My photos appear to be .... not as sharp as I expect them to be.

[hartz]

My photos appear to be .... not as sharp as I expect them to be.

It could be my non-existent technique, but I had no such issues with my old Camera, a Fuji Finepix S5500. Maybe the Fuji was just more forgiving. Or maybe I'm not using the right settings. Or maybe it is just my shaky hands ... or my imagination.

Please if you have a few moments could you look over the 5 sample photos I have taken with my brand new D3000. I left all the EXIF info in there so that you can see the settings I used too. This is all taken with the Kit 18-55 VR lens.

P.S. Please excuse the terrible thumbnails!

 

[misstwinklytoes]

I see no thumbnails! I see no.... anything!

 

[ababysean]

I see nothing either.

 

[hartz]

Maybe I need to remember to include the link to the photos then :-(

Please look at http://hartz.co.za/new_d3000/

Thank you,
_hartz

 

[misstwinklytoes]

How about what settings you were using?

 

[ababysean]

are these straight out of camera?
Also, while they are interesting pictures, they are not really focused on anything in particular. You need to get closer to what you are taking.
Example, the rooster or chicken or whatever, we see the chicken there is also so much in the photo that is not needed.

 

[NateWagner]

:addpics:

 

[hartz]

How about what settings you were using?

Thank you. Mostly pretty much Auto-mode. For now I'm trying to get used to the camera feel. The overhead cables were taken in "landscape scene" mode....

Or wait, maybe I should put a little table of settings with every photo?

 

[hartz]

I have added the settings based on what teh camera tells me about the taking conditions of each photo.

Thank you so much for looking at these!

 

[subscuck]

I shoot Canon, but I'm sure Nikon has mostly the same menu settings.
1) If these are straight out of camera, where is in camera sharpening set?
2)Are you using a kit lens? Though decent, they aren't as sharp as a better lens.
3) If you're set up to use all AF points, I would suggest selecting center AF point only. That way you take control of where the camera focuses.
4) It's almost always necessary to do a little sharpening in post processing.
5) Your shots mostly don't look that bad, sharpness-wise, about what I would expect SOOC.

 

[o hey tyler]

It could be the fact that you were using a slow shutter speed and you lost some sharpness from camera shake.

 

[LuckySe7en]

they dont look too bad, the background it outa focus but im assuming thats intentional. if you get a little closer to the subject you can blur the background a lil more to make the subject pop. sharpness doesnt look bad though

 

[Vinny]

They don't look too bad. Zooms are not as sharp as primes and add some sharpening on post - coming from film this is something I have learned is needed on digital.

 

[clanthar]

Hi,

Your photos appear appropriate to the equipment you're using. The kit lens for the camera is pretty good -- better glass can be had for a price.

As noted by other posters you have to keep that shutter speed higher when hand holding the camera; in fact you did good with these given the shutter speeds used.

There's another factor in play here. Our perception of sharpness is related to contrast in the image (raising edge contrast is how sharpening filters work). A sharp image with weak contrast will appear less sharp than a normal contrast image that's actually not as sharp. Your camera's image processor did a typically abysmal job of tone and color adjusting these photos and that's part of what you're complaining about. I took the cactus photo and made two versions of it: The top is your original, the second is contrast and color corrected and the third is lightly sharpened. Correcting the tone and color makes the second image appear sharper than the original. Here's a link to a full resolution of the 3rd photo (lightly sharpened) if you want to compare it with the original at full res: http://photojoes.org/cactus_big.jpg

Joe

 

[DanFinePhotography]

i like #5 would have "popped" even more with a little further saturation and a little closer to the subjects