flecks of white are elastics threads.... I don't know how much sharper you need...
@icywarm I see what you're saying - makes more sense put that way, and I agree (to a point). Beyond f/11 though, you're getting abberations caused by circles of confusion (with full frame). About f/8 for most crop-frame sensor cameras. So, where the lens is sharpest happens to be the only worthwhile aperture setting to use (by that reasoning). I use fast glass for subject isolation, myself, which makes f/8 and f/11 useless for just about everything beyond studio shots.
This is the first shot I ever took with my 85mm, at f/1.2:
Larger (100%) version can be viewed here to see the detail:
The focus is on his left eye (near centre of frame). Yes, this is expensive glass, but I think it makes the point that f/1.2 is more than usable.
This (about half-res) shot of this thumbnail: is stopped down to f/1.6 (two-thirds of a stop) and is, granted, sharper again, but not ridiculously sharper. From experience, stopping down further doesn't increase sharpness in real-world situations, only DOF. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jinximages/4321839478/sizes/o/in/set-72157615426660754/
You get primes, and $100 primes, for sharpness at wider apertures - not for better sharpness at f/8-f/11 where almost any lens is going to be sharp. Well, I think that's why people get them. I am indeed speaking for myself in this case. f/2.2-f/2.8 on those $100 primes is fantastic, in my experience.
@jinximages right... and I guess all I am saying is if someone (ie the OP) asks how do I get my pictures to be more clear... I say stop down vs get new glass.... now if you know you are going to be shooting in more challenge locations like at weddings vs in a studio than that fast glass is a must....
i used a 200mm lens here and my iso was sooooooooo high... like a thousand i guess... and uhmnn i tried on mixing stuff on my camera setting.. so there you go.. and i agree with someone who posted a comment here, that it's not just about the ISO setting to make it less grainy, watch the f/stop too.. ^__^
PS. i know it has to be at least 300mm for you to have a good shot of the moon, but uhmnnn it's quite pricey so at least, i believe, i made it work with 200mm i believe hahahah.... and VR is very very useful!!!.
PS. i know it has to be at least 300mm for you to have a good shot of the moon,
Not necessarily true, I did a shot with an 80mm and it came out better than the one I took when I eventually did acquire a 300mm lens XD The issue was that the 300mm I have is not as good quality glass as my 40-80mm, even though they were both Takumar lenses - the 40-80mm has such good clarity that I was able to crop and zoom while still maintaining sharpness ^^
Anyway, in response to the original post, you should shoot at 100mm ISO whenever you can, but if you're finding your shots are just too dark, either widen your aperture or lower your shutter speed before you start hiking the ISO up. Really you should only resort to ISOs over 400 when it's really dark out and you've got no tripod to compensate for longer shutter speeds. Hope that helps!
this is one thing I like about this site and that is the learning. I am very close to getting my first DSLR. I have several film cameras that have taken wonderful photo's, and my lens's have never been of the expensive nature. I am post a photo I took last year, please explain the (what I think) is the great quality of the shot. This camera was made before all the high tech stuff that we have today.
It is from an old Brownie box camera 90 plus years. Also, just what is a (prime) lens. Please tell me in simple terms. thank you
@rrt A prime lens is just a fixed focal-length lens. You have to zoom with your feet.
Great fireworks shot!
Part of the issue with digital is the sensor replacing film. The old lenses don't resolve the light well enough, and so it is difficult to get the most out of the sensors. With film, well, it's all analogue, so film is, by nature, easier with which to make a clear image. In a nutshell. It's also equal to about 25-30 megapixels (35mm film) - few digital cameras are that good yet. Digital cameras also suffer from noise in the shadow areas, whereas film shows grain more in the highlights, and it isn't ugly like digital noise is ugly.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here's a site that explains it perfectly: http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/1451.aspx
And a pretty good article on how to select the right ISO. http://ezinearticles.com/?Learning-to-Select-Appropriate-ISO-Settings&id=4702467
but just because a lens can open that wide... doesn't mean it should...
you should almost always stop down to f/8 - f/14... you get much less aberrations...
specifically spherical aberrations.... for those who want to good why a $100 f/1.8 lens is not a good deal...
Also, when processing digitally, if you use a Photoshop program, properly using an unsharp mask "properly" (the name is actually a misnomer) can really help details in your images.
Aspherical lens elements are expensive (in the extreme at times). They do a remarkable job of eliminating spherical abberations. But the real question is, does it matter when you consider for what the lens will be used? A 50mm prime is not, generally, used for astro-photography, or any other photography where it needs to focus points of light at a great distance. It is used for portraiture or as a "standard" lens, where the subject is typically near the centre of the frame, and the depth of field is shallow. Such lenses, specifically the few 50mm f/1.8 $100 lenses on offer, do that job just fine. They are a lot sharper than the kit lenses, and sharper than many of the pro zoom lenses. There is softness at the edges (corner drop-off), but those areas are usually out of focus anyway. They suffer very little chromatic abberation and, stopped down a little, produce crystal clear shots capable of being enlarged a long way. At wide open apertures they tend to produce sharp-in-the-centre images with some vignetting and edge softness - big deal. If one understands the limitations of such lenses, they are easily worth their $100 price tags, if not more. One also should consider at what size the user is likely to be printing. At normal print sizes, the limitations are not even visible. And at mid-size enlargements (8x12 / 11x14 or so) there are very few people (read: pro photographers and printers) who would notice anyway. In my opinion, these lenses are excellent value for money. The final image quality is rarely discernable from more expensive f/1.4 glass ($400+) unless one is looking at 100% zoom and knows what they're looking for.
Anywho, that's just my opinion, having once used such lenses. I don't anymore, but that's because I need the absolute quality the f/1.2 variety provide. But if I wasn't earning money from photography, I'd take a $100 lens over a $3200 lens any day (that is what my 85mm lens cost at the time I bought it).
Back to more general matters at hand - I think you are often underexposing your images. ISO can be a problem, but 800-1600 isn't extreme and shouldn't be as troublesome as you're finding it. I think you just need more light in your shots, so need to pay better attention to where the light is falling, and get some reflected light into some of your shots where they're too dark. Noise is mostly in the shadows, and when your subject is the darkest part of your image, that's where the noise is going to be most visible.
Consider a prime lens if you don't have one - they are sharper than the kit zooms, whether you get the $100 or the $400 variety - and being that they have wider maximum apertures, you can shoot in lower light at lower ISO. I know some people don't like primes, mostly because of the "sneaker zoom" (I love that term, Weng!), but mostly it is a matter of getting used to it. My absolute favourite lenses are my primes, and I regularly use them out and about as well as in my studio (even the 85mm), because the image detail is just so superb.
I think too often in modern photography we have grown lazy with fast glass and high ISO cameras...
my point to the original poster is that you can make your kit lens sharp... just have good habits... tons of light... faster shutters(so you have no shake)... and low ISO... any glass should be sharp then...
EDIT:
Ok this is a 309% crop on the lace on her top...
f/11 ISO 100 1/50 at 21mm on a 18-55 Pentax DA kit lens...
the little flecks of white are elastics threads.... I don't know how much sharper you need...
you can see the hairs on my arm... I don't know how much sharper you need...
This is the first shot I ever took with my 85mm, at f/1.2:
Larger (100%) version can be viewed here to see the detail:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jinximages/3378106943/sizes/o/in/set-72157615426660754/
The focus is on his left eye (near centre of frame). Yes, this is expensive glass, but I think it makes the point that f/1.2 is more than usable.
This (about half-res) shot of this thumbnail:
You get primes, and $100 primes, for sharpness at wider apertures - not for better sharpness at f/8-f/11 where almost any lens is going to be sharp. Well, I think that's why people get them. I am indeed speaking for myself in this case. f/2.2-f/2.8 on those $100 primes is fantastic, in my experience.
i used a 200mm lens here and my iso was sooooooooo high... like a thousand i guess... and uhmnn i tried on mixing stuff on my camera setting.. so there you go.. and i agree with someone who posted a comment here, that it's not just about the ISO setting to make it less grainy, watch the f/stop too.. ^__^
PS. i know it has to be at least 300mm for you to have a good shot of the moon, but uhmnnn it's quite pricey so at least, i believe, i made it work with 200mm i believe hahahah.... and VR is very very useful!!!.
Not necessarily true, I did a shot with an 80mm and it came out better than the one I took when I eventually did acquire a 300mm lens XD The issue was that the 300mm I have is not as good quality glass as my 40-80mm, even though they were both Takumar lenses - the 40-80mm has such good clarity that I was able to crop and zoom while still maintaining sharpness ^^
Anyway, in response to the original post, you should shoot at 100mm ISO whenever you can, but if you're finding your shots are just too dark, either widen your aperture or lower your shutter speed before you start hiking the ISO up. Really you should only resort to ISOs over 400 when it's really dark out and you've got no tripod to compensate for longer shutter speeds. Hope that helps!
It is from an old Brownie box camera 90 plus years. Also, just what is a (prime) lens. Please tell me in simple terms. thank you
Great fireworks shot!
Part of the issue with digital is the sensor replacing film. The old lenses don't resolve the light well enough, and so it is difficult to get the most out of the sensors. With film, well, it's all analogue, so film is, by nature, easier with which to make a clear image. In a nutshell. It's also equal to about 25-30 megapixels (35mm film) - few digital cameras are that good yet. Digital cameras also suffer from noise in the shadow areas, whereas film shows grain more in the highlights, and it isn't ugly like digital noise is ugly.
here is another (2shots) with the same camera about ten-12 years ago
http://365project.org/rrt/365/2010-02-27