Is it the camera, the lense, or me??? (Page 2): They look sharp to me. The first one is focused on the eyes--good. The second one is focused on the horses' heads. I don't see the...

rmm0605 Loc: Atlanta GA

Sally D wrote:

First let me say that I am new both to the Forum a... (show quote)

They look sharp to me. The first one is focused on the eyes--good. The second one is focused on the horses' heads. I don't see the problem.

Sally D

MMC wrote:

Sally, please press Quote Reply when you are replying. It helps to know who you are replying to.

Okay, thanks! Would you mind telling me what you used to sharpen it?

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Sally D wrote:

Okay, thanks! Would you mind telling me what you used to sharpen it?

I used Photoshop CC Camera RAW filter(corrected exposure, contrast and Clarity) and Unsharp Mask filter. I spent less than 5 minutes.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Both shots are sharp. I never try to focus on an animal eyes unless the animal is not moving.
Your first shot is way underexposed and needs correction using Levels in Photoshop. It has lost some sharpness due to the JPEG compression.
The second shot is well exposed but if it was mine I would like to cut the warmth effect to taste.

Sally D

Jules Karney wrote:

Hi Sally and welcome to the club. I really like the second shot of the horses.
The first shot was helped a hundred percent in pp. I use Photoshop cs6 and like it.
Good luck and practice practice and practice. That is what we all do to get better at our craft.

Thanks. I'm convinced now that I need to subscribe to LR CC that I guess will give me PS as well. I wish I'd know about it before I bought LR6. And I know I need tons of practice!
Thanks again.

Sally D

rmm0605 wrote:

They look sharp to me. The first one is focused on the eyes--good. The second one is focused on the horses' heads. I don't see the problem.

Thanks for taking a look!

Sally D

MMC wrote:

I used Photoshop CC Camera RAW filter(corrected exposure, contrast and Clarity) and Unsharp Mask filter. I spent less than 5 minutes.

I am really impressed. I guess I'll subscribe. . .wish I'd known about it before I bought the freestanding version of LR6!

Floyd Loc: Misplaced Texan in Florence, Alabama

I like your pictures. Are you aware your antelope is a real trophy? Watching several hunting shows, I learned the more an antelope's horns are taller than its ears the greater the trophy. Nice catch.

Sally D

Floyd wrote:

I like your pictures. Are you aware your antelope is a real trophy? Watching several hunting shows, I learned the more an antelope's horns are taller than its ears the greater the trophy. Nice catch.

Thanks! This was taken at a friend's son's ranch in NE Montana. I'm convinced that "Home on the Range" must have been written there. I've never seen so much wildlife in my life!

Another forum member ran the photo through PS and it made a huge improvement so I guess I'll break down and subscribe.
Thanks for the comment.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

Sally, I'm at the public library now, but when I get on my pc I would like to work with the first photo and show what can be done for "FREE". If you are new to photography, Photo Shop CC and some other pp software can be a bit of a learning curve, as well as costly. I do 95% of all pp using Photo Gallery, which comes on Windows 7, but can be downloaded on later models. It is not the "latest and the greatest" but it works well and is super easy to use.

Sally D

cameranut wrote:

Sally, I'm at the public library now, but when I get on my pc I would like to work with the first photo and show what can be done for "FREE". If you are new to photography, Photo Shop CC and some other pp software can be a bit of a learning curve, as well as costly. I do 95% of all pp using Photo Gallery, which comes on Windows 7, but can be downloaded on later models. It is not the "latest and the greatest" but it works well and is super easy to use.

I'd love to see what you can do. But since I have LR6 already, I think I'll splurge and subscribe to the CC edition. I'd like to be able to access my photos from my tablet when I'm not at home and I think that would give me the capability.
I just wish I'd known about the subscription before I bought!
If you don't mind spending the time, I'd love to see what you can do with the photo.
Thanks again.

Retired fat guy with a camera Loc: Colorado

It is not you, I had the same 70-300 mm lens. Mine was the non IS model. I got some great pictures with it. But, I always thought they could have been better.
I bought a 300 mm , non IS, f/4, L [ I read were it is sharper than the IS model] for 500 off of ebay. I like primes they are sharper and they aren't dust pumps.
Same camera, same settings, and I will tell you for the true, the L lens made all the difference in the world. It was worth the money.

Sally D

Retired fat guy with a camera wrote:

It is not you, I had the same 70-300 mm lens. Mine was the non IS model. I got some great pictures with it. But, I always thought they could have been better.
I bought a 300 mm , non IS, f/4, L [ I read were it is sharper than the IS model] for 500 off of ebay. I like primes they are sharper and they aren't dust pumps.
Same camera, same settings, and I will tell you for the true, the L lens made all the difference in the world. It was worth the money.

That's not necessarily what I wanted to hear but I think you're probably right! There's so much difference in lens quality that it's pretty confusing for a newcomer. It doesn't help that I shoot with a friend with professional Nikon equipment.

Thanks for your time.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Sally D wrote:

That's not necessarily what I wanted to hear but I think you're probably right! There's so much difference in lens quality that it's pretty confusing for a newcomer. It doesn't help that I shoot with a friend with professional Nikon equipment.

Thanks for your time.

Look too at the new vII for the 70-300 IS as well as the older 100-400L IS. Used pricing from KEH will bring down the investment cost while providing a noticeable improvement at 300mm. The 300 f/4L also can be "extended" to 420 with the 1.4IIIx that will retain autofocus with your camera body.

I commented earlier about stepping down the aperture at 300mm and others have pointed out the first picture is underexposed. The sharpening example, to my eyes, is 'over sharpened'. My point being that you have a variety of options between technique, equipment and post processing that provide a menu of options to improve the results in similar shooting situations.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

Sally D wrote:

I'd love to see what you can do. But since I have LR6 already, I think I'll splurge and subscribe to the CC edition. I'd like to be able to access my photos from my tablet when I'm not at home and I think that would give me the capability.
I just wish I'd known about the subscription before I bought!
If you don't mind spending the time, I'd love to see what you can do with the photo.
Thanks again.

I started at 9:50 pm and finished at 9:52. All I did was move the shadow slider to the right to lighten dark areas, then a small amount on the sharpen slider.

(Download)