Why do my pictures come out like this?

wildviper

I am getting tired of this. Look at our faces in this pic. A lot of my pictures come out unsharp and with these dots everywhere. On this picture, I used the Tokina 12-24mm and here are the other details.

Nikon D70s<!--StartFragment-->
1/80 f/11
Focal Length 15mm
ISO 200
No Flash
On a Gitzo Tripod with a Kirk BH-3 head
Set off with a remote and 10sec timer.

I had focused at the Hyperfocal distance and that could be the culprit here. However, I get this otherwise as well when I have focused.

Even from my 18-70mm lens. I remember getting crystal clear pictures when I got my camera first. I did have the sensor cleaned before this trip through a local photo shop.

Anyone know what could be the problem? I try and use fast shutter speeds most of the time to try and avoid this, but no luck. I would say 70-80% of my shots are like this.

Tee Why

The softness can be due to using hyperfocal distance and f11, it may not have been stopped enough for the face to be in focus. Maybe if you can post other typical examples where the focus is on the face.

As for the dots, sounds like noise from underexposure being corrected during processing. A fill in flash may do the trick in such a situation where the faces can be backlit by the bright sky.

The sample is too small to see, maybe if you can post a crop of a bigger version we can see a bit better.

Nikolai

Tee Why wrote:

As for the dots, sounds like noise from underexposure being corrected during processing. A fill in flash may do the trick in such a situation where the faces can be backlit by the bright sky.

+1
There is no way f/11 +1/80s + ISO200 can get the faces that bright for the setting sun. Underexposure = lots of noise after correction.

Scott_Quier

To better consider both the focusing issue and the "dots" issue, a 100% crop of this area of the original (not processed) photo would be a great help.

pathfinder

A great spot to shoot fill flash ( in iTTl) with your camera in Av mode ( since its on a tripod a slow shutter speed won't hurt ) or Manual mode you get to choose your shutter speed and aperture to capture the background as desired), and light the subjects nicely ( not under exposed ) with the flash.

Don't worry about hyperfocal distance - get the subjects exposed properly and sharply, and the picture will be fine at f8, f11, or f13. The backgrounds may not be perfectly sharp, but the colors will come through nicely as a nice softly blurred background.

wildviper

Here is the 100% crop. I am getting the feeling that it is the underexposure. All of my pictures come at least 1 stop dark on the Nikon. The first thing I do is take the exposure +1 or more. I better learn to take better exposures and also use of the fill flash. Any good sites for flash. I hate that flashy look.

Tee Why

It definitely looks like noise from underexposure. Matrix metering can be fooled by the bright sky and underexpose for the faces. I'd recommend partial or spot metering off the face instead. It may overexpose the sky though.

For such work, you probably can use the pop up flash as long as the shutter speeds to not exceed the sync speed of the camera (1/500). That way, the metering can expose for the sky and the flash can fill and expose the face.

To avoid that harsh lighting effect, turn down the Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) to about -1 to -1.5 or so.

If you rarely use flash except for situations like this, the pop up may be just fine for a little fill in lighting.

As a side note, it does look a little soft and may not be in focus. If the people are important, then I'd focus on the face or just behind it and stop down a lot like f16-19 to get a bigger dof.

Scott_Quier

- looks like a classic case of under-exposure that's been pushed in post. You can see detail in the fuzz of her hat - so I don't think there's a focusing issue.

wildviper

Here is the original from the NEF file just cropped.

Also, I had metered using Spot meter, but trying to retain as much details on the clouds and mountains.

I think I have to go back to Exposure school and also learn to use the Flash. I also have a SB600 that i could have used I guess.

How would you save this? I have Noise Ninja and PS CS3.

wildviper

Here is another example of my pictures.

Before I blame the camera, I should blame the person behind the camera, huh??

This was taken with the same camera, but with a Nikon 70-200 VR with the VR on.

The exif details are: 1/60 at F5.6, Focal length 140mm, ISO 400. No Flash. Spot metering.

Nikolai

In the first example you were trying to capture an image with dynamic range surpassing the capabilities of your camera. The way to deal with it is either to go HDR or to eliminate some of this range.
For HDR you would have to take multiple exposures and then blend them in post-processing. Since you're having people (including yourself) in a frame it's not an easy task.
For second approach you need to fill the shadows with the flash (as it has been suggested several times already), so you would be able to expose for the sky. Mind you, no automated metering would be 100% reliable in your particular case, so you may need to practice, check the histogram, etc.
For the best results don't forget to gel your flash with 1/4...1/2 of CTO filter (depending on how late in the day you are). eTTL/iTTL may work OK in your case.
HTH

pathfinder

wildviper wrote:

The first thing I do is take the exposure +1 or more. I better learn to take better exposures and also use of the fill flash. Any good sites for flash. I hate that flashy look.

Wildviper, I hate that "flashy" look also.

But well done fill flash is not detectable by most folks at all ( good photogs CAN recognize, and APPRECIATE it though ).

I shoot Canon so my terms for Nikon may not be exact, but I am certain that the Nikon system can do anything the Canon EOS flash system can do just as well.

Your concern was balancing the exposure on your faces ( which are in the shade ) and the sunlit background with the setting sun. This is extremely difficult to do with a single exposure.

Fill flash solves this issue very nicely because it lets you set your cameras aperture for the background and uses flash to light your faces correctly. Shoot iTTL with your flash. Pick an aperture. Put your camera in Manual Mode and set an appropriate exposure for the background - Now turn your flash on, and set it to expose your faces with maybe minus (-) 1/3 to -2/3s stop Flash Exposure Compensation. Shoot the picture. No one will notice the flash. If you use a higher ISO, you MAY need to turn on High Speed Synch on your flash as well, to allow a higher synch shutter speed. But a D70 will probably synch fine up to 1/320th or even 1/400th I believe. D70s are famous for a high flash synch shutter speed.

wildviper

pathfinder wrote:

Wildviper, I hate that "flashy" look also.

Shoot iTTL with your flash. Pick an aperture. Put your camera in Manual Mode and set an appropriate exposure for the background - Now turn your flash on, and set it to expose your faces with maybe minus (-) 1/3 to -2/3s stop Flash Exposure Compensation. Shoot the picture.

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far and helped me identify the cause. Namely, me!

I have a new New Year's Resolution...learn exposure and especially with flash. That would be my 2009 goal.

pathfinder, thanks for your explanation, but I had question. Exactly how do I set my flash to expose for our faces? Do I meter again? Or is it more a guess and testing out what works? I have bolded the quote from you for reference.

Nikolai

wildviper wrote:

but I had question. Exactly how do I set my flash to expose for our faces? Do I meter again? Or is it more a guess and testing out what works?

1) switch to iTTL, FEC -2/3 and pray it works (in your case it requires slightly more work than that due to the complicated sun situation), or
2) numerous trials and errors plus years of experience, or
3) cough up ~$300 for the basic lightmeter once and then enjoy spot-on exposure every frame

pathfinder

With an AF point on your faces, the flash/camera will meter the flash for your faces and then quench the flash when enough light has been emitted.

If you shoot in Manual mode, the exposure for the background is set entirely by you, and you have the choice whether to expose correctly, underexpose, or over expose. A mild under exposure willl give your subjects a bit more pop with the flash.

IF you shoot in Av mode, the shutter speed is automatically metered and determined by the camera, and set for the background, and has no effect on the flash exposure, since the shutter speed does not determine the flash exposure, just the aperture and flash emitted. The shutter speed can be quite long if the ambient is dim, so a tripod is wise when shooting Av with fill flash unless you know in advance what shutter speed in needed for the ambient exposure.

What you are doing is creating two separate lighting modes in one shot - sunlight or ambient for background, and flash for subject in the forground, both adjusted correctly for each! How cool is that!? Just like stage lighting!

Nik is correct that a flash meter will help a great deal if you are using manual mode only strobes, but a Nikon speedlite like the SB-600 will easily do the fill flash for you automatically in iTTL.

Flash Exposure Compensation is a an additional adjustment available to correct/adjust the flash exposure separately from the ambient exposure, and is adjusted on the flash in the Nikon system I believe. Check your manual.

Nikolai

pathfinder wrote:

With an AF point on your faces, the flash/camera will meter the flash for your faces and then quench the flash when enough light has been emitted.

If you shoot in Manual mode, the exposure for the background is set entirely by you, and you have the choice whether to expose correctly, underexpose, or over expose. A mild under exposure willl give your subjects a bit more pop with the flash.

IF you shoot in Av mode, the shutter speed is automatically metered and determined by the camera, and set for the background, and has no effect on the flash exposure, since the shutter speed does not determine the flash exposure, just the aperture and flash emitted. The shutter speed can be quite long if the ambient is dim, so a tripod is wise when shooting Av with fill flash unless you know in advance what shutter speed in needed for the ambient exposure.

What you are doing is creating two separate lighting modes in one shot - sunlight or ambient for background, and flash for subject in the forground, both adjusted correctly for each! How cool is that!? Just like stage lighting!

Nik is correct that a flash meter will help a great deal if you are using manual mode only strobes, but a Nikon speedlite like the SB-600 will easily do the fill flash for you automatically in iTTL.

Flash Exposure Compensation is a an additional adjustment available to correct/adjust the flash exposure separately from the ambient exposure, and is adjusted on the flash in the Nikon system I believe. Check your manual.

Jim,
I honestly don't think anything except full manual would work in his original case, since the bg alone is complicated enough to fool any metering system. And for spot meter to work with xTTL would require the faces to be in a dead center - which would ruin the shot imho (that's also the reason why I'm not sold on split-prism focusing screens - I don't use center point at all)

baldmountain

I've been reading "National Audubon Society Guide to Nature Photography" by Tim Fitzharris. He seems to get some monster landscape pictures. I got to the point where I stopped reading and just looked at the pictures.

To shoot an image like this he'd use a medium format camera with a digital back. Most probably a Mamiya 645 AFD with a Phase One P25 digital back. You need more camera to capture a big landscape like this. A view camera would be even better. The D70 just isn't enough. (You can imagine how frustrated I am with my old D50.)

But one thing you can try that I learned in the book is to use a split neutral density filter with the clear part over the bottom and the darker part blocking the sky. He doesn't use a holder. He just tapes a large square filter over the front of the lens. Using tape he can locate the position and angle of the split anywhere he'd like. The neutral density side tones down the sky and clear part leaves the rest of the image unchanged.

Nikolai

baldmountain wrote:

I've been reading "National Audubon Society Guide to Nature Photography" by Tim Fitzharris. He seems to get some monster landscape pictures. I got to the point where I stopped reading and just looked at the pictures.

To shoot an image like this he'd use a medium format camera with a digital back. Most probably a Mamiya 645 AFD with a Phase One P25 digital back. You need more camera to capture a big landscape like this. A view camera would be even better. The D70 just isn't enough. (You can imagine how frustrated I am with my old D50.)

But one thing you can try that I learned in the book is to use a split neutral density filter with the clear part over the bottom and the darker part blocking the sky. He doesn't use a holder. He just tapes a large square filter over the front of the lens. Using tape he can locate the position and angle of the split anywhere he'd like. The neutral density side tones down the sky and clear part leaves the rest of the image unchanged.

I respectfully disagree.
With a proper pano gear and decent stiching software you can do matrix panos and beat the hell out of any MF/LF camera $ for $ and pound for pound. Mamias go, what, 30..50mp? Simple 4x3 matrix of your 10mp dSLR would give you 120mp for the fraction of the price.
Of course, you may also need to go exposure bracketing, and then maybe focus bracketing (using Marc's term, "farming the shot"), which would make the whole thing a bit more complicated than a single shot through a LF camera.. But yet again, it doesn't take *that* long...

baldmountain

Nikolai wrote:

I respectfully disagree.
With a proper pano gear and decent stiching software you can do matrix panos and beat the hell out of any MF/LF camera $ for $ and pound for pound. Mamias go, what, 30..50mp? Simple 4x3 matrix of your 10mp dSLR would give you 120mp for the fraction of the price.
Of course, you may also need to go exposure bracketing, and then maybe focus bracketing (using Marc's term, "farming the shot"), which would make the whole thing a bit more complicated than a single shot through a LF camera.. But yet again, it doesn't take *that* long...

How would you make that first shot with the couple as a panorama? The likelyhood of the couple staying perfectly still for 12 shots is not very good...

The digital back I mentioned is 22mp. A 4x3 matrix would yield a 264mp image rather than a measly 120mp.

Another advantage is that the sensor is larger in the medium format back. In the same way that the jump from a point and shoot to a DSLR gets you a bigger sensor and better images, you'll get even better images with the larger sensor in the medium format back. On the other hand the medium format equipment is REALLY expensive.

I still think you need a bit more camera than a D70 to capture this shot. We all have a bit unrealistic expectations about what our cameras will do.

Grainbelt

baldmountain wrote:

I still think you need a bit more camera than a D70 to capture this shot. We all have a bit unrealistic expectations about what our cameras will do.

I'm very new at this, but the fill flash technique outlined by pathfinder makes perfect sense, and I've used it with some success in difficult situations, even with my old prosumer p&s.

In my simplistic view, the dynamic range isn't the only issue - the subjects in the foreground are backlit and will always be darker than the background and sky if using ambient light. While that exposure would be true to the situation, it seems a bit of fill flash to light them would create a much more pleasing result.

my n00b CAD 0.02

private

Also, do you have a filter on your lens, can can also "help" underexpose your photos. And you can try and run your photo through noiseware, its free ware and it will help with some of the noise you are experiencing....

baldmountain

Grainbelt wrote:

I'm very new at this, but the fill flash technique outlined by pathfinder makes perfect sense, and I've used it with some success in difficult situations, even with my old prosumer p&s.

In my simplistic view, the dynamic range isn't the only issue - the subjects in the foreground are backlit and will always be darker than the background and sky if using ambient light. While that exposure would be true to the situation, it seems a bit of fill flash to light them would create a much more pleasing result.

my n00b CAD 0.02

+1 I'll agree with this.

my n00b US $0.02.

wildviper

Talking about filters, there may have been a polarizing filter on it. I don't remember now.

All in all, here is what I have learnt so far:

1. Use Fill Flash...Learn to use it!!!!
2. Look at the scene and see if the dynamic range is too much...sacrifice on somethings. Alternatively, try an HDR without the people in it and then take one with people in it. Superimpose.
3. Forget the Hyperfocal part. I don't think I got it anyways. Most of my landscape pictures have come out of focus it seems.
4. Get better at exposure and flash photography. My 2009 resolution!

I hope that covers it. I apologize if I missed something, but I am going to print this thread out.

Thank you all who have helped here. I really appreciate it.

ziggy53

By all means feel free to experiment with the shot. Try full manual mode for complete control, but if the flash is direct then i-TTL may do the job especially with the FEC corrections (as others have already said).

The great thing about digital is the instantaneous feedback.

You may want to try a shot zoomed in to the faces first to get the appropriate exposure overall and then zoom back to gain the vista perspective. The histogram should be much easier to gauge on the zoomed-in shot.

Also the concept of "bracketing" the exposure needs to be revived until the correct technique is discovered.

Nikolai

ziggy53 wrote:

Also the concept of "bracketing" the exposure needs to be revived until the correct technique is discovered.

Just to remind you, for most modern speedlites/cameras you can bracket flash, too

Trevlan

wildviper wrote:

Here is another example of my pictures.

Before I blame the camera, I should blame the person behind the camera, huh??

This was taken with the same camera, but with a Nikon 70-200 VR with the VR on.

The exif details are: 1/60 at F5.6, Focal length 140mm, ISO 400. No Flash. Spot metering.

In this example, you could have corrected it with a tripod, monopod. Your shutter speed is way too low for the focal length. To shoot hand held, you need the sutter speed to be the reciprocal of the focal lenth. So for this shot to work and be sharp (f5.6 is the sweet spot for that lense, all your shots should be razor sharp.) you would need a minimum shutter speed of 1/125th. 1/250th or faster is your fail safe.

Hope this helps.

"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]If your shutter speed is slower than the reciprocal of the focal length of your lens, you must use a tripod.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]For example, if you are using a 200 mm lens, your shutter speed must exceed 1/200 second (I.E. 1/250 or faster). If not, you should use a tripod. If your subject is moving, double this shutter speed. If you are moving (such as in a boat or plane) triple the speed. If you are doing macro work (.25 magnification or greater), always use a tripod. If you're using a format larger than 35mm, use a tripod. To be safe, weld your camera to the tripod. If you are a serious nature photographer you will always use a tripod, anyway. A tripod will allow you to make photographs with slower film speeds. Slower film speeds equate to better detail and sharpness in your photographs. More important, using a tripod makes you slow down and allows you to examine your composition more carefully. Modern electronic cameras may lack certain features of the older, mechanical cameras (such as a button that allows you to see the depth of field that will be present in your photograph), but every camera has a tripod socket. You'll make better photographs if you use it.[/FONT] "

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

pathfinder

Trevlan, I take a much more relaxed view of the world.

The focal length as the denominator in the minimum recommended shutter speed rule was derived long before the advent of IS/VR lenses.

1/60th for 140mm isn't really that bad for a VR/IS lens. In my opinion, anyway.

It is true that some folks will shake too much, but many folks are quite capable of shooting VR lenses at 1/30 to 1/60th with excellent results.

I shoot 400 and 500mm IS lenses at 1/125 handheld, not infrequently, if I have something stable to rest against.

baldmountain

pathfinder wrote:

I shoot 400 and 500mm IS lenses at 1/125 handheld, not infrequently, if I have something stable to rest against.

I don't own such a long lens but I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that. My hands just shake too much. Getting old sucks. I would suggest starting to get used to using a tripod with such a long lens. As you get older you will find that you need one more and more. Get used to it while you are young rather than fighting it...

Trevlan

pathfinder wrote:

Trevlan, I take a much more relaxed view of the world.

The focal length as the denominator in the minimum recommended shutter speed rule was derived long before the advent of IS/VR lenses.

1/60th for 140mm isn't really that bad for a VR/IS lens. In my opinion, anyway.

It is true that some folks will shake too much, but many folks are quite capable of shooting VR lenses at 1/30 to 1/60th with excellent results.

I shoot 400 and 500mm IS lenses at 1/125 handheld, not infrequently, if I have something stable to rest against.

I have the 55-200mm VR and I've never pulled off a 1/60 shot at 200mm. I was in the city shooting in the middle of the day and was wondering why my images came out blurry. But as soon as I put it on a tripod or rested against something sturdy, the shots where good again. In that picture, it looks like it was handheld with nothing but the photographer's body supporting the camera.

Some VR lenses work better than others I guess. I feel the motor countering the vibration, maybe 1/60 is too slow a shutter speed for the lense in question. Maybe that motor vibration can cause a little blurriness. I'm pretty sure in the more expensive glass with VR, you don't feel the motor at all.

I'm just saying I wouldn't put the money shot in the hands of VR.

I'm looking on line, and they say it gives you up to 4 stops of stability. And in thise case it was well under that. Maybe we are using it wrong?

ziggy53

Trevlan wrote:

... I'm looking on line, and they say it gives you up to 4 stops of stability. And in thise case it was well under that. Maybe we are using it wrong?

Optical stabilization systems, like VR, require a brief moment to stabilize. Are you allowing enough time before exposure? (1/2-2/3 sec seems fairly common.)

pathfinder

baldmountain wrote:

I don't own such a long lens but I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that. My hands just shake too much. Getting old sucks. I would suggest starting to get used to using a tripod with such a long lens. As you get older you will find that you need one more and more. Get used to it while you are young rather than fighting it...

Geoff, from your icon, I would suspect that I am 20-30 years your senior.....:cry :cry :cry I say this so that you know that I am WELL aware of the physical defects that come with gaining wisdom:D

My point in my post was not that shooting without a tripod is good form, but that 1/60th at 140mm with a VR lens is not going to produce terrible unsharp images in many shooters hands. I should have known ( I did really ) that talking about shooting 500mm IV/VR at 1/125th would raise some folks hackles, but I was careful to include with something to rest against or upon, and I stand by my statement.

I did not say that the image would be as good as a well secured lens on a tripod at 1/1000th might capture - just that in capable hands, 1/125th ( 2 stops 1/500th -> 1/250th -> 1/125th ) is doable at 400 or 500mm. Here is a hawk, shot at 359mm at 1/200th with a lens without VR/IS.

And here is a slightly, blurry cropped image shot at 1/13th sec ( yes 1/13th I was amazed too ) at 600mm IS L ( 300f2.8 IS L + 2X TC ) freestanding, handheld, NO support - This is not a recommended practice, but just an observation we need to never give up on getting a shot just because we don't have a tripod - the bird would have been gone long before I got my pod set up.

I have lots of images like this that were shot with shutter speeds way below what is rec'd, so if I can do it, so can most other folks. It just needs a good stance, something to rest your lens upon, and a very gentle shutter finger. Sometimes, shooting in high speed the later shots are sharper than the first also.

Now, back to the discussion of fill flash.