Why I can't shoot good sharp high quality photos?

[KCBrecks]

Where is the focus point set on your camera for this shot? When I first started using my Canon (just a 1000D) I was bitterly disappointed with the pictures I was getting as the real subject of them was in soft focus whereas other areas were sharp. Then I noticed where the camera was focusing and altered it to be in the centre and everything started to come right. I find the lens you use is good in bright light but a little soft as things get darker but I would expect a shot like this sunset one to be much sharper. If you know someone with another Canon you could try borrowing their lens and see if is that.

One of these days you will say WOW though and that's a day worth working towards.

[KCBrecks]

Wow! That's better. Check where the camera is focusing.

[Stagecoach]

Hi again Meisam,

You have overdone the PPing here looking at the white halo around the port side and front edge of the boat, and not straightened your horizon (yet). You have also got your horizon mid way up.

As for subject and composition it's not over interesting to me like this. These old wooden boats do make great subjects with their texture, colours and flaking paint. Perhaps another option you could have considered here was to get in close and just take the bow in portrait with the sunset behind. Only problem, may have been the sticker on the front.

Note, these are my personal opinions and only with a view to help and give you views to consider in your journey to improve.

Grahame

[escoville]

In my opinion, your first pic was technically perfectly okay, just not a terribly interesting motif. The second one (sunset) is so seriously out of focus that I would have ditched it on the spot. But sunsets over seas have been done a billion times anyway, so unless you want a souvenir photo of some sunset you personally found specially great, or reminds you of a particular occasion, there's no point in taking one anyway. Motif is the most important thing; focus comes next, because you can't change it. So: keep your eyes open, take lots of shots, and spend time manipulating the ones you think are worth it. And NEVER compare your pics directly with other people's. Use theirs for inspiration -- that's a different matter.

[ajohnw]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread but thought an example of what can be very quickly done to your shot might help you. Here it is 5mins work. I have done a minimum too it to try and get what your were after. I haven't used sharpening as the shot has already been reduced to a web sized jpg. Normally I would always sharpen at that point and do the bulk of the work on the full image in this case from raw as some of the water is over exposed and has lost shape as a result.



I slightly flattened the brightness to bring out as much shape as I could.in the central plume of water. Normally the raw shot would be adjusted for this or jpg's would be bracketed.

I then increase colour saturation everywhere by a little. The need for this varies and is a personal thing really. You should be able to remember the scene and how you want it to eventually look.

Last but not least I used tone mapping on it. This is one of the curves in most packages somewhere that represents levels of contrast in the shot. Left side low contrast, right side high contrast. I boosted low and mid by the same amount falling off to zero boost at the high contrast end. Normally the low end wouldn't be boosted as much as the mid. This shot benefits from lots of it. I've actually been excessive really where it is boosted. The overall effect is a considerable increase in sharpness and colouration.

When ever you see a shot on the web there is no knowing what has been done to it. The exif info will often show what software was used and all sorts of things are possible. To me the other shots you posted show distinct signs of modification. A lot of the tonal range control is done at the raw development stage with curves of one sort or another. If you want to play with something to get a feel for it I would suggest ufraw as it does nothing else. If you want to see what else is possible search youtube for fotoxx bearing in mind that when he waves a circle around with a mouse on a shot the circle can modify what's under it using any of the retouching facilities or these can be applied to the entire shots. Most packages have some variation on this. On some there may be a need to select the part that needs modification.

Why is this done - well basically the camera can't capture what the eye can see so in many ways the aim is an impressive end result.

The other shots are also probably crops. It makes sense to shoot more than you think you need and sort that out later.

John

[ajohnw]

On your other 2 shots.

The 1st one would be a lot better if cropped some where near the poles and also removing the flat uninteresting sky at the same time. The poles would need to be in sharp focus.

The 2nd one seems to be focus at the boat which is the main detail but a lot of the sky is flat again so best out of the shot. It may well have been better of shot with the sun higher in the sky with less foreground. After that processing again.

John

[MilT0s]

The tough situation with the boat picture is that is shot against the sun. It a high dynamic range scene and your camera have difficulties handle those. When shooting under the bright sun you can expose correctly for the highlights and lose the shadows or vice versa or expose for the middle tones and "lose" both resulting in a flat image. The solution is usually "golden hours" for landscapes. In the other shots you like the dynamic range is much narrower due to the sunset time and the GND filters. I would suggest you experiment with soft light situation to see for yourself and explore the PP techniques deeper.

[ajohnw]

I wouldn't say that one is high dynamic range looking at the photo. There is an odd white line round the boat engine and in other places - due to processing? Not sure. I've rather quickly toned that down a little,

Out of curiosity really - With that one I have rescaled the width only to allow what I see as a better crop still with a reasonable aspect ratio. Done some local work on the sky - not much and the boat, more on the engine, I think both would be better even darker and locally added some shadow to the beach which I suspect must have been there when the shot was taken.




Really to show that all sorts of things can be done to a shot - and often are. In this case I also feel it improves it.

John

[Meisam]

Thanks John, and all of you guys.
This boat is not single shot. It is two shots. One over the other. One contains Sky the other one contains Boat and etc. but sky is -1 compensated and another one is +1 for boat.
The halo is my lack of accuracy... I can do better it is only fast edit, I know I must cut the subject and edit them in separate layers. but I just put them on each other and I did use masking.

For better edit what should I do?! I see John did a great job on waves and stones. I like the sharpness and color saturation but when I do this and when I try to do this I ruin everything... I think I need to learn tone mapping... I think my problem is this... about focus I was forgotten I am on manual focus when I took that shot I shot several photo some are good some are not...

here some another samples from the same place same day, same time...


IMG_2793 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2791 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2790 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2779 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2743 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr

[dan marchant]

I took my photo in the last times of the day (sunset) and I took many other photos.

Unfortunately even that isn't enough. Landscape photography requires a lot of patience because you don't just need sunset, you need a great sunset. You need interesting clouds in the sky that really show off the light to its fullest. Many landscape photographers will return to the same location several times in the hope of getting one hour when the light is and the sky is interesting.

[Manfred M]

Your question that started out purely as a technical issue regarding focus has now evolved to a much broader subject; “how do I take better pictures?” That is a much broader subject and one that is much more difficult to deal with.

Photography really has two completely different sides to it; the technical, which is where you started of, and the artistic, which is where you seem to be asking about as well. Right now, the image that you have posted are what I would refer to as casual images or snapshots; you are not really thinking about composition yet.

The technical one is probably the easier of the two (at least for me), and that is to learn how to use your camera and your accessories. This includes the obvious; appropriate choice of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, as well as using your camera in a manner that is consistent with good shooting practice; focus, straight horizon lines, etc. You really do need to know your camera quite intimately.

The second part is using good composition. This starts with recognizing subject matter and framing it in an interesting manner. This is, in my view, the hard part because you have to lean how to see things and understand how a three dimensional object will be translated into a two dimensional object by your camera. This step is called precomposition, the step wherre you see something that might make a good photograph.

I suggest you read some read some books on composition, as you have to understand compositional elements in order to recognize them. I would also encourage you to look at images taken by good photographers and look at the compositional elements that they are using and understanding how and why they work.

You also need to get a better understanding of light and how it affects your shots. The light in many of the shots you have posted is quite flat. This tends to make for boring shots, but treated properly, you can get some really compelling images. Harsh lighting from the mid-day sun is also very difficult to work with, as you have to deal with very pronounced shadows.

The third step is to look at your own work for these same elements. Become your own harshest critics. Ask other photographers that you know and trust to review your work. From there on, practice frequently; you will find photography is much like playing a musical instrument or playing chess; practice improves your skills, but if you stop, your skills will start to deteriorate.

And now I’m going to comment on some of the images that you posted, and where I might go with them directionally. I spent a few seconds on some of them just to provide you some food for thought. I only spent a few seconds on each image, but here are my thoughts:

The picture is about the dog, so why do you include the sea and sky and take away from your image? The dog is centred in the shot, but is looking to the left, so giving a bit of space in the direction it is looking adds compositionally. If I were shooting, I probably would have gotten closer to the ground to get more at eye level.




In this shot, you have tried to get the building and moon together, but it does not work for me. The moon is tiny and there is just too much sky in the image. On the other hand, the building looks interesting on its own, with a bit of negative space on the right to balance out the building on the left hand side.




You are taking a shot of an anchor, yet there is a lot of sea and sky that do not add to the image. I personally would have offset the anchor to the left, had there been more image on the right.



The rope has the same problem as the anchor. The picture features the rope, but the image is overwhelmed by the sea and sky, I tried to have the rope run across the vertical edges and placed the float near the lower left third.



The picture of the boat and sunset looks all wrong. You seem to have some reasonably good Photoshop skills, but you do have to pay attention to the light when you are doing this kind of work.

1. This is a sunset shot, but the light on the boat looks more like it is taken far earlier in the day. The hues don’t match the rest of the scene and it is far too bright for the scene.

2. This is a sunset shot; we see the sun setting behind the boat, yet we see a shadow to the left of the boat. That does not look right, and in fact we would expect the shadow to be towards the camera, A sunset shadow is quite long and fades out.

The side of the boat facing the camera should be darker as it would be in the shade.

[Meisam]

Thanks Manfred

I added sea and whole empty places because I just wanted to tell a story, I liked to say this is an anchor near the sea.

I added whole negative space in building shot because Ben Long (Lynda.com Composition Tutorial) said moon is a heavy compositional thing in a photo and it will give weight to a shot...

I like filling the frame as Brian Peterson said in his video tutorial and his books. But I just go with Ben Long instruction in this shot. I think I should lower down a bit (unfortunately I had nothing to lay on it) and I like small depth of filed, but I have read small depth of filed makes photos look softer while bigger f/8 or f/11 is the best one!

My lens work better in close ups and it won't work very well in farther view... I like to learn composition and you've mentioned many new things I really appreciate that. I did some other good job in my own opinion but last day sea side was so much crowded and I hadn't have enough time to work my best...

here is another photo I took a month ago:


Untitled-2 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2575 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr


IMG_2588 by Meisam Tj., on Flickr

[Manfred M]

A few thoughts for you Meisam:

Yes, telling story is good, but if I see an anchor on a beach, the sky and sea are inferred and don't necessarily have to be in the image. It does depend on the situation, though. Sometimes it's better to try to tell the story through a series of pictures, rather than trying to do everything with one.

I also agree that the moon can be an important compositional element; but it still has to work with the image. For instance, if the moon were hanging just over the horizon and was very large in the sky, it might have worked. In your image, it looked like you were just trying to force it into the image and it is so small, it doesn't work for me.

If your lens does not focus in the distance, there is likely something wrong with it and it should be repaired.

[Meisam]

I understand what you say, I agree with you. I should work more on my look, not just say wow a moon lets combine it with the building...
I become so excited when I see a sight when I came home happy but after I check them on my laptop I feel empty handed.
It can focus in distance but things are not sharp... it's lens kit, 18-55mm so I guess I expect too much from it...

[Manfred M]

I have a 18-55mm kit lens and it is quite sharp. I have no complaints about it optically; but mechanically, it is not the most robust piece of equipment that I own. If you are shooting at f/8 or f/11 you should be tack sharp at infintiy. If this is not happening, there is something wrong with it that needs to be looked at.

[orlcam88]

It looks sharp to me. I see a bit of a halo around the boat but other than that, it's sharp. If you want to create a wow factor, you can bring up the sky colors but it's sharp.

One thing I did when I decided to get new equipment was to spend more on glass than the camera and I'm glad I did. I had a kit lens on my first body and I spent lot's of time sharpening photo's. Sometimes it works others just didn't.

One time while shooting birds, I had a talk one time with an old timer who did photography for newspapers. I had told him about my sharp post processing, and I wanted to get new equipment as mine was a few years old. He told me with my budget that I should spend more on glass than on the camera. He's point is that you can do more after the shot with post processing than you can with a good glass. You can't always correct glass issue as you can with any other non-glass issue. And even if you can, you'll spend a lot of time doing it. So instead of the 7D and a non L type lens, I went with an L Lens and the 60D.

But regardless of the above, not all photo's come out wow right out of the camera. Some post processing magic usually does this. If that's what you expect every time then I'm still sticking to my first post.

[ajohnw]

I think Meisam is really asking an impossible question - composition for a striking photo. The striking aspect as far as photo's on the web go often involve processing so that they are really larger than life. That is an entirely normal approach. There are all sorts of reasons why this is needed - the inability of a camera to capture exactly what the eye can see in many circumstances for instance. Also to grab the viewers eye. He also seems to be unduly influenced by tutorials of one sort or another and want a set of instructions so that he obtains great compositions. It's far to a woolly subject for that to work out. As far as instruction goes I would say a relatively simple book on art - eg painting various scenes and objects with a chapter/info on composition would be a better source of information. Not the ones where you take an easel out and paint a real scene etc but even those may point out what to look for and where to put horizons and objects etc in different circumstances / different aims.

Were I feel he has gone wrong is illustrated by the boat photo. It's ok to do an hdr shot just for the fun of it but that shot has 2 aspects to it. It's either a sunset or a boat. The hdr makes it both which can't work out. If it's a sunset there is no need for the boat so I went some way to making it a boat in the sunset. Done correctly the sunset would grab the eye and the boat would be more of a feature in the shot that adds to it rather than leaves the eye confused as to where to look. I tried to reach a point where the eye goes to the sunset and then sees the boat. A more difficult alternative.

The anchor is another illustration of the same thing. Lots of sharp detail in the beach and not much anchor. Here again the eye is confused so the picture doesn't really have any point to to it - anchor on a beach. Maybe it was possible to shoot at an angle where there would be a lot more anchor. To keep proportions correct I would shoot that at around 50mm on an aps camera. As the anchor isn't very big this would leave another possible problem - too much beach. One answer might be to slightly blur the beach. Blurred backgrounds within reason make objects leap out of the photo. A technique that is much used in several areas. Another answer might have been to hold the camera a couple of inches of the ground to obtain a more variable background, again ideally slightly blurred, Blur is a very powerful tool as it doesn't draw the eye. These days people mention creamy bokeh and way way overdo it because they can. An artist on the other hand might lavish and an enormous amount of attention on the part he wants people to see and things would be increasingly sketchy going into the background and away from the subject. The brain does the rest. There may be a feature to lead the viewers eye where the painter wants it to be lead. This sort of thing is really what composition is all about - making a viewer see it as intended.

There is a tendency in photographic circles to just view things technically and also add a lot of bloat to books - and threads when some one is absolutely certain that it's always best to do things a certain way. There is lots to think about when taking a shot but the main one is just what you want to finish up with and what you want a viewer to see. When you are happy with it others will not be. Tastes vary and there is a tendency to look at photo's technically rather than suitability for hanging on the wall. If you get the opportunity it's worth visiting galleries and exhibitions of other peoples photographs and viewing each one on the basis of is it a record or is it "artistic" and which ones work for you and which ones don't. The aim here is sales and the work is likely to be of a very high standard. Also craft fairs etc where a photographer may be trying to sell their work. Standards vary. For me some record shots of wild life for instance appeal more because something about them illustrates the characteristics of the animal or insect concerned. Anything else is a record shot really, Fun to do and must be sharp and faithful etc.

John

[Meisam]

Thanks John
I now see something I never ever think about that
I saw many photos and I saw many wow factor, I see some eye grabbing photos. But I didn't understand why they are this much cool, now I guess I know where to start. Thanks you all who helped me.

[Meisam]

Does this composition work for dog shot?


IMG_2793-bw by Meisam Tj., on Flickr

I tried to add more contrast but I have lost much details on dog's body. I like her hairs and I am not sure how could I keep details also have brighter subject! It looks dark it's even not a low key?! Is it?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Meisam,

In my opinion no the result has not worked but the composition is much better than your original take.

Firstly you have attempted to 'make' a picture from an original image in which the dog was not particulary in focus or sharp and partly overexposed in areas losing detail most pronounced on its head. In cropping from the original you have exagerated this.

If you look at the histogram of this image you will see that it is very heavily loaded to the left.

The easiest solution would have been to take this shot originally.