What am I missing

zxcvb

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi,

I have been dabbling with my 600D for a while now. I have the 10-22 usm Canon lens which is great, as well as the kit 18-55 and 55-250 lenses. I also have the 28mm f1.8 prime, which I truly love, but it is broken at the moment.

Recently I have been trying to shoot some portraits, i.e. been using the kit lenses a lot. But, however hard I try, the pictures always seem soft and a bit plasticky. I presume that this is due to the cheap, slow lenses, but I am not certain. It might also be due to crappy post (I do shoot in raw, and have access to Lightroom), cheap body, just a general lack of photography skills, or all of the above. Would you like to help me judge?

In addition, I find it next to impossible to focus on anything moving towards me or away from me, both due to the 600d's sad tracking focus, and the super slow kit lenses.

The first image attached is taken with the kit lens, a few years back (28mm, iso 100, f/4.0, 1/125). Here it seems sharp enough really. But there's no person, so it's hard to judge I guess. I can't find a portrait with that lens right now, but I also cannot remember catching something really remarkable.

IMG_2610-small.webp


Here's the 10-22, again seems quite good to me, but again not a portrait (really not something you wanna do with that lens I suppose).

IMG_9439-small.webp


Then there's two times the 55-250 at 100mm, 1/320, 1600 iso, f/5.6, and something similar again, and here is exactly what I was talking about. They're in focus alright, but somehow something is missing. I feel like although I am at 100mm, DoF is still lacking.
IMG_2476-small.webp
IMG_2482-small.webp


So in conclusion, does the 55-250 suck? Or do I just suck? What are the next steps to up my game? Get one or two fast lenses? Learn some decent color grading in Lightroom / Darktable? Something else?

Edit:
so I did a google images search for "Canon rebel portrait", "Canon 70d portrait" and "Canon 6d portrait" (5d is way out of my price range). Turns out both rebel and 70d turn up a large amount of images that suffer from the same issues mine do; the 6d however not. It had many images that had the right punch and tone to it. Now of course there are a lot of factors that could play a role here: full frame, better glass going a long with the better camera, better photographers buying better cameras... what is your opinion?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Let me edit a couple and see if you like the results.
Sure. Do I need to do anything, do you want the raw files, or will you just use the small jpg?
 
The truth is that any real good photographer could take an amazing image with a cell phone. Yes, good gear makes a hell of a difference but the gear you have could be adequate with more experience.

I'm really not understanding what you are attempting and failing at?
 
The truth is that any real good photographer could take an amazing image with a cell phone. Yes, good gear makes a hell of a difference but the gear you have could be adequate with more experience.
I know. I just fail to get anything more convincing with this, so I am asking for people's opinion what could be done. Maybe the clarity and pop I am looking for can only be achieved with a faster lens? iPhone portraits will probably never be that great, although it sure can snap some good pictures in other situations.

I'm really not understanding what you are attempting and failing at?
I am trying to cross the line from "snapshot" to "photograph". Does that make sense?
 
I think you're aiming at the wrong target. It's not sharpness, clarity, saturation or 'pop' that can make these great images. It's composition.

1. It's fine, except I'd crop out the dark wall on the right. The way it is, the subject is smack dab in the middle.
2. Which is the subject, the person and the mountains, or the sky? The image is divided right in half by the horizon, causing the image to suffer from Subjectus Unknownii.
3. Would be much better cropping out the distracting background elements.
4. I'd be happy with such a shot just the way it is, save for the distractions on the far left even though they're out of focus. A simple step to your left would probably have solved this.

Change your edit preferences so we all can show you what we'd do to change them.
 
I am trying to cross the line from "snapshot" to "photograph". Does that make sense?

Yes but that's very subjective.Honestly the second portrait isn't that bad, she's cute, the focus seems pretty good. Sure, a little compositional work, framing differently. Maybe you can look at some images you want to try to replicate and practice until you are satisfied with the improvements?

EDIT: Sparky beat me to it!
 
Clarity and POP! usually are best at base ISO; at 1,600 ISO, I would expect significantly reduced color from a Rebel 600D and slow kit lens. I do not find your work especially poor, but if you expect more POP!, I would work on shooting closer to ISO 100 than to ISO 1,600, and also on creating lighting that has more drama. Also, as you wonder about--your editing of your images might be at fault as well. or perhaps how you view your images is less than ideal?
 
Change your profile to allow editing.
These JPEG2000 look big enough but I won't get to it for 12 hours or so.
 
To answer the questions of how I find them less than ideal, I looked for some examples on a search engine.

First: although this looks wayy overprocessed (no need to soften children's skin, srsly..), it pops. The clarity of the hair and the eyes, as well as the tone is fantastic, imo.
https://mayumiacosta.files.wordpres...retum-girl-portrait-photographer-davis-ca.jpg

Second: Again, great clarity & pop (struggly to describe it in other words than those two..). Very clear and smooth separation from the background (something the slow kit lenses seem to struggle with, even at 100mm). Also, great expression.
http://trash-russia.com/wp-content/...traits-of-girls-by-stanislav-puchkovsky-3.jpg
 
I would work on shooting closer to ISO 100 than to ISO 1,600, and also on creating lighting that has more drama.
I shoot outside almost always. I happen to have two flashguns with remotes that I could bring along, but then I have to bring lightstands, at least a gorilla pod, maybe an umbrella (I once had one, not sure if I still do) or the light will be too harsh, etc.. A fun day out just became a tiring event. :\
Probably there are ways to get more out of natural light too, though.
 
One thing that does NOT 'pop' in either of those two links is a busy background. Again, this is technique (mostly and understanding of how to USE one's gear, not merely BUY 'better' gear) and composition.

A great pianist can make music on both a $1mil Steinway and a 6th-grade music class upright.
 
One thing that does NOT 'pop' in either of those two links is a busy background
I agree. Thanks
I will raise another example here, because it does not have a busy background, however it is also particularly blown out. It suffers the same issues imo. (Also has some other issues, like framing; I was struggling to keep up with the auto focus since she was walking towards me ever so slowly -- so the frame suffered.)

IMG_2468-small.webp
 
Last edited:
My edits:

IMG_2610-small.jpg



IMG_9439-small.jpg



IMG_2476-small.jpg



IMG_2482-small.jpg


Of course, editing cannot replicate any corrections that needed to occur before the shutter opens.
 
My edits:

Of course, editing cannot replicate any corrections that needed to occur before the shutter opens.

Wow! While I was going for the "straight in the middle" in the first picture, the removed stuff from the background certainly makes the last two pictures a LOT better. I have no clue how to do that though. I guess not in Lightroom but Photoshop? (While they are a lot better as pictures, they still kind of lack the "pop, clarity, tone" as before though.)
 

Most reactions

Back
Top