Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jill Morgan

Is it me, my camera or the lens

Recommended Posts

The section at 100% looks sharp enough for me. However, the image looks a stop under exposed. A guess is it would pass QC.  What PP program are you using? 

 

I hate nit picking . . . but why not choose f/8 @ 1/500?  f/11 is okay, but f/8 or f/5.6 are usually better on most lenses.

 

I am using Photoshop CS6.  Shoot in RAW and edit in RAW first before opening file.  I also have Elements, but haven't used it. Seems some of you guys prefer it to Photoshop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have a Nikon 24-85 zoom like that, Bryan. Would you like to buy it? :)

Certainly ED, have you anything anything else to add to my collection of photo junk :rolleyes:

 

Back to Jill's problem. You do need to test a telephoto using a tripod, it's about the only time I use a tripod!

 

Hell yes, Bryan . . . I have a whole gang of stuff! Get out the credit card. Let me suggest a couple of Nikon FE camera bodies. They no longer work, but they make fabulous paper weights, very classy. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Went back into town this morning. Before I went I cleaned the lens, took it off and put it on again, and then went ashooting.

 

These pics are taken at 250mm 1/250 at f11 ISO 200 across a river. The first pic is the full picture, the second pic the actual 100% of the little girl in the wagon.

 

Would this pass QC?

 

Definitely improvement, so could be dirty lens, or not quite connected properly.

 

I did retake the train as well, will post those after.

 

2kidsfeedingducks.jpg

 

It's not super sharp, but I think it would pass QC. However, please don't quote me on this. You could always try downsizing the file to 3600 pixels on the long side (to meet Alamy's 24 MB minimum file size) if you want to increase sharpness.

 

Thanks, I did that and it does improve a little.

 

And Ed, You are right. I was taking pics of the ducks, and thought 1/250 would be enough, but gee, those little beggars move fast, and most of the pics ended up just out of focus on one part of the duck or the other.  Took about 30 pics of ducks and used only about 6.  I wanted to keep my depth of field to get groups of ducks where most would be sharp, but hey, ya live and learn.

 

All that makes sense, Jill. I've always had trouble with ducks. You look good to go. But I would open up the shadows some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.