Disappointing Photos with Nikon D3200

[SCraig]

I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -

Unless the 17" screen is a desktop screen you can't believe what you see. Laptops are extremely difficult to use for critiquing photographs unless an external monitor is used. Tilt the screen forward or back, change the position of the computer relative to the ambient lighting, anything can change the view from high contrast to low contrast or under-saturated to over-saturated or overexposed to underexposed. Your photographs honestly do not look that bad. I'd suggest looking at them on a desktop with a good (as opposed to cheap and crappy) desktop monitor and you may see a significant difference.

 

[stevenlanephotos]

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.

Thanks for the advice. Taken on board!

 

[stevenlanephotos]

I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -

Unless the 17" screen is a desktop screen you can't believe what you see. Laptops are extremely difficult to use for critiquing photographs unless an external monitor is used. Tilt the screen forward or back, change the position of the computer relative to the ambient lighting, anything can change the view from high contrast to low contrast or under-saturated to over-saturated or overexposed to underexposed. Your photographs honestly do not look that bad. I'd suggest looking at them on a desktop with a good (as opposed to cheap and crappy) desktop monitor and you may see a significant difference.

That makes sense - I had wondered about that. thanks

 

[The_Traveler]

• There are one medium and two steep learning curves in photography.
• First, learn how to use your camera and how every variable on the camera affects the picture. That's the medium learning obstacle.
• Second, learn to pose, compose and expose for a good image; that's a toughie
• Third, learn to be objective about your image and understand how to edit it to its greatest potential. Toughie #3.

 

[PaulWog]

Everything that you want to get out of the photo can be done in Lightroom. A flatter image often means less processing / more data captured. Kind-of depends on what you mean by "flat".

Sharpness can be a combination of things, likely the lens. Lighting always beats out sharpness, as a duller image with amazing lighting may not appear "not sharp".

The first thing I do in Lightroom to a photo like the one you posted is:

- reduce the highlights
- play with shadows & blacks a bit, depending
- for your photo, bump the exposure up by 0.25 or around that
- play around with a bit of the saturation & vibrace, but only slightly
- sharpen the image slightly, perhaps denoise it very slightly
- do a bit of dodge-and-burning, primarily lighting up the walkway just by a titch
- selectively sharpen any specific parts that might need a bit of extra selective sharpening (sometimes just the edges of the subject if needed)

These are just some generic things I do. There's lots more you can do. But, the 'dull' look is often just the original capture.

 

[stevenlanephotos]

Everything that you want to get out of the photo can be done in Lightroom. A flatter image often means less processing / more data captured. Kind-of depends on what you mean by "flat".

Sharpness can be a combination of things, likely the lens. Lighting always beats out sharpness, as a duller image with amazing lighting may not appear "not sharp".

The first thing I do in Lightroom to a photo like the one you posted is:

- reduce the highlights
- play with shadows & blacks a bit, depending
- for your photo, bump the exposure up by 0.25 or around that
- play around with a bit of the saturation & vibrace, but only slightly
- sharpen the image slightly, perhaps denoise it very slightly
- do a bit of dodge-and-burning, primarily lighting up the walkway just by a titch
- selectively sharpen any specific parts that might need a bit of extra selective sharpening (sometimes just the edges of the subject if needed)

These are just some generic things I do. There's lots more you can do. But, the 'dull' look is often just the original capture.

Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.

 

[PaulWog]

Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.

I highly recommend Lightroom. The alternatives to Lightroom can be alright, but it's still the best thing out there right now. If you subscribe to the monthly cloud deals they have, I think you can get certain software bundles (but I can't afford that -- I just have a standalone download).

Photoshop is for a different purpose. I use both Lightroom and Photoshop, but I use Lightroom 99% of the time... and photoshop 1% of the time. Photoshop is more complicated, and isn't necessary for most people. It isn't better either, it's just a different tool with certain overlapping features.

You'll need to shoot in RAW to get full control in Lightroom. RAW stores the most data.

 

[Derrel]

Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.

I highly recommend Lightroom. The alternatives to Lightroom can be alright, but it's still the best thing out there right now. If you subscribe to the monthly cloud deals they have, I think you can get certain software bundles (but I can't afford that -- I just have a standalone download).

Photoshop is for a different purpose. I use both Lightroom and Photoshop, but I use Lightroom 99% of the time... and photoshop 1% of the time. Photoshop is more complicated, and isn't necessary for most people. It isn't better either, it's just a different tool with certain overlapping features.

You'll need to shoot in RAW to get full control in Lightroom. RAW stores the most data.

Got to this thread late, but I second Paul's suggestion: Adobe's Lightroom software is easy to use, works well, and is the way I now edit most images, after having used Photoshop since version 2.5, beginning back in the late mid-1990's. I prefer Lightroom's non-destructive, parametric image editing approach.

MOST regular images can be handled by a Lightroom workflow, with basic adjustments, and perhaps some more-sophisticated adjustments, like Iris Enhance, or Tooth Whitening, or the Dodge tool or the Burn tool. There are LOADS of presets available for Lightroom, which allow for fast and repeatable one-click changes/edits, which are of course, in themselves, adjustable/save-able/re-usable.

 

[The_Traveler]

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Adobe-Photoshop-and-Adobe-Lightroom
What is the difference between Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom?
The Difference Between Photoshop and Lightroom Explained

 

[stevenlanephotos]

Thanks for the pointers - I will download Lightroom as a trial.

 

[stevenlanephotos]

Thanks to everyone who has helped me this. Immensely grateful to have so many knowledgeable people pointing the way.

 

[The_Traveler]

There is a difference between LR and PS that hasn't been mentioned.
PS is infinitely better at organized editing at the bit-level. By using layers and selections you can much more easily control and adjust changes you have made.
A major weakness in LR is that one just doesn't have the control of a complex edit and can't easily visualize steps and minor adjustments.

An example comes quickly to hand:
Here is the original:

After editing to remove the guy in the yellow shirt and lowering the brightness on other areas.
Easily done in PS, imo, much more difficult in LR.

 

[SquarePeg]

When I had my Nikon 5100 I felt like I was always bumping the contrast and the colors in post. I started setting it to "vivid" and that was more to my liking. It's a personal preference as far as liking the colors richer or more muted. I think the 3100 has similar options...

 

[Braineack]

Another photo which again is typical of the flat, unsharp look:

DSC_0001.JPG

Photo data attachedView attachment 140805

I did very minor edits to this (30secs of time) and now it looks less flat, while still looking very "real"




the sharpness may have something to do with a crummy worthless UV filter... i haven't through yet.

 

[benhasajeep]

Have you tried a focus test with your lens? You could have a front or back focus problem with that lens if your getting sharp shots with the telephoto but not the normal zoom. Even though they are inexpensive, they are normally good performers. There are many free links on the internet to printing a focus test page. But it can be done simply with a ruler proped up about 30-45 degrees (around a foot or little more). Using your tripod and center focus point take a picture of a certain spot on the ruler (camera lens center should be same height as your aim point). If using a 3' ruler focus on the 18" line exactly with the center focus point (again with the camera level). Using several different f-stops take a series of pictures. If you don't have a Ml-l3 remote release, use self timer function! Take away any and all outside vibration sources (including wind). After the series of pictures. Check the pictures on a large screen. Your focus range should be centered on the 18 (or your chosen aim point)! Using the hashmarks on the ruler determine where the lens / camera is actually focusing. For instance if 15 3/4 is the start of sharp focus and then its sharp focus until 19 3/4. You are front focusing with that lens (based on 18" exactly as the aim point). If your getting 16 1/4 to 20 1/4 your back focusing (again 18" exactly as the aim point). These are just examples. Your aperture will determine your focus range. This is also a good aperture teaching tool!

Unfortunately the D3200 does not have fine focus adjustment. The higher end Nikon bodies have the option of fine tuning each specific lens. Should always check your lens / body combination.

All is not lost though if you do have front or back focus. But first check to see if you do indeed have a front or back focus issue with that particular lens.

Also not mentioned. Check your camera settings. You might just have a custom function on, or a setting that is causing the camera to make an adjustment. If you didn't buy it new. You might want to do a factory reset and start your setting changes from scratch. But definately check that lens for front / back focusing for your sharpness problem. Settings for your "vibrance / saturation" problem.

And as a last comment, might want to try a different metering setting as well. Matrix is not always the best way to go (guessing that's what it's on).