Disappointing Photos with Nikon D3200

[stevenlanephotos]

Do you have any type of screw-on filter on the lenses ?

No, no filters screwed on the front. And I get why you ask that because it does look a bit like that.

 

[jaomul]

As previously said-

Dslrs generally are set up because most that buy one will do some kind of editing. Point and shoot it bridge cameras are different, they are generally set up to give "pop" straight out of camera.

If you are not going to edit raw files (many do, many don't) you'll need to take a little time setting up your camera for certain shots. Your camera has picture styles, for example "landscape". This can be used to take landscape shots and it emphasises the blues and greens. You can even tweak each picture style and add contrast or vibrance etc. You also have a portrait and a neutral or flat style. Neutral or flat will give very subdued results.

You will also almost always get better shots if you select the white balance yourself.

The d3200 should be better than most bridges, but unfortunately with dslrs you need to select settings yourself to get the best out of it

 

[stevenlanephotos]

As previously said-

Dslrs generally are set up because most that buy one will do some kind of editing. Point and shoot it bridge cameras are different, they are generally set up to give "pop" straight out of camera.

If you are not going to edit raw files (many do, many don't) you'll need to take a little time setting up your camera for certain shots. Your camera has picture styles, for example "landscape". This can be used to take landscape shots and it emphasises the blues and greens. You can even tweak each picture style and add contrast or vibrance etc. You also have a portrait and a neutral or flat style. Neutral or flat will give very subdued results.

You will also almost always get better shots if you select the white balance yourself.

The d3200 should be better than most bridges, but unfortunately with dslrs you need to select settings yourself to get the best out of it

Thanks. I have experimented a fair bit with those (including white balance) without seeing much in the way of a difference to the sharpness. This is why I have continued to wonder about the camera or the lens.

But I get your point and will continue to experiment. It does seem I might need to experiment with RAW. I had a pretty good bridge camera which had similar controls to a DSLR, and even won a few competitions. The photos were so much sharper - and that is on a camera bought 15 years ago!

 

[KmH]

But even with an f22 I would have got that same somewhat unsharp flat look.

Apparently you're not aware that using a small lens aperture like f/22 causes a loss of focus sharpness due to diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks
Do you know how to evaluate a histogram?

• Understanding Histograms, Part 1: Tones & Contrast
• Understanding Histograms, Part 2: Luminosity & Color

Light direction and quality are another huge factor for making pleasing photos.
The photo you posted was shot under overcast skies a light quality condition that will always produce flat looking (low contrast) images.
Auto focus also relies on contrast to work at it's peak.

Raw files have to be edited but they give the photographer the broadest latitude for editing because they have 1 16-bit depth.
Raw files are not finished images.
JPEG is edited in the camera, limited an 8-bit depth and the picture control settings only offer crude adjustments that are made to the entire (global) image.
Editing Raw files allows us to make both local and global edits.

• Understanding Bit Depth
• Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF
• Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?

 

[stevenlanephotos]

Actually, I like the colors and tones from the two D3200 images. They are not over the top, quite pleasing.

You have to remember that bridge cameras, point and shoot cameras and even smart phones process the images to make them "pop".

If you are shooting JPEG, then change the picture control settings to something like Vivid or Landscape and see if you like that. I'd HIGHLY recommend you shoot raw and use something like Adobe Lightroom or even Nikon's software to process the photos to your liking.

DSLRs are not point and shoot cameras.

If you want a camera that has beautiful SOOC vivid JPEGS, then maybe you should have gotten a Fuji X camera. But if you shoot raw, you'll get the same flat images.

Keep in mind though, a lot really depends on your environment. Hazy weather can cause photos to look flat, cloudy days often cause photos to look flat. There are a lot of factors involved and that's why I recommend shooting raw.

Oh interesting - so you like the colours and tones - what do you think of the sharpness - it always looks a little blurred or softly focused to me?

Thanks for the tips on the settings - will try that.

And I will try shooting RAW - I had not ventured into that yet.

Thanks so much

So you may want to check the quality settings of your jpegs as they do look somewhat compressed. Make sure you are shooting Jpeg Fine/Large.

Even when shooting the Jpeg Fine, the compression ratio is 1:4 so its 4 times smaller file size than the orginal raw image captured by the sensor. Even so, the compression is quite minimal and you "shouldn't" see jpeg artifacts that much.

Yes, exactly, they look compressed. I can confirm I am using fine and large. Thanks

 

[stevenlanephotos]

But even with an f22 I would have got that same somewhat unsharp flat look.

Apparently you're not aware that using a small lens aperture like f/22 causes a loss of focus sharpness due to diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks
Do you know how to evaluate a histogram?

• Understanding Histograms, Part 1: Tones & Contrast
• Understanding Histograms, Part 2: Luminosity & Color

Light direction and quality are another huge factor for making pleasing photos.
The photo you posted was shot under overcast skies a light quality condition that will always produce flat looking (low contrast) images.
Auto focus also relies on contrast to work at it's peak.

Raw files have to be edited but they give the photographer the broadest latitude for editing because they have 1 16-bit depth.
Raw files are not finished images.
JPEG is edited in the camera, limited an 8-bit depth and the picture control settings only offer crude adjustments that are made to the entire (global) image.
Editing Raw files allows us to make both local and global edits.

• Understanding Bit Depth
• Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF
• Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?

Thanks for all of the pointers - I will look into them. I have a rough understanding of histograms and I will look at your links and improve.

did you see the picture link I posted to the Port scene - under clear blue skies? The colours were OK but the sharpness is still lacking.

I can see there is much to learn still!

 

[The_Traveler]

You are asking the camera to understand everything - and it can't do that.
The histogram shows that the majority of the scene is below center, thus slightly underexposed. That's because the bright overcast is affecting the meter in the camera.
Expose for your target.
With this nondirectional light, everyhting looks a bit flat and toneless thus looks un sharp.
You've included a lot of foliage that really adds nothing and you have this OOF branch right across the center thus confusing the viewers' brains.

If you get rid of some of the excess foliage, increase contrast, raise the midtones a bit, along a bit of saturation and a bit of warm and things start to look better to me - except fot the branch, obviously

You must be in control, don't leave it to the engineers back at the factory.

 

[SCraig]

What are you looking at the images on? I'm guessing either a laptop computer or a tablet.

 

[stevenlanephotos]

You are asking the camera to understand everything - and it can't do that.
The histogram shows that the majority of the scene is below center, thus slightly underexposed. That's because the bright overcast is affecting the meter in the camera.
Expose for your target.
With this nondirectional light, everyhting looks a bit flat and toneless thus looks un sharp.
You've included a lot of foliage that really adds nothing and you have this OOF branch right across the center thus confusing the viewers' brains.

View attachment 140816

If you get rid of some of the excess foliage, increase contrast, raise the midtones a bit, along a bit of saturation and a bit of warm and things start to look better to me - except fot the branch, obviously

You must be in control, don't leave it to the engineers back at the factory.

View attachment 140817

Heh - thanks for that. Really interesting to me - I will try and learn from that and see if it makes a difference

 

[stevenlanephotos]

What are you looking at the images on? I'm guessing either a laptop computer or a tablet.

I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -

 

[stevenlanephotos]

So from the replies, starting to be convinced it is my poor technique rather than my camera.

I am submitting two more photos to check if that is the case.

The first is taken with the long lens mentioned at the beginning of this thread. It is much sharper and colours are richer:

DSC_0070.JPG

The next is the every day 18 - 55 lens where again there is less sharpness or richness

DSC_0047.JPG

The info for the photos is attached

 

[astroNikon]

The 2nd one is a really nice concept.
But f/5 is too shallow for 4 subjects I think from that distance. I would throw it into a DOF calculator .. I used to use a DOF calculator and static subjects testing DOF at various distances so that I now know looking at something what I need to be at.

and 1/80th Shutter is *way* too slow for 4 subjects that to you aren't moving, but to a sensor which picks puts the image on super tiny image buckets ... they're moving.

Though I see you were at ISO 1600 which may be a good max for the camera. It's all a give and take but if it's fuzzy it's hard.

I go back to my recommendation of put yourself into a static, totally repeatable environment in order for you to test your camera body, lens and technique.

Taking various picture of other various things is not repeatability and you'll be chasing different problem for each different shot. In a static environment you can set aperture for one thing, shutter and ISO .. and repeat until you can figure out if it's your technique, etc *first*. Then move on to changing a setting or the setup.

 

[stevenlanephotos]

The 2nd one is a really nice concept.
But f/5 is too shallow for 4 subjects I think from that distance. I would throw it into a DOF calculator .. I used to use a DOF calculator and static subjects testing DOF at various distances so that I now know looking at something what I need to be at.

and 1/80th Shutter is *way* too slow for 4 subjects that to you aren't moving, but to a sensor which picks puts the image on super tiny image buckets ... they're moving.

Though I see you were at ISO 1600 which may be a good max for the camera. It's all a give and take but if it's fuzzy it's hard.

I go back to my recommendation of put yourself into a static, totally repeatable environment in order for you to test your camera body, lens and technique.

Taking various picture of other various things is not repeatability and you'll be chasing different problem for each different shot. In a static environment you can set aperture for one thing, shutter and ISO .. and repeat until you can figure out if it's your technique, etc *first*. Then move on to changing a setting or the setup.

Thanks. Yes I liked the concept and I was really disappointed when I transferred it to my computer - but I am somewhat relieved now that it might not be the camera - that it actually is my technique which needs a lot of refining. And you really seem to be talking about going back to basics and learning some photographic discipline. I shall do so. Your advice is much appreciated.

 

[Designer]

The info for the photos is attached

Unfortunately, the focus point is not attached. I attempted to get the focus point from the second photo (0047) but the EXIF has been stripped.

So then I zoomed in to 400% and tried to find the focus point by eye, which is not reliable, and was unable to find the sharpest point for sure. Your camera will show you which focus point was active at this capture, so you can do it in your camera (or use your editing software if it will do that).

To me, it seems as if the sign is quite a bit sharper than your human subjects, so maybe that's the point of focus in this shot.

Could be your technique, could be the lens, and could be wrong focus point. Unfortunately, your camera will not allow you to fine tune the focus for a particular lens, but with proper testing, you should be able to find the problem.

1. Obtain a focus target. Purchase one or if you have a LASER PRINTER, you can print one that is available online. Do not use an ink jet printer because they are not sharp enough.

2. Borrow someone's 18-55 lens to try on your camera.

3. Take test photos using the two 18-55 lenses and your 55-300mm lens as well. Switch off the VR, and use a tripod. Use a middle aperture setting and the same shutter speed for all three shots.

4. Compare all three shots at high magnification on the best computer display you can use.

5. If your existing lens is the issue, sell it and buy another copy. (They're not expensive.)

 

[goodguy]

The problem isn't your camera, its your skills.
Pic seems to be sharp and ok, it does look underexposed.
If you really want to get the most out of your camera then learn how to use it right, also shoot in RAW and process it your software of choice.
I have the camera that replaced it the D3300, I use it as a second body in weddings and it produces amazing results.