D7000 - missing that "pop" - any suggestions?

jasonstone

Hey all,

Looking through some of the photos here I feel that I'm doing something wrong in my photography... it could be the miserable lighting conditions we've had of late here (winter, grey days bugger all light let alone nice light) but i don't want to blame the camera or the conditions - i feel someone i'm missing something.... :scratch

I just can't seem to get that "pop" that I'm seeing in other photos here on dgrin.com of late...

Not sure if they're all done post-process with lots of hours of work - i assume not all else it would be a lot fewer photos... or if they're just nailing hte light right due to settings in camera or is it better lenses... i just don't know

I know people will say this is useless wihtout examples but i was hoping that instead of pre-colouring your mind with my images I could just ask this question and see what comes out:

What are you doing to get that "pop" in your photos? Where "pop" is that delicate licking of light across an untra sharp capture...

(if you need examples I do like Marcelo's images from NYC from his D600...)

Thanks to all for any suggestions on what to try/do... I'm off to Berlin for 3 days on Friday night so ample opportunity to try some new techniques out

p.s. I have D7000, 18-200 VR Nikkor, 35 1.8 Nikkor, 17-50 f2.8 Tamron, 11-16 f2.8 Tokina... pick a lens - i mean it can't be because they're crap quality right...

ZBlack

I have a very similar lens setup and the same camera. You can check out some of my work at www.zblackwood.com or www.zlbphotography.com and see if any of those float your boat as far as "pop". I do shoot primarily landscapes, but on occasion I do some people shooting.

To get an extra punch, simply raising the contrast, adding a little vibrance and clarity can go a long ways into making things pop a bit more. You can do it selectively on certain parts of the image that you want to stand out more than others to create an even stronger effect to it. Of course as you said, you do need a sharp photo to begin with, but that is also dependent on what the subject matter is to an extent.

Being able to get a proper exposure is of course a key thing, but the different light scenarios will have different affects on the scene. With bright light, things are much more contrasty because of the harsher light and darker shadows. If it's gray and cloudy like it is where I live a lot (Oregon Coast), the light is a lot more flat, and I have to add some contrast to make it more appealing for my taste. Creating some separation between your subject and background with a back light or some lighting tricks work very well to make them pop out a bit more too. Sometimes thats done with the contrast slider itself in lightroom, sometimes it's adjusting the highlights/shadows slider. I would wager to bet that you can add more of a "pop" by just a little additional post processing.

Ultimately, you have a quality setup that is fully capable of some amazing images. I am still very much a beginner and learning more every day, but I do know the gear you have can produce professional quality results.

jasonstone

ZBlack wrote: »

I have a very similar lens setup and the same camera.
<snip>

Yeah that's the thing I know it's possible... and i thought i used to be able to get it but now i seem to have lost it... and am starting to wonder if i ever had it...

seems to me my photos with my old D80 and a mates D300 are better than the ones I take with my D7000 with same lenses... which just shouldn't be...

must be something I'm doing wrong... i mean it's not like the photos totally suck....


but just nothing compared to the light quality I see in Marcelo's shots here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=231122

and i'm wondering how to achieve that... or if it's just the quality of the light at the place/time shot and it's nothing i'm doing wrong in camera...

oh and btw - i really like your photo site - not sure if it's wordpress or some custom php site etc. but works well...

pathfinder

Jason, i think you need to post a link to one of your images, and describe your editing steps with your editing software for folks to be able to answer your question accurately.

I do not think your problem is with your camera or your lenses. It is true that some lenses may have lessser contrast and sharpeness than others. But most of that is difference correctable today in good image editing software, like the lens profiles in Lightroom or PS.

I do not generally think of my own Tamron lenses as the same overall quality as Zeiss lenses; none the less, I have made a lot of perfectly fine shots with Tamron lenses, and still use them when appropriate. I suspect your problem lies in your image editing steps, although lousy lighting does not contribute to the finest images either, as you said.

I agree that Marcelo's images are quite nice, but he may have had great light, or may have added tone and contrast after the fact as well. I am not a purist who thinks everything has to be done in the camera. I prefer to evaluate each image on its own merits, not what its lineage is. I know there are those who feel differently, and that is fine with me. Different strokes for different folks, I think. If we only saw un-edited images in publications these days, the world would be a much more boring place.

One thought, check your histogram of your images after your editing, and verify they have the breadth you desire in your image. Sometimes image editing tends to decrease or collapse the histogram, and this leads to a flat appearance in the image that is unnecessary and inaccurate. I often note this in B&W conversions of mine. Just a touch to the curve and voila' all is well again.

I notice that the histogram in the image you posted above, never gets beyond a mid tone grey.... I am not saying that is wrong, but I am asking if that was your intention with this image. Ultimately, color correction, and tonal distribution are artistic choices, made by the artist, , not truths captured with the "Camera"

jasonstone

Thanks Pathfinder, I'll see how I go this weekend in Berlin and maybe post some examples with steps i took to process them and see if i can get better suggestions/results via dgrin.

I'm not going for all out sharpness/best quality ever else i'd likely be shooting some $50K Phase One

but I do expect that I can get better results out of my d7000 - even when shooting with an everyday 18-200 VR Nikkor. I am wondering if i've been taking the Aperture prio / matrix metering and just getting very flat results...

anyway will see how i go in Berlin...

pathfinder wrote: »

Jason, i think you need to post a link to one of your images, and describe your editing steps with your editing software for folks to be able to answer your question accurately.

I do not think your problem is with your camera or your lenses. While it is true, that some senses may have lessser contrast and sharpeness than others. But most of that is difference correctable today in good image editing software, like the lens profiles in Lightroom or PS.

I do not generally think of Tamron lenses as the same overall quality as Zeiss lenses; none the less, I have made a lot of perfectly fine shots with Tamron lenses, and still use them when appropriate. I suspect your problem lies in your image editing steps, although lousy lighting does not contribute to the finest images either, as you said.

I agree that Marcelo's images are quite nice, but he may have had great light, or may have added tone and contrast after the fact as well. I am not a purist who thinks everything has to be done in the camera. I prefer to evaluate each image on its own merits, not what its lineage is. I know there are those who feel differently, and that is fine with me. Different strokes for different folks, I think. If we only saw un-edited images in publications these days, the world would be a much more boring place.

pathfinder

I am not a lens snob, I use the EOS 18-200, and my old Tamron 28-300 zooms fairly often when travelling and i want to only deal with one lens. They are not "L" glass, and my Zeiss Distagon is certainly better in the corners. Nevertheless, I have many images taken with them that I favor, so your Nikon 18-200 should provide you with lots of good images as well.

It won't do it in as dim a light, and it won't give as shallow a DOF as others might, but if used wisely, within its parameters, it should work well. Lens profiles have really helped lenses like these, chromatic dispersion will just magically disappear.

I think that was the Nikon lens Marc Muench was using in Death Valley, along with a Zeiss 15mm. SO there you go. You are in good company!

babowc

Your lighting doesn't really allow for a visual "pop", and you don't have any colors to give that effect.
Try taking pictures of some colorful objects/scenery and bump up some contrast in your post.

Netgarden

If you take a close look at the persons excellent examples that you posted, you will see in most of them the subject [especially the colorful part] is what gives them pop. The subject is closer and thats why it has more vivid detail, and he has interesting parts that catch the eye and draw you in.

Try getting closer, and also notice he has exposed on the lighter side, which also gives more detail. We all have days where what we thought was beautiful, wasn't so gorgeous in camera. This is how we learn what to choose, subject, emphasis, and story. Some of that you can do in photo processing, but not often.

Peano

jasonstone wrote: »

but just nothing compared to the light quality I see in Marcelo's shots here: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=231122

You can hardly compare the two. Your shot is drastically underexposed and has very low ambient light; his isn't underexposed and has much brighter ambient light.

Look at the histograms (yours on the left):

jasonstone

sorry wasn't meaning to put a comparison between the shot I posted and Marcelo's - my comment was that not all my photos are crap and showing one that I liked

It's underexposed as it was taken at night - there was a bit of a glow in the sky

but thanks for taking the time to help! it's always appreciated

Peano wrote: »

You can hardly compare the two. Your shot is drastically underexposed and has very low ambient light; his isn't underexposed and has much brighter ambient light.

Look at the histograms (yours on the left):

Peano

jasonstone wrote: »

sorry wasn't meaning to put a comparison between the shot I posted and Marcelo's

But you did compare them: "...just nothing compared to the light quality I see in Marcelo's shots here." My point was that, of course, a night shot isn't going to have the light quality of a daylight shot. Try some shots in similar lighting conditions and compare those with Marcelo's shots.

ziggy53

I always stress that, after subject selection and scene selection (including composition, etc.), lighting is more important than lenses, which are more important than body selection. (Accurate subject focus is required in every case, regardless of other considerations.)

To gain "some" improvement in images the combination of localized/regionalized contrast control plus micro-contrast enhancement (to improve subject detail) can enhance image appeal.

For example, review David's tutorial:

[thread=198239]Image Pop Tutorial[/thread]

Peano

ziggy53 wrote: »

To gain "some" improvement in images the combination of localized/regionalized contrast control plus micro-contrast enhancement (to improve subject detail) can enhance image appeal.

For example, review David's tutorial:

[thread=198239]Image Pop Tutorial[/thread]

Good point. In some cases, great improvement is possible in post, especially if you learn to use layers and masks to make selective rather than global adjustments.

In his tutorial, DavidTO made global adjustments and achieved quite an improvement. But note how much more pop is possible by masking out the background so it remains darker than the subject. In fact I dimmed it a bit more and further enhanced the subject by opening shadow details and sharpening with Topaz Detail.

Global on the left, masked on the right: