epiphany

wave5 · May 18, 2011

all this time i thought my camera was poor compare to other photographer's cameras

i only bought sony camera because i was more familiar with the brand than nikon or canon

anywya after 1 year of completely losign worth in it
i got an epiphany
my camera sony a350 is AMAZING
i broke the 18-70 lens of it and i got the 50mm one and I LOVE IT!!
it takes amazing photos..

anyway i thought my photos would look more "vibrant" and "sharp" from nikon or cannon or any big class camera
they still dont look "vibrant" or sharp with sony
i have to meddle with the settings

moral of story: learn the options and settings of ur camera
and dont get discouraged from nikon and cannon users who always show off and say their camera is awesome

I :lust sony a350

ps: to all canon and nikon users dont get mad at me
in a way i said u guys r awesome

my original quote for you all:

tis not the camera but the eye behind it that is amazing (wave5)

(Mod edit for language.)

SamirD · May 18, 2011

Welcome to the world of photography.

Like any artform, it's not the tool, but the artist that makes the art. I've regularly out-shot people with $2000 Canon/Nikon setups with an ancient Panasonic DMC-FZ20. It's all about knowing your tool.

Get to know your Sony, its drawbacks, its accolades, and you'll have a better experience as you'll be working with your tool as an extension of yourself.

studio1972 · May 19, 2011

wave5 wrote: »

anyway i thought my photos would look more "vibrant" and "sharp" from nikon or cannon or any big class camera
they still dont look "vibrant" or sharp with sony
i have to meddle with the settings

Remember the images you see online are not usually straight out of the camera. If you shoot Raw then you may find adjusting the white balance, saturation and applying a little sharpening works wonders.

Another aspect to work on is lighting. Good lighting can really make the scene more vibrant and sharper looking.

I've attached an example of a Raw image before and after post processing.

jonh68 · May 19, 2011

Sounds like you may need to improve your editing skills as well. Rarely do SOOC shots look vibrant and have that pop you describe.

wave5 · May 19, 2011

thanks everyone :ivar

what is sooc?

SamirD · May 19, 2011

SOOC = 'straight out of the camera' is my guess

ThatCanonGuy · May 19, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

SOOC = 'straight out of the camera' is my guess

Yep. Straight out of camera.

Shooting raw and upping the contrast and colors in post really brings out the best in an image. Sony makes cameras that in most cases are just as good as Canon, Nikon, or any other brand, like Pentax or Olympus. The photographer's skill is the most important factor in a good image, followed by lighting, post processing, and lens choice.

Edit: I bet the reason you think that your photos are better and "pop" more is: the 50mm is most likely a 1.4 or 1.8, which creates creamier bokeh (out of focus background). The subject tends to stand out more from the background at f/1.4 than at f/4 (or thereabouts). The 18-70 is about f/4-f/5.6.

insanefred · May 19, 2011

studio1972 wrote: »

Remember the images you see online are not usually straight out of the camera. If you shoot Raw then you may find adjusting the white balance, saturation and applying a little sharpening works wonders.

Another aspect to work on is lighting. Good lighting can really make the scene more vibrant and sharper looking.

I've attached an example of a Raw image before and after post processing.

Wait, which one, is which? I like the top one better.

SamirD · May 19, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Edit: I bet the reason you think that your photos are better and "pop" more is: the 50mm is most likely a 1.4 or 1.8, which creates creamier bokeh (out of focus background). The subject tends to stand out more from the background at f/1.4 than at f/4 (or thereabouts). The 18-70 is about f/4-f/5.6.

Not to mention the sharpness you can get from a prime.

MarkR · May 19, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

Wait, which one, is which? I like the top one better.

. Bottom one skin tones look a little burnt, and the whole image is oversaturated. YMMV.

WinsomeWorks · May 19, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

Wait, which one, is which? I like the top one better.

I wondered that for a sec too, but as soon as I noticed all the artifacting on the bottom one, realized that's gotta be the processed one. It's just way over-processed imho. All that artifacting & over-saturation really can kill a print. I'm guessing it was just a quick example, not representative of her typical processed ones... stuff like that (over-sat. & artifacts) wouldn't even get past stage one of stock acceptances, although I realize that's a whole different animal.

studio1972 · May 19, 2011

WinsomeWorks wrote: »

I wondered that for a sec too, but as soon as I noticed all the artifacting on the bottom one, realized that's gotta be the processed one. It's just way over-processed imho. All that artifacting & over-saturation really can kill a print. I'm guessing it was just a quick example, not representative of her typical processed ones... stuff like that (over-sat. & artifacts) wouldn't even get past stage one of stock acceptances, although I realize that's a whole different animal.

Well, saturation is increased 15% compared to the very flat standard processing, might be too much for your liking, but I've already had the following comment from a future client on this exact image on Facebook "i love the colours in this picture can't wait for ours next year".

Of course a web image varies vastly from one monitor to another, so that could be a factor. As for the artifacts, that's simply from squeezing it down to the size required to embed in the post (required 45% quality JPEG).

I guess it's a case of your personal preference. Can't please all of the people all of the time and all that. The OP wanted more vibrance and sharpness in their images and I was merely trying to demonstrate that assuming the image it technically fine, these factors can be enhanced significantly in post.

Art Scott · May 19, 2011

studio1972 wrote: »

As for the artifacts, that's simply from squeezing it down to the size required to embed in the post (required 45% quality JPEG).

Sarah....there is no need to compress your images to embed....just link to them.....to a small size or what ever you want from your gallery........saves a ton of work.......

I also like the 2nd one.............

studio1972 · May 20, 2011

Art Scott wrote: »

Sarah....there is no need to compress your images to embed....just link to them.....to a small size or what ever you want from your gallery........saves a ton of work.......

I also like the 2nd one.............

Yes, should have done it that way really. Thanks Art.

Matthew Saville · May 21, 2011

wave5 wrote: »

thanks everyone :ivar
what is sooc?

studio1972 wrote: »

Remember the images you see online are not usually straight out of the camera. If you shoot Raw then you may find adjusting the white balance, saturation and applying a little sharpening works wonders.

Another aspect to work on is lighting. Good lighting can really make the scene more vibrant and sharper looking.

I've attached an example of a Raw image before and after post processing.

jonh68 wrote: »

Sounds like you may need to improve your editing skills as well. Rarely do SOOC shots look vibrant and have that pop you describe.

I am (as many here know) definitely a fan of pursuing "sooc perfection"... I dunno what it is about it, maybe it's the old film shooter in me reminiscing about how a B&W polaroid could look, un-altered, or the delight of seeing an un-altered Velvia transparency on a light table, or projected... As Sarah points out, it is the *light* and the *pose* etc. that can make (or break) an image. :-) (Although I agree with others that I feel you should probably tone down on your processing a bit, Sarah. Have you made very many prints recently of images with that much color? I find that an image which may look gorgeously saturated on a computer screen ends up looking kinda yucky in print. (The current first image on your blog looks much more realistic and graceful, for example) Also, BTW, I don't think I've touched the actual saturation slider in Lightroom etc. in years, I just don't like what it does to colors especially in print. Yes, I use vibrance to some extent and sometimes I'll bump up the saturation a little on a detail shot with color as a key element, but 99% of the time I find that deft handling of the white / black point and contrast is a much more timeless way to make an image *pop* without looking photoshopped.

Anyways, after all my slightly useless and very biased opinions, here are a few completely un-edited, "SOOC" photos taken with various cameras... Could they be improved with processing? Of course, I'm not saying that photoshop is a sin. I color correct etc. thousands of images per day for my work. I'm only saying that I think 99% of the "good" images you take should be able to stand on their own two feet without any post-processing whatsoever...

=Matt=
l
[edit] Also, in response to the original post and an epiphany about their A350, I will definitely say, kudos to you! Honestly, the camera just doesn't matter nearly as much as the lens, which doesn't matter nearly as much as the light, ...and so on and so forth. I never understand why people *envy* another brand. If you think the grass is greener on the other side, borrow / rent / try something out, and judge for yourself. If you want to switch, it's not the end of the world either. It's just a tool for recording images of light...

Grainbelt · May 21, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

Not to mention the sharpness you can get from a prime.

I'm slowly selling off zooms and acquiring faster primes. 50mm 1.4, 35mm 2.8. Next up are the 15mm F4 and 70mm F2.4. My old manual focus 28, 50, and 100mm lenses are hold up well on digital as well. Love Pentax for the available primes.

Overfocused · May 21, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

Wait, which one, is which? I like the top one better.

Lol, I was confused too. So do I. Much more.

Matthew Saville · May 21, 2011

richy wrote: »

As always Matt, theyre freakin awesome, I get the whole SOOC thing, whilst there was always room to tweak film there was rarely the need. I just took it when switching to digital that some playing in LR was par for the course. I guess not Do you do much post at all? or use a profile on the camera (i.e. sat / sharpening etc)?

Richy, in my opinion I'd say that basic color correction is DEFINITELY par for the course. Like I said, I shoot weddings for a living and certainly in a fast-paced situation like a wedding day, there are priorities and in-camera artistic perfection often takes second place behind the client's patience, or simply capturing moments period.

I guess the reason I enjoy a beautiful SOOC image so much is BECAUSE I'm already editing thousands of images per day in the studio office.

So, it is definitely a balance between my artistic pursuit and simply getting a job done. Just like when you had to "get a job done" on film, you usually shot with a negative instead of a transparency, for the lattitude and "forgiveness" you would get in processing and printing. :-)

BTW, to answer your question- Yes, I do load custom curves onto my camera, here's another SOOC image with a "faded sepia" curve I created for my D700. Although when it comes to sharpening, I believe that zero in-camera sharpening preserves fine detail the best. So the only time I turn up my in-camera sharpening is if I'm working on AF calibration lol, or if I'm shooting in RAW and I know for sure the images will not be outputted straight to JPG...

Hope this helps clear things up a little!
=Matt=

SamirD · May 22, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I am (as many here know) definitely a fan of pursuing "sooc perfection"...

I didn't even realize there was such a thing.

Any good resources on this? I have ancient (2005 era) high-end consumer point and shoot cameras, which aren't the best, and have been shooting sooc for years. But because of the lack of resources and time, a post process is out of the question, and yet I'm always looking for ways to squeeze even more out of what I have.

Matthew Saville · May 22, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

I didn't even realize there was such a thing. Any good resources on this? I have ancient (2005 era) high-end consumer point and shoot cameras, which aren't the best, and have been shooting sooc for years. But because of the lack of resources and time, a post process is out of the question, and yet I'm always looking for ways to squeeze even more out of what I have.

Unfortunately, the older the camera, the less in-camera processing options it will have to simulate "picking a different film before you shoot"... So yes, you can still work on getting images that look perfect straight out of the camera, but the subtle tones and colors will be difficult to achieve without the newer cameras and their more adjustable color / tone control. Let alone, the nicer LCD screens to help you *see* that subtle color...

But, just the same, the best "resource" for achieving better SOOC images is practice, plain and simple. You can read up on white balance, metering and exposure, and focus entire shoots on one subject individually if you'd like. That, and it also of course comes down to what you're actually taking a picture OF, too. Pay attention to light, composition and/or posing, and of course timing. Those are the four elements that go into an image (especially a portrait) that will either make or break it. If you have a well-timed moment but the light is nasty, those two things may cancel each other out and you're left with an under-whelming image SOOC. So the goal is to get as many of those items on your side as possible, BEFORE you click the shutter!

Good luck,
=Matt=

MarkR · May 22, 2011

You might want to check out Joe McNally's books. There is a heavy emphasis on getting the settings right in camera. I also like David DuChemin's Vision and Voice-- it's about PP, but using PP to bring your photos in line with your vision, not correcting technical details that should have been gotten at the time of capture.

SamirD · May 22, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Unfortunately, the older the camera, the less in-camera processing options it will have to simulate "picking a different film before you shoot"... So yes, you can still work on getting images that look perfect straight out of the camera, but the subtle tones and colors will be difficult to achieve without the newer cameras and their more adjustable color / tone control. Let alone, the nicer LCD screens to help you *see* that subtle color...

Two of my cameras have a decent amount of color tone fine-tuning available. All of them support manual white balancing. I'm actually trying to avoid using the lcd and start looking at the histogram more to make sure I'm getting the right light. Without that light, these older sensors start getting crummy really quick.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

But, just the same, the best "resource" for achieving better SOOC images is practice, plain and simple.

I've shot almost 100,000 on my camers (or more on some of the cameras), and continue to shoot about 1000-2000 every week in the same type of environment. But there's the whole aspect of doing the same thing/getting the same results. I always try to find something new, but the limitations in the equipment bind me pretty hard. I have only a handful of techniques that I can apply and seek more.

MarkR wrote: »

You might want to check out Joe McNally's books. There is a heavy emphasis on getting the settings right in camera. I also like David DuChemin's Vision and Voice-- it's about PP, but using PP to bring your photos in line with your vision, not correcting technical details that should have been gotten at the time of capture.

Thank you very much for the recommendations! I don't have time to read, but maybe I'll skim them when I'm at a bookstore.

Matthew Saville · May 23, 2011

richy wrote: »

Matt, I saw you were a fan of Peter Lik, his galleries are a great place to spend time and hate yourself for not being that good lol oh and for making me miss velvia. Thanks again for the advice, its always appreciated!

I agree with Samir re the shooting the same, its a huge reason I have taken time off. I found myself failing to develop (pardon the pun) within my style or outside my style.

Yep, I guess I'm oldschool but I really appreciate the work of "classical" landscape photographers who shoot on large format cameras and make stunning, vibrant gallery prints that just take your breath away. Until you've stepped into a Rodney Lough Jr gallery or similar, you just haven't *LIVED* as a photographer. If you hold really still and free your mind, it is like looking through a window to the original scene itself... (If anyone is ever in San Fransisco, Rodney Lough Jr. had a gallery at a popular tourist spot, Pier 39, the last time I checked! :-)

SamirD wrote: »

Two of my cameras have a decent amount of color tone fine-tuning available. All of them support manual white balancing. I'm actually trying to avoid using the lcd and start looking at the histogram more to make sure I'm getting the right light. Without that light, these older sensors start getting crummy really quick.

I've shot almost 100,000 on my camers (or more on some of the cameras), and continue to shoot about 1000-2000 every week in the same type of environment. But there's the whole aspect of doing the same thing/getting the same results. I always try to find something new, but the limitations in the equipment bind me pretty hard. I have only a handful of techniques that I can apply and seek more.

Thank you very much for the recommendations! I don't have time to read, but maybe I'll skim them when I'm at a bookstore.

Yeah, if a camera has manual white balance control, you can do very well. The older camera LCD screens are certainly not very good at judging color fidelity, and the histogram / highlight warning is really all you've got. (I personally prefer to use the blinking highlight warning, since on Nikon I can view individual RGB channel highlight warnings, full-screen. I use the actual histogram a lot less!)

It's just that very last bit of color *pop* (and versatile in-camera B&W) that I really enjoy achieving on the newer DSLR cameras. People are always surprised when I show them an in-camera B&W image on the back of my camera. Here's a cell phone pic of my LCD during a recent wedding rehearsal dinner,

... And a cell phone pic of an image I made on another camera last year... [edit] Heck, I'll even attach a REAL cell phone photo, SOOC! Could it use a little tweaking? Sure. Is it the greatest quality at 100%? No. But it still stands on it's own two feet as an image, without any photoshop. :-)

SamirD · May 23, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yep, I guess I'm oldschool but I really appreciate the work of "classical" landscape photographers who shoot on large format cameras and make stunning, vibrant gallery prints that just take your breath away. Until you've stepped into a Rodney Lough Jr gallery or similar, you just haven't *LIVED* as a photographer. If you hold really still and free your mind, it is like looking through a window to the original scene itself... (If anyone is ever in San Fransisco, Rodney Lough Jr. had a gallery at a popular tourist spot, Pier 39, the last time I checked! :-)

My brother actually lives in the city off Geary.

I'll have to check this out the next time I'm visiting him.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yeah, if a camera has manual white balance control, you can do very well. The older camera LCD screens are certainly not very good at judging color fidelity, and the histogram / highlight warning is really all you've got. (I personally prefer to use the blinking highlight warning, since on Nikon I can view individual RGB channel highlight warnings, full-screen. I use the actual histogram a lot less!)

It's just that very last bit of color *pop* (and versatile in-camera B&W) that I really enjoy achieving on the newer DSLR cameras. People are always surprised when I show them an in-camera B&W image on the back of my camera. Here's a cell phone pic of my LCD during a recent wedding rehearsal dinner, ... And a cell phone pic of an image I made on another camera last year... [edit] Heck, I'll even attach a REAL cell phone photo, SOOC! Could it use a little tweaking? Sure. Is it the greatest quality at 100%? No. But it still stands on it's own two feet as an image, without any photoshop. :-)

Two of my cameras (Panasonic dmc-fz20) have the ability to highlight, but only on overall histogram vs individual colors. I can see how that would be very, very useful for getting the proper dynamic range in any shot. What about really contrasty scenes though? Especially in black and white? I play with the in-camera sepia and black and white color modes once in a while for a nostalgic look when the subject is right, but I'm sure there's more that can be done.

I love the examples! That last one had to be pretty hard to get the exposure where you wanted due to the higher contrast to the right and the lower contrast to the left. My guess is moving closer to the subject/zooming to fill the frame more made the camera choose the exposure you wanted. Am I right?

jhefti · May 25, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I guess the reason I enjoy a beautiful SOOC image so much is BECAUSE I'm already editing thousands of images per day in the studio office.

Matt, there is a uniquely beautiful quality about SOOC shots like yours above. I especially like the exposure you used on several of the very high contrast shots, like the two with the bright window lighting. In my limited amateur experience, there is no way to fully recreate this feel in PP. Although many argue that selective burning and dodging reconstitutes the far greater dynamic range of the eye, to my taste there is (perhaps paradoxically) a commensurate loss of presence and reality in the photo as a result.

Anyway, really nice work!!

Matthew Saville · May 26, 2011

SamirD wrote: »

I love the examples! That last one had to be pretty hard to get the exposure where you wanted due to the higher contrast to the right and the lower contrast to the left. My guess is moving closer to the subject/zooming to fill the frame more made the camera choose the exposure you wanted. Am I right?

My (Android) cell phone actually has spot metering, it's pretty awesome. For that 2nd B&W shot, I probably just "tapped" on the darker area to make it neutral and the other areas near-white... Took 10-15 images to get it right, haha. Needless to say, hand-holding a cell phone at ISO 800 isn't very easy....

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · May 26, 2011

jhefti wrote: »

Matt, there is a uniquely beautiful quality about SOOC shots like yours above. I especially like the exposure you used on several of the very high contrast shots, like the two with the bright window lighting. In my limited amateur experience, there is no way to fully recreate this feel in PP. Although many argue that selective burning and dodging reconstitutes the far greater dynamic range of the eye, to my taste there is (perhaps paradoxically) a commensurate loss of presence and reality in the photo as a result.

Anyway, really nice work!!

Thanks! I do a lot of deleting. ;-)

The high-key (and low-key, for that matter) look is extremely difficult to achieve. After shooting weddings in a consistent, neutral exposure-ish style for a few years, I really got into high-key and low-key images. Now, I kinda laugh when I see people posting on places like DPReview about how they hate their new camera because the meter doesn't give them perfectly even exposures. I almost never go for "neutral" anymore, and of course I don't trust the meter blindly...

Good luck, and happy shooting!

=Matt=

jhefti · May 26, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The high-key (and low-key, for that matter) look is extremely difficult to achieve.
=Matt=

I'm just starting to get the low-key exposures down, and I am curious as to how you meter for this. I usually use partial or spot metering, then scan the key highlights of the subject to make sure they do not blow out. I then expose so the highlights are +1.5 to +2EV. If in doubt (which I always am) I take a number of different exposures, and delete away!

The high-key shots still elude me...

Thanks for all your sage advice!

Matthew Saville · May 27, 2011

jhefti wrote: »

I'm just starting to get the low-key exposures down, and I am curious as to how you meter for this. I usually use partial or spot metering, then scan the key highlights of the subject to make sure they do not blow out. I then expose so the highlights are +1.5 to +2EV. If in doubt (which I always am) I take a number of different exposures, and delete away!

The high-key shots still elude me...

Thanks for all your sage advice!

As far as shooting is concerned, I'm mostly a "wing it" guy. If I want a low-key image, I just dial the exposure down to about -1 or -2. If I'm in matrix / center-weight metering it's pretty straightforward, or if I'm in spot metering then there might be a little more intuition involved, but that's about it.

What is far more important is what the LIGHT itself actually looks like. If the light is not hitting the subject the right way, in the right direction or with the right softness / harshness, ...then no amount of under-exposure (or over-exposure) may save the shot. So, that is what I would focus on studying. Natural light too, not just flash etc... ;-)

=Matt=

jhefti · May 27, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

As far as shooting is concerned, I'm mostly a "wing it" guy.

Thanks Matt; it's good to hear that! That's pretty much what I do as well. After enough tries, I get the feel of where to set the exposure. And certainly agree that the lighting is the most important part!

bobmielke · May 28, 2011

I've been a photographer for more than 40 years. I've heard all the comments about which camera, Nikon or Canon, is the best. To be honest the best is a Hassleblad, hands down. But in the tiny world of 35mm format the argument rages on.

I've used both Nikon & Canon brands over the years, and Olympus, Minolta, Pentax & Yashika. I don't think there's such a thing as a "bad" camera out there. An educated photographer that knows his/her equipment can take great photos.

epiphany

Comments