I can't get this simple picture to look anywhere near decent

[chrisv2]

ok, I decided to sit here in my office and try both the kit lens (18-55/3.5-5.6) and the wider pancake (16/2.8) -- and try to take a picture of my computer that didn't look awful.

All I'm getting is "awful". I upgraded from an older Sony Nex c3 to this Sony a6000 and I swear I never had these problems with the prior camera. I just can't get a decent photo with this new camera.

Attached is the very best I could do out of probably 50 different attempts at various f-stops, shutter speeds, ISO, etc.

If anyone can tell me how to get an in-focus sharp picture with room lighting I would be very grateful. I'm pretty depressed right now about this whole thing. I took the same picture with my iphone 5s and it came out better.

18mm focal length
ISO 3200
1/60 shutter
f 3.5

 

[astroNikon]

1/60 .. probably camera shake from not being able to hold it steady. What if you placed the camera on the desk then took the picture being careful not to nudge it sideways as you shoot.

You'll want to try and keep your shutter above 100th second to prevent a lot of camera shake.

 

[Braineack]

Did you ever consider moving your light source to in front of the server, not behind it?

 

[DarkShadow]

This ^ Move your light source,How about your flash.As it is, it's underexposed and lacks any real detail.

 

[chrisv2]

The camera was pretty stable - hand-held but elbows planted on my knees so I don't think it was moving. The lens has OSS, too.

I totally understand what you guys are saying about the light source -- but what if I really want the lamp to stay there? I didn't use a flash - so should I try setting ISO manually and bounce the flash off the ceiling?

 

[Braineack]

tripod and expose for the server in spot or center, not matrix/evaluative.

 

[DarkShadow]

You could help it in post as far as exposure,

like this maybe.

 

[TCampbell]

When you want to optimize for a "sharp" image and you don't care about depth of field (it doesn't need to be shallow or deep - as this image is really just the "face" of the tower and we don't care if the back of the case is in focus because we can't see the back of the case) then...

Shoot using one of the "middle" f-stops... e.g. f/5.6 or f/8 ... somewhere in that range is typically the "sweet spot" for lens performance on most lenses (and this is a generalization on lenses... not an absolute rule.) Shooting wide-open is almost never optimal.

Of course to do that, you are cutting the f-stop by nearly 2 stops which means you have to make up for it.
You have three choices:

1. Add 2 stops of lighting (ideal)
2. Boost ISO by 2 stops (but that adds noise and noise builds in the black and dark areas faster and since this computer happens to be black... that's not ideal.)
3. Slow the shutter speed by 2 stops. (but that takes you down to 1/15th -- you'd need a tripod.)

Ultimately this means (a) fix the lighting, or (b) use a tripod and slow the shutter speed down. Of course you do have a tripod, right? If not... put that on your shopping list (every photographer should own a tripod.)

 

[Derrel]

The problem is the bright desk lamp is close to a light colored wall; the exposure metering system is trying to balance a wide,wide,wide brightness difference between the directly lighted wall, and the indirectly lighted tower...which happens to be black! ACK!!

The easiest solution would be to get some more light onto the tower's front panel, which would serve to "bridge" the brightness gulf between the lighted-up wall surface, and the black tower's front panel. Indoors, your speed at f/8 or f/5.6 as Tim suggested using, could be slowish, like 1/4 to 1/20 second, easily.

Adding some flash is an easy way to add light. I'd definitely try some flash. However, since you are trying to make the light look of a certain brightness, the idea if using flash would be to balance the amount of flash at say, f/8, and to get the proper shutter speed so the lamp,and the wall it illuminates, look "right". Only you can determine the proper balance between the flash and the table lamp.

 

[KenC]

With the camera braced the way you describe and a 1/60 shutter speed, this should be sharper than it is (unless this lens just doesn't get any sharper at 18 mm). Are you "squeezing" the shutter button gently?

 

[chrisv2]

Thank you for all the help. I was trying to get this figured out without moving the light around, since I want to learn how to take candid pictures a little better and I was also disappointed with my results from the auto show I went to last week...so determined to learn this.

This result seems better. I tried both with flash and without. This is:

- no flash
- 16mm / f2.8 pancake lens (no OSS)
- f 5.6
- iso 400
- shutter 1/4 sec

This time on a tripod with the shutter timer so I was nowhere near the camera. Like I said, this would not work for me shooting candids or walking around at an indoor car show, so maybe next I need to learn to use the flash effectively.

 

[wfooshee]

That last one is better, but still underexposed on the subject. Switch to spot, or at least center-weighted meter, so the camera will ignore the lamp. It'l blow out, but heck, it already is blown out.

The fix in post shown above gets detail on the face of the system, but comes out a bit flat-looking.

From the shadow on the wall you've got another light source. Is that another room light, or a flash? If it's a flash, it's not strong enough. If you use a flash, bounce it or you'll get harsh shadows on the wall behind.

 

[Solarflare]

Actually this "simple picture" is really not that easy.

 

[DarkShadow]

Nothing is simple about photography.

 

[chrisv2]

Very true what you guys say. I have new respect for anyone who is good at this!

The room has windows and that was a sunny day so yes there was another light source. I will play with the metering options on the camera as suggested - thank you.