Pictures are not Smooth and Popping
- Thread Starter cjdesu6
- Start date
Gavjenks
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 588
- Location
- Iowa City, IA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
It's not smooth because:
1) You used a really high ISO, with a lot of graininess as a result
2) You used too small of an aperture, so everything in the background is too sharp and distracting.
By contrast, the photo you like seems to have been shot at a wide aperture and low ISO, blurring out the background due to shallow depth of field and yielding little grain. If you want to replicate this, you would want more light and/or a wider aperture lens (or just choosing a wider aperture if you have one available).
It's not popping because:
1) Business of the background (both aperture and background people being closer to your subject than the other photo). Blurring the background helps separate the subject out.
2) It looks like the other photo they used supplemental lighting like a softbox or umbrella'd flash unit, which can help separate the subject from the environment
3) In addition to the background being too sharp and not darker, your photo has large shapes in the background that clash and confuse with the subject's. Most notably the guy with the white shirt that blends into your subject's white shirt. The other photo isn't fantastic in this regard either, but it better than yours at keeping away large confusing similarly colored shapes from overlapping the subject.
The lighting in the other photo also helps hide wrinkles in clothing and such, which may be making it look smoother.
There's also probably some better post processing work being done in the other one, which is just a matter of practice.
Also, your photo is weirdly low to the ground. Try to shoot mroe at eye level unless you have a good reason not to.
1) You used a really high ISO, with a lot of graininess as a result
2) You used too small of an aperture, so everything in the background is too sharp and distracting.
By contrast, the photo you like seems to have been shot at a wide aperture and low ISO, blurring out the background due to shallow depth of field and yielding little grain. If you want to replicate this, you would want more light and/or a wider aperture lens (or just choosing a wider aperture if you have one available).
It's not popping because:
1) Business of the background (both aperture and background people being closer to your subject than the other photo). Blurring the background helps separate the subject out.
2) It looks like the other photo they used supplemental lighting like a softbox or umbrella'd flash unit, which can help separate the subject from the environment
3) In addition to the background being too sharp and not darker, your photo has large shapes in the background that clash and confuse with the subject's. Most notably the guy with the white shirt that blends into your subject's white shirt. The other photo isn't fantastic in this regard either, but it better than yours at keeping away large confusing similarly colored shapes from overlapping the subject.
The lighting in the other photo also helps hide wrinkles in clothing and such, which may be making it look smoother.
There's also probably some better post processing work being done in the other one, which is just a matter of practice.
Also, your photo is weirdly low to the ground. Try to shoot mroe at eye level unless you have a good reason not to.
Gavjenks
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 588
- Location
- Iowa City, IA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Edit: I didn't notice the EXIF data at first.
1) Somehow, they were closer to their subject than you even though they were using a much longer focal length (did you massively crop your photo??). Being closer will have contributed to their depth of field, as will the longer lens.
2) You shot at ISO 200?!?! I don't know where the hell all your noise is coming from. Either your camera has serious issues, or the EXIF is wrong, or it was really blistering hot in there, or something... Try shooting RAW and using the noise software in the converter, or third party noise reduction software.
3) Why were you shooting a portrait of a standing person in landscape orientation?
Maybe the extremely high noise is again due to you cropping extremely much. The other photographer at 35mm probably did little if any cropping at all, which will help a lot of things, like noise for instance.
1) Somehow, they were closer to their subject than you even though they were using a much longer focal length (did you massively crop your photo??). Being closer will have contributed to their depth of field, as will the longer lens.
2) You shot at ISO 200?!?! I don't know where the hell all your noise is coming from. Either your camera has serious issues, or the EXIF is wrong, or it was really blistering hot in there, or something... Try shooting RAW and using the noise software in the converter, or third party noise reduction software.
3) Why were you shooting a portrait of a standing person in landscape orientation?
Maybe the extremely high noise is again due to you cropping extremely much. The other photographer at 35mm probably did little if any cropping at all, which will help a lot of things, like noise for instance.
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #4
Thank you for your quick response
"did you massively crop your photo"
- Just a very small amount to match the two pictures together.
"You shot at ISO 200?!?! I don't know where the hell all your noise is coming from."
- Yeah I'm actually very surprised also!! I shoot in RAW and it indeed was 200.
"your photo is weirdly low to the ground"
- I was actually trying to get her entire body (head to toe) in the picture (I cropped out knee down to match the ideal picture). I also tried to match the focus point to her eye as I have read numerous times this is the best place, but the uppermost focus point is pretty low. Viewfinder So I ended up kneeling. Trying to figure out how to take a picture of the entire body at eye level. (Any ideas)
I'm just astounded that the person had no flash, the picture is very clean (is the D90 that good) or maybe it is the lens his was taken at F2.0 mine at F3.5.
"did you massively crop your photo"
- Just a very small amount to match the two pictures together.
"You shot at ISO 200?!?! I don't know where the hell all your noise is coming from."
- Yeah I'm actually very surprised also!! I shoot in RAW and it indeed was 200.
"your photo is weirdly low to the ground"
- I was actually trying to get her entire body (head to toe) in the picture (I cropped out knee down to match the ideal picture). I also tried to match the focus point to her eye as I have read numerous times this is the best place, but the uppermost focus point is pretty low. Viewfinder So I ended up kneeling. Trying to figure out how to take a picture of the entire body at eye level. (Any ideas)
I'm just astounded that the person had no flash, the picture is very clean (is the D90 that good) or maybe it is the lens his was taken at F2.0 mine at F3.5.
SCraig
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
- Reaction score
- 2,451
- Location
- Nashville, TN
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Her eye level should be roughly equal to your eye level when both of you are standing up, unless she is only about 3' tall.
Push the right side of the multi-selector on the back of your camera twice to move the focus point to points to the right. Turn the camera up in portrait orientation, which will then put the focus point near the top of the frame.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,401
- Reaction score
- 5,706
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Digital images can't have grain. They have image noise.
Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types
Tutorials - Sharpness
Camera Exposure: Aperture, ISO & Shutter Speed
Understanding Camera Autofocus
'Pop" generally refers to a subject that is well separated from the image background. 'Pop' is generally accomplished by the judicious use of light.
A visual art concept is "Light advances, dark recedes". 'Pop' occurs when the subject is brighter than the background.
Using a strobe light (flash) allows the photographer to control the ambient or background light exposure separately from the flash exposure, so the background is darker than the subject - also known as a lighting ratio.
Lastolite School of Photography
Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types
Tutorials - Sharpness
Camera Exposure: Aperture, ISO & Shutter Speed
Understanding Camera Autofocus
'Pop" generally refers to a subject that is well separated from the image background. 'Pop' is generally accomplished by the judicious use of light.
A visual art concept is "Light advances, dark recedes". 'Pop' occurs when the subject is brighter than the background.
Using a strobe light (flash) allows the photographer to control the ambient or background light exposure separately from the flash exposure, so the background is darker than the subject - also known as a lighting ratio.
Lastolite School of Photography
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,294
- Reaction score
- 9,088
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Perhaps the 'original' image creator understood how to properly address noise issues caused by his D90 in post as well. It may have been shot in raw as well, allowing for more heavy-handed PP.
thebasedsloth
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 47
- Location
- Glen Burnie, Maryland
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
The first picture was shot with a 35mm at f/2, The second was shot at 18mm f/4.5
Just based on that alone, The first 'pops' more because the depth of field is much more shallow. Meaning the background is a lot more blurred. The longer the focal length, The more shallow the DOF. And the wider the aperture, the more shallow the DOF. That's why it's separated so well from the background.
As for the colors, The tones look a bit compressed and unprocessed in the picture your friend took. Playing around with the levels a bit might make that look a little better. Maybe boost the vibrance or something if in Lightroom.
The first image also looks like it has had noise reduction and sharpening.
Your friends also looks a tad bit underexposed.
Just based on that alone, The first 'pops' more because the depth of field is much more shallow. Meaning the background is a lot more blurred. The longer the focal length, The more shallow the DOF. And the wider the aperture, the more shallow the DOF. That's why it's separated so well from the background.
As for the colors, The tones look a bit compressed and unprocessed in the picture your friend took. Playing around with the levels a bit might make that look a little better. Maybe boost the vibrance or something if in Lightroom.
The first image also looks like it has had noise reduction and sharpening.
Your friends also looks a tad bit underexposed.
Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,943
- Location
- USA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
Was the original image wayyyy underexposed? Because that looks very noisy for ISO 200....
Anyway, your image is rendered in Standard picture style, which doesn't have a lot of "pop!". Vivid or Direct Print styles would give more "oomph!".
Anyway, your image is rendered in Standard picture style, which doesn't have a lot of "pop!". Vivid or Direct Print styles would give more "oomph!".
cptkid
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 71
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
+1 for this.
Either it was grossly underexposed, or your camera has some serious issues with it sensor.
There should be virtually no noise at ISO 200 with a Nikon D3200
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,294
- Reaction score
- 9,088
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Underexposed?
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
1/80, f/4.5 doesn't sound underexposed.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
1/80, f/4.5 doesn't sound underexposed.
- Thread Starter 🔹
- #12
Thank you everyone for your responses.
"1/80, f/4.5 doesn't sound underexposed."
- The room was also well lit. Both pictures are about the same conditions. mm. puzzling.
"The first picture was shot with a 35mm at f/2, The second was shot at 18mm f/4.5"
- I think I should consider purchasing a Nikon 35mm f1.8 (This is the lens he used), but I like getting head to toe shots and at a convention with huge crowds perhaps renting the Nikon 28mm 1.8 is better (too expensive for me to purchase).
"Her eye level should be roughly equal to your eye level when both of you are standing up, unless she is only about 3' tall"
- I moved the focus point to the very top point, but when I match it to the person's eye I have either kneel or tilt the camera downwards to get the entire person (head to toe) in the frame. Which is the better thing to do
"Understanding Camera Autofocus"
- I see so high end Dslr are equipped with focus points that cover more of the viewfinder. That makes sense.
I also noticed that images with flash Flash (EXIF) tend to be razor sharp while non-flash have a somewhat flat look to them Non-Flash (EXIF) Is this true.
Thank everyone for your help
"1/80, f/4.5 doesn't sound underexposed."
- The room was also well lit. Both pictures are about the same conditions. mm. puzzling.
"The first picture was shot with a 35mm at f/2, The second was shot at 18mm f/4.5"
- I think I should consider purchasing a Nikon 35mm f1.8 (This is the lens he used), but I like getting head to toe shots and at a convention with huge crowds perhaps renting the Nikon 28mm 1.8 is better (too expensive for me to purchase).
"Her eye level should be roughly equal to your eye level when both of you are standing up, unless she is only about 3' tall"
- I moved the focus point to the very top point, but when I match it to the person's eye I have either kneel or tilt the camera downwards to get the entire person (head to toe) in the frame. Which is the better thing to do
"Understanding Camera Autofocus"
- I see so high end Dslr are equipped with focus points that cover more of the viewfinder. That makes sense.
I also noticed that images with flash Flash (EXIF) tend to be razor sharp while non-flash have a somewhat flat look to them Non-Flash (EXIF) Is this true.
Thank everyone for your help
Last edited:
frommrstomommy
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Location
- florida
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
His was at ISO 200 while the other image was at ISO 400 and f/2.. I'm guessing either his was underexposed in comparison, no?
frommrstomommy
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 2,345
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Location
- florida
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
I think too this is maybe missed focus, kit lens issue?
Most reactions
-
236 -
234 -
M
177
-
162 -
128 -
128 -
92 -
91 -
81 -
73 -
71 -
67 -
55 -
53 -
52
Similar threads
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34693-68d7ff80dc154cec1604c718d5434ecd.jpg?1734165700)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/34/34689-7546fa5b2c817c48b60563925693cd53.jpg?1734165695)
