I really don't get it...

[ashleyc8705]

I was viewing a friends pictures and hers come out so crisp and clear. She says she doesn't do much editing to them, just sharpens and adjusts the color settings a bit. I asked her how she is able to get them so clear and she says just knowing her camera settings and playing with the lighting. Well I know all my cameras settings pretty well and am not to bad with lighting and I still can't figure it out. Could she be lying about not editing her pictures much? LoL!

Any advice on how to get pictures clear would be much appreciated! Thanks a bunch!

 

[kellylindseyphotography]

You should post some examples of your own with your exif data and we could help you better.

 

[Early]

Many people are critical of their own stuff even when others like them. So, yes, post a couple of pics and let us judge for ourselves.

 

[ashleyc8705]

Here are a few I shot yesterday and some from awhile back.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

This is her website...just to show you what I mean by "clear photos". http://www.beebetran.com/index2.php?v=v1

 

[JerryPH]

All pics are acceptable, but most are lightly underexposed, could use some additional contrast and could use some more smart sharpening.

 

[kundalini]

All pics are acceptable, but most are lightly underexposed,

+1

A tip for photos like #1 & #2 would maybe use a reflector or fill flash.

 

[RyanLilly]

yours are slightly underexposed, bump the contrast just a bit, a bit more saturation, play with curves just a bit, and a bit of sharpening, and you should be about there.

Also in the pictures from that website, the subject has a wider range of color and there is more contrast, like white dresses and black tuxes.

 

[Mav]

WOW, that's an outstanding site that your friend has. If she's just doing minor editing for results like that then she's a) incredibly talented and has a great eye for shots, and b) using some top-notch professional quality glass. As for your photos, I take it you're using the 18-55 kit lens? Not a bad lens, but to really make photos POP like she does, you need larger aperture lenses that'll help give much better subject isolation, like a 17-55 f/2.8, or a 50mm f/1.4. Just from the photos that pop up on the main page, she's also got a decent ultra-wide angle lens, and a fisheye too.

 

[ashleyc8705]

Yes I have a 18-55mm and a 75-300mm. I haven't used my 75-300mm much. Maybe I should, eh?

 

[ashleyc8705]

I am going to change my preferences so it says that it is ok to edit my photos. I want to see your takes on my photos. That way I can get a general idea.

I was searching online and I found out that some peoples monitors need to calibrated. So I calibrated mine but I guess the only way I will know for sure how the pictures look is to print them.

 

[Varuna]

Yes I have a 18-55mm and a 75-300mm. I haven't used my 75-300mm much. Maybe I should, eh?

Replace your 18-55mm. You can still get some awesome photos with it, but for the type of photos you posted, you'd be better off with the 50mm F/1.4 prime lens. Since the 18-55mm is a kit lens, it's nowhere near the optical quality of other lenses. Getting good shots with the kit lens is tricky, and requires tweaking your camera settings a lot.

I still shoot with my 18-55mm (Haven't had a chance to replace it yet), but I plan on acquiring a 50mm and either a 70-200mm or the 75-300mm pretty soon.

Of course, this is just for photo quality. As other people mentioned, some reflectors or fill flash, and try playing with the brightness/contrast and other settings in Photoshop (or whatever image editor you use.)

I took a look at the .4 photo you posted in ZoomBrowser EX (comes with the camera) to view your Shooting Information. Doesn't give me the ISO speed, but it looks like 400 or 800. You could have slowed down to 1/25 or 1/30 rather than 1/60, and knocked your ISO down a bit. If I remember correctly, your camera would have opened your aperature a bit too.

Knowing your camera inside and out is a huge deal, especially when dealing with Canon's kit lens. Not to say you don't know your camera, but just pay close attention to a shot, and remember what settings you were using at the time, then adjust accordingly. Eventually it becomes pretty easy!

 

[Alex_B]

This is her website...just to show you what I mean by "clear photos". http://www.beebetran.com/index2.php?v=v1

On a first glance at that webpage I think that

- the photographer does not rely on natural light but seems to use flashes and reflectors. This helps a lot to get well exposed scenes

- seeing the DOF in some of them, I suspect it wasn't the kit lens which was used.

- to me many images look touched. I would really guess there was some processing.

- sometimes she has pushed the contrast a bit too far losing too many features in faces (opr you could say they are slightly overexposed). You could argue it is just her style, but well...

- The music on that webpage is annoying. was wearing headphones and got almost a heart attack when it started so loud.

- some of your images are slightly underexposed

- you light is not bad, but much less controlled that at your friend's site

 

[JerryPH]

Results are neve as good when you work with a smaller JPG. Ideally I love to work with the original RAW file, but to give you an idea:

Original:

Light exposure increase, 5 sconds in colour tones, small increase in contrast and sharpness. All in all about 40 seconds later, I got this:

 

[ashleyc8705]

Thanks everyone for your advice!

(Alex B) LoL Yeah my boyfriend had the speakers on and I didn't know, so when I went to the site to copy the address it scared us both!

I will look into getting a new lens. I just bought two new strobes so gotta wait for some more money to roll in.

Again, thanks!

 

[Early]

I beg to differ on the exposure, but to each his own. The only thing I would change is maybe using an UV filter to lessen the cyan cast. The two shots of just the dog look a little soft to me, too.

Overall, nice work! I especially like the pics of the couple and the kid, and great lighting on the latter.