Help me if you can, I'm feeling dowwwwwwwwwn!!!!! (Page 2): Here's your photo sharpened, levels adjusted, and saturation increased. Mike My first guess was exposure, etc. as well. It...

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

renomike wrote:

lachmap wrote:

I have attached a shot which was taken at 1/250th sec, f10, 400 ISO hand held on a sunny day.
The second shot was the same except 320th sec. I thought these would be fast enough to not need a tripod.

Here's your photo sharpened, levels adjusted, and saturation increased.

Mike

My first guess was exposure, etc. as well. It looks far better now that the image levels have been readjusted in the PP. Was this image captured
in the Blue Mountains?

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Nice job renomike. If you look at the upper left hand corner of the 1st photo you can see all the humidity in the distance which will give you problems in obtaining sharp pics. As EW pointed out the shots are out of focus but how can the camera focus on what it can't see and how can it be clear/sharp when the air is that thick?? You were basically shooting in a light fog the way the air looks. I guess my best advice is get out and start using your camera more and don't expect the impossible. You are at the point now where you see shots out of focus that are actually in focus as pointed out. Get used to your camera and it's capabilities...

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

coco1964 wrote:

Nice job renomike. If you look at the upper left hand corner of the 1st photo you can see all the humidity in the distance which will give you problems in obtaining sharp pics. As EW pointed out the shots are out of focus but how can the camera focus on what it can't see and how can it be clear/sharp when the air is that thick?? .

Great point. That is why I asked if these were captured in the Blue Mountains just outside of Sydney. The area is called the Blue Mountains from the haze that comes from the transpiration for the native gum trees. It does appear like a "haze" when photographing and often blueish because of the ultraviolet light. Even if this wasn't taken in the Blue Mountains, it is an area suffering from the same effects. I found this same issue in other areas of Aussie as well while shooting there.

"coco" is correct on another point. You can't discount practicing, and the folks on this site can help a lot, but spend some more time with camera in hand. You'll get better, and so will the images.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Bozsik wrote:

quote=coco1964 Nice job renomike. If you look at ... (show quote)

It's alot like the Smoky Mountains here in the U.S. They usually have that haze in the morning which make for some great shots.....

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

Thanks Renomike and everyone else!!!! So can you tell me what steps you went through to obtain this improved phto? I'm not that crash hot on post processing. At the moment, till funds improve, I am using an old Paintshop Pro!!!!

Yes it is in the Blue Mountains, yes there is haze, etc etc etc. Maybe I am expecting too much, but I just had it so much easier with the Fuji in the past. Shots were much easier to take and better from the start.

Will have to spend more time on it for sure - if the mrs lets me LOL.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

lachmap wrote:

Thanks Renomike and everyone else!!!! So can you t... (show quote)

Go back to renomikes post and he said what he adjusted. You might want to take a look at Picasa as it is free and pretty easy to learn. Once you've mastered that then there are more detailed programs like GIMP which is also free. Jump in it's FREE!!

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

lachmap wrote:

Thanks Renomike and everyone else!!!! So can you tell me what steps you went through to obtain this improved phto? I'm not that crash hot on post processing. At the moment, till funds improve, I am using an old Paintshop Pro!!!!

Sorry I don't have Paintshop Pro, but like Coco said there are some good free programs out there. I've never used them, but have heard good things about both that he mentioned. I sharpened, adjusted levels and curves just a small bit, and increased the saturation. I use Zoner Photo Studio Pro 13, it's quite similar to Photoshop, but easier to use in my estimation. Zoner has a 30 day free trial if you are interested, and they are now on Version 14.

Mike

Naturenut Loc: Salisbury, NC

Good comments Wolf. I am trying to get familiar with my new Canon & your comments are really appreciated.

English_Wolf wrote:

They are not sharp, no question. br br Picture #1... (show quote)

Naturenut Loc: Salisbury, NC

Nice job Reno.

renomike wrote:

lachmap wrote:

I have attached a shot which was taken at 1/250th sec, f10, 400 ISO hand held on a sunny day.
The second shot was the same except 320th sec. I thought these would be fast enough to not need a tripod.

Here's your photo sharpened, levels adjusted, and saturation increased.

Mike

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

Thanks guys and gals. I really appreciate this wonderful new group of people that I have found. I think the wife thinks I have an online girl as I am spending a lot of time reading all the posts!!!!!!

Will have a look at those programs soon.

Am trying to manually focus. Find this is ok for close objects but distance is much harder. Does anyone have a trick for that? I supose I have to find a spot in the landscape that has a bit of contrast so I can see better if it is focussed or not.

Dback4430 Loc: Lockport Il

lachmap wrote:

Here is one of my spider pics from today. Once again I have not managed to clearly focus the male. This was manual focussing. I assume it's just a matter of trial and error and lots of pics to get the right focus. The lens actualy seems to give better pics in macro.

Lachmap , I just looked at the spider post you have there . According to the exif data , your focus point wa about an inch above the spider , Here is a 100 % crop and the red square is where the focus point shows

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

Aha. Can you explain the ramifications of this?

I was trying to get both spiders in focus as much as possible. Maybe I should have just focussed on one. It was manual - I think.

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

OK to quote you:

"You also managed to get the 'holy grail' for some on this forum: circles of diffusion in the out of focus area: 'bokeh'"

2 questions: What does 'bokeh' mean???? What is this 'holy grail' you speak of??? Please explain. (You may here us aussies use this term a lot because one of our redneck politicians used that on a reporter when they asked her a simple question!!!)

Dback4430 Loc: Lockport Il

lachmap wrote:

Aha. Can you explain the ramifications of this?

I was trying to get both spiders in focus as much as possible. Maybe I should have just focussed on one. It was manual - I think.

I don't really know the ramifications , I don't think the lens is soft as you were saying earlier . I am by no stretch , an expert in any form of photography . I just wanted to see where the focus point was . Perhaps more DOF would have accomplished what you wanted .

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

lachmap wrote:

OK to quote you:
2 questions: What does 'bokeh' mean???? What is this 'holy grail' you speak of??? Please explain. (You may here us aussies use this term a lot because one of our redneck politicians used that on a reporter when they asked her a simple question!!!)

Bokeh... Is actually a Japanese term for the area behind, or surrounding a photo that is out of focus, usually on purpose.

Mike