My crappy landscapes

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

a recent thread promted me to seek out opinions. I do pretty well with things up close and near as far as getting focus (sure with the occasional misses), however when I try to do landscapes...my images look like crap to me. not sharp at all. Use this image as an example...they are all pretty much of the same IQ. Is there something I am not doing, can do different, etc.? Or am I expecting too much of this lens?

I used the bridge as my focus point. Handheld, no tripod. Even with a tripod and timer, they suck, so I don't think that is relevant in this question. Ignore the fact that it's a boring picture. The IQ is the question here, not comp and wether it's an interesting picture or not.

Nikon D3100
VR 18-55 MM f/3.5-5.6G
Focal Length 46mm
Focus Mode: AF-A
AF-Area Mode: Single
VR: On

Aperture: f/9
SS: 1/80s
Exposure Mode: Manual
Exposure Comp: 0EV
Metering: Spot
ISO 100

That should be all the relevant data, if not let me know and I'll provide.

I had a polorizer filter on adjusted for sky coverage.

My flickr is full for this month, so I had to upload the 7m file here, but it downsized it to 2 something, but you can click to zoom in.

Trever1t · Jun 17, 2012

the only thing I can tell you here is that you haven't given us much to look at. It's a scene but the perspective isn't too interesting. Perhaps getting down to ground level or another focal length or angle of view? Technically it looks ok to me, my eyes are a bit out from my recent surgery though.

Also, rule of thirds applies on landscapes too. Put your horizon on one

Majeed Badizadegan · Jun 17, 2012

Ernicus, one way to rapidly improve your landscapes is to stick to rule of thirds (while you're learning) and put something interesting in each third of the frame (or at least near/far).

You have traces of all this in this photo, but nothing is jumping out.

Also, flickR is $6.95 for 3 months. Worth it to present your pictures in the best possible light

.

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

Trever1t said:
the only thing I can tell you here is that you haven't given us much to look at. It's a scene but the perspective isn't too interesting. Perhaps getting down to ground level or another focal length or angle of view? Technically it looks ok to me, my eyes are a bit out from my recent surgery though.

Also, rule of thirds applies on landscapes too. Put your horizon on one

Trev...did you read my post? lol. I know it's a boring scene, and not interesting. Getting to the ground, using a different angle, or ROT's would not increase the IQ of it.

To me, the quality is not good. It is not tack sharp, hell...not even really in focus for that matter. When I view at 100% it is blurry. Just not good quality at all.

Those are the things I am asking about. The day I come upon a lovely scene that is worth shooting, I don't want it to be crappy in quality like this one. It is not just this image...all of my landscapes come out like this. So I figure I am either doing something consistently wrong, or this lens is just crap for landscapes.

cgipson1 · Jun 17, 2012

Exposure is good... can't tell much on the sharpness since the system here compressed it.. and that could be causing the softness I am seeing in the bridge / cars. But it looks pretty good! Ever tried Hyperfocal distance for focusing? That can make a difference sometimes!

cgipson1 · Jun 17, 2012

Ernicus said:
Trever1t said:

the only thing I can tell you here is that you haven't given us much to look at. It's a scene but the perspective isn't too interesting. Perhaps getting down to ground level or another focal length or angle of view? Technically it looks ok to me, my eyes are a bit out from my recent surgery though.

Also, rule of thirds applies on landscapes too. Put your horizon on one

Click to expand...

Trev...did you read my post? lol. I know it's a boring scene, and not interesting. Getting to the ground, using a different angle, or ROT's would not increase the IQ of it.

To me, the quality is not good. It is not tack sharp, hell...not even really in focus for that matter. When I view at 100% it is blurry. Just not good quality at all.

Those are the things I am asking about. The day I come upon a lovely scene that is worth shooting, I don't want it to be crappy in quality like this one. It is not just this image...all of my landscapes come out like this. So I figure I am either doing something consistently wrong, or this lens is just crap for landscapes.

Post a 100% crop of the subject in an image that is 800 on the long side... so it doesn't get resized... that way we can see what you are talking about. Also post a 50% and 75% crop of the same area.. again, 800 on the long side...

jdsfighter · Jun 17, 2012

Can you upload the image to imageshack with 0 compression or scaling? Post the link and we could get a decent idea of what you're talking about.

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

cgipson1 said:
Ernicus said:

Trever1t said:

the only thing I can tell you here is that you haven't given us much to look at. It's a scene but the perspective isn't too interesting. Perhaps getting down to ground level or another focal length or angle of view? Technically it looks ok to me, my eyes are a bit out from my recent surgery though.

Also, rule of thirds applies on landscapes too. Put your horizon on one

Click to expand...

Trev...did you read my post? lol. I know it's a boring scene, and not interesting. Getting to the ground, using a different angle, or ROT's would not increase the IQ of it.

To me, the quality is not good. It is not tack sharp, hell...not even really in focus for that matter. When I view at 100% it is blurry. Just not good quality at all.

Those are the things I am asking about. The day I come upon a lovely scene that is worth shooting, I don't want it to be crappy in quality like this one. It is not just this image...all of my landscapes come out like this. So I figure I am either doing something consistently wrong, or this lens is just crap for landscapes.

Click to expand...

Post a 100% crop of the subject in an image that is 800 on the long side... so it doesn't get resized... that way we can see what you are talking about. Also post a 50% and 75% crop of the same area.. again, 800 on the long side...

k gimme a minute and i'll do that.

Trever1t · Jun 17, 2012

Yeah, sorry I just had surgery to correct a deviated septum and my eyes are a bit OOF themselves. I hadn't been posting much due to poor vision.

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

Like this?

100%

75%

50%

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

Trever1t said:
Yeah, sorry I just had surgery to correct a deviated septum and my eyes are a bit OOF themselves. I hadn't been posting much due to poor vision.

Just givin ya hell man, Rotanimod kinda did the same thing, lol. all too quick we are quick to jump at the obvious things first. lol

I am actually glad the 3 of you are chiming in though, as I respect all 3 of your works

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

I dont think that came out like ya wanted, lemme give image shack a try, never used it.

I'll def be upping my flickr shortly.

Ernicus · Jun 17, 2012

I cropped and uploaded original, had to crop 'cause it was too big for free account, lol.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/951/dsc01779fm.jpg

jdsfighter · Jun 17, 2012

Ernicus said:
I cropped and uploaded original, had to crop 'cause it was too big for free account, lol.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/951/dsc01779fm.jpg

Was the image stabilized? Such as a tripod.

Also, by looking at the settings, perhaps the aperture was just a little too open?

From experience, I know those kit lenses aren't always the sharpest either, so investing in another lens may help as well, perhaps a 50mm prime?

HughGuessWho · Jun 17, 2012

Ernicus, try this and see if it improves what you are describing for landscape like this, especially when you have a prominent foreground.
Try f15 (at least F11).
Manually focus 1/3 of the way into the view as indicated in this picture, but no further than the rocks just above the center target.

View attachment 11646

Try it, and see if it doesnt help with what you are describing.