Need analysis of this photo !!!
Feb 7, 2016 14:37:40 #
All: I can't for the life of me figure out what I am doing wrong. I am having a terrible time getting sharper pictures.
Here is an example of a picture. it is really muddy looking. Yes weather was heavily overcast but this does not explain it does it? It's happening more often than not now a days. Very discouraging.
Nikon d7100 with a Sigma 150-500mm lens.
Focal length 500mm
Shutter - 1/750
Aperture 8.0
ISO - 400
On window beanbag
Lightroom cc used to process -- no processing done on this example.
Here is an example of a picture. it is really muddy looking. Yes weather was heavily overcast but this does not explain it does it? It's happening more often than not now a days. Very discouraging.
Nikon d7100 with a Sigma 150-500mm lens.
Focal length 500mm
Shutter - 1/750
Aperture 8.0
ISO - 400
On window beanbag
Lightroom cc used to process -- no processing done on this example.
Feb 7, 2016 14:48:31 #
Feb 7, 2016 14:57:49 #
acellis wrote:
All: I can't for the life of me figure out what I ... (show quote)
It would have been much better if the Exif data were intact, but it was stripped when you edited this. So while the result is obvious, the reason for it is not known.
You image is about 2-1/2 stops underexposed.
Do you by any chance have Exposure Compensation set to -2 EV or something like that?
Feb 7, 2016 15:08:34 #
[quote=acellis]Why is there no exif files in the camera details? I wanted to confirm all the settings. 1/750 is near max with 500 mm lens. David
Feb 7, 2016 15:11:41 #
Agree that its underexposed and also has some focusing problems. Nothing seems in focus and its my impression that there are some motion artifacts. The Sigma is a lens that needs TONS of good light since its most sharpest at f/8. With good light it can give very nice results. On an overcast day you should consider to start with an ISO 800 due to the lens limitations of been basically a f/8 one.
Check what I did in this case. I still have this lens and use it from time to time. I went with ISO 1250, f/8 and 1/800. I believe light was slightly better in my case and still I went with that ISO.
LY2A3984 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr
Don't be afraid of increasing the ISO. There are good software programs out there to deal with noise, its matter of knowing what you like and practice. Its a heavy lens so be sure you have the IS on and practice good holding techniques.
Check what I did in this case. I still have this lens and use it from time to time. I went with ISO 1250, f/8 and 1/800. I believe light was slightly better in my case and still I went with that ISO.
LY2A3984 by Oscar Baez Soria, on FlickrDon't be afraid of increasing the ISO. There are good software programs out there to deal with noise, its matter of knowing what you like and practice. Its a heavy lens so be sure you have the IS on and practice good holding techniques.
Feb 7, 2016 15:13:02 #
[quote=Meives]
What you mean 1/750 is near max.....????
acellis wrote:
Why is there no exif files in the camera details? I wanted to confirm all the settings. 1/750 is near max with 500 mm lens. David
What you mean 1/750 is near max.....????
Feb 7, 2016 15:17:22 #
Here is a few tips, use a pad & pencil and then use the bracketing method shoot an image record your settings shoot several more shots with higher ISO and shutter speeds match up the notes with the images until you get the desired effect for what you're shooting the lens you are using is slow you need more light
Feb 7, 2016 15:28:35 #
dixiebeachboy wrote:
.../...
Pad and pencils are replaced with the EXIF... Much more complete and accurate.
Just saying.
Notes are good for:
Location, point of view (direction EWSN, camera orientation, filter if any)
Weather condition. That is missing from the EXIF, everything else is recorded already so...
To the OP: No EXIF, seems to be a reduced or a cropped version. How can we check anything in these condition?
Our crystal ball went suddenly dark.
Feb 7, 2016 15:31:34 #
Under exposed, I could not find anything in focus? Camera shake? Or all of the above?
Feb 7, 2016 15:45:41 #
I am surprised as well. I didn't do anything consciously to strip it i will try and figure out how to post with it there.
should i NOT check store original?
should i NOT check store original?
Feb 7, 2016 15:56:14 #
Feb 7, 2016 15:57:24 #
Feb 7, 2016 15:58:55 #
Camera shake. Check the bokeh, it seems more evident there. Twigs look to have almost a double ghosted image.
Feb 7, 2016 16:01:29 #
Feb 7, 2016 16:03:47 #
chaman wrote:
Agree that its underexposed and also has some focu... (show quote)
This is what i am looking for in a finished image. Thanks for sharing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.