Photography Question From An Amateur

Soooo...

Mostly, this is directed towards one person (Tate07) but since I don't really PVT people that I don't know... you all get to read it too. Anyone else with input is welcome as well.

Is it impossible to get crystal clear clarity when using a tripod / timer like I do when taking pictures? (see the Krissy4u thread for samples)

I use a Nikon D5100, usually just the auto-settings on a Vanguard ABEO Pro Series tripod. It is not that I am unsatisfied with the picture quality, but it just seems that this camera should be able to take better pictures. Are the auto-settings just not good enough or am I doing something wrong to get the washed out places and grainy pictures? I am not a big believer in heavy post-production besides adjusting colors a bit. I shoot on the highest quality JPEG setting. Is RAW that much better?

Just curious and it is a question that has been bothering me recently as I've thought about upgrading to a different model to try and get different / better results. I've done some research and gotten a wide variety of replies. Input?

Thanks and welcome to the forum!

It's all about your lighting. Even a shitty camera kit with the all purpose 55mm zoom lens it came with can take decent pictures so long as your scene is properly lit. The first 4 years of my content were all shot on an entry level SLR, a Nikon D40. That was $400 well spent but the more important purchase at the time was the Smith Victor light kit that I bought. 500 watts of pure amateur lighting action that, when set up properly, took my pictures to professional levels of clarity, depth and white balance.

Also, do take the time to learn how to use your camera's manual settings. So much more control is at your fingertips and all you have to do is crack open the manual and read how to do it. Or YouTube tutorials if you're a more visually oriented learner.

Setting Manual Exposure for Nikon D5100 in Movie Mode - YouTube

Using the Nikon D5100 Manual Mode - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Soooo...

Mostly, this is directed towards one person (Tate07) but since I don't really PVT people that I don't know... you all get to read it too. Anyone else with input is welcome as well.

Is it impossible to get crystal clear clarity when using a tripod / timer like I do when taking pictures? (see the Krissy4u thread for samples)

I use a Nikon D5100, usually just the auto-settings on a Vanguard ABEO Pro Series tripod. It is not that I am unsatisfied with the picture quality, but it just seems that this camera should be able to take better pictures. Are the auto-settings just not good enough or am I doing something wrong to get the washed out places and grainy pictures? I am not a big believer in heavy post-production besides adjusting colors a bit. I shoot on the highest quality JPEG setting. Is RAW that much better?

Just curious and it is a question that has been bothering me recently as I've thought about upgrading to a different model to try and get different / better results. I've done some research and gotten a wide variety of replies. Input?

Thanks and welcome to the forum!

---

are you also trying to get hired by kink.com? me too

eh yo kink.com? you need any professional males to have relations with women in front of the camera? i got pictures but i ain't pulling a jamie incase someone starts telling me what to fix.

credits: banged lots of chicks (1991-present)

agent: current gf (satisfied and currently sleeping it off)

other talents: you heard that banger 'all gold everything'? i wrote that joint

mission objective: you'll see

pm me here for more details

be easy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

are you also trying to get hired by kink.com? me too

eh yo kink.com? you need any professional males to have relations with women in front of the camera? i got pictures but i ain't pulling a jamie incase someone starts telling me what to fix.

credits: banged lots of chicks (1991-present)

agent: current gf (satisfied and currently sleeping it off)

other talents: you heard that banger 'all gold everything'? i wrote that joint

mission objective: you'll see

pm me here for more details

be easy

---

Are you drunk? Usually you're much more cohesive.

I admire Kink's work but no... they would not be interested in me and I have no interest in shooting content for any other sites anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie French

It's all about your lighting. Even a shitty camera kit with the all purpose 55mm zoom lens it came with can take decent pictures so long as your scene is properly lit. The first 4 years of my content were all shot on an entry level SLR, a Nikon D40. That was $400 well spent but the more important purchase at the time was the Smith Victor light kit that I bought. 500 watts of pure amateur lighting action that, when set up properly, took my pictures to professional levels of clarity, depth and white balance.

Also, do take the time to learn how to use your camera's manual settings. So much more control is at your fingertips and all you have to do is crack open the manual and read how to do it. Or YouTube tutorials if you're a more visually oriented learner.

Setting Manual Exposure for Nikon D5100 in Movie Mode - YouTube

Using the Nikon D5100 Manual Mode - YouTube

---

That is typically the answer I have received. Lighting. However, I don't think that is the case here. Some of my galleries are shot in evening light but even the ones I take in broad daylight will either have grain or washed out spots in them.

When I actually shoot indoors in my little studio, I have almost 10,000 lumens of LED / daylight lights. Even then, the pictures don't have the detail that I think they should when cropped and resized even at 100% quality in CS6.

Anyway, thanks for the input... I'll check out the YouTube vids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Are you drunk?

---

working on it:tongue:

I've been told as well the lighting makes the difference more than the equipment. Take the picture below; I snapped it back in 2010 with my Canon SX10is...which is basically a fancy point-and-shoot. I lucked out with the light; it had rained the previous evening and the skies were clear. No tripod, but I did (just recently) fiddle around with the colors and such in Adobe Lightroom.

Eventually I'll get a good light kit for shooting portraits and such.

I'm STILL practicing with the manual settings on my camera. I have a long way to go, but I'll get there. Krissy, so will you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

working on it:tongue:

---

LoL... I thought so :). Have fun! I'm just burning time waiting for a midnight showing of Superman :) ... or I guess more accurately, Man of Steel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie Escalade

I've been told as well the lighting makes the difference more than the equipment. Take the picture below; I snapped it back in 2010 with my Canon SX10is...which is basically a fancy point-and-shoot. I lucked out with the light; it had rained the previous evening and the skies were clear. No tripod, but I did (just recently) fiddle around with the colors and such in Adobe Lightroom.

Eventually I'll get a good light kit for shooting portraits and such.

I'm STILL practicing with the manual settings on my camera. I have a long way to go, but I'll get there. Krissy, so will you!

---

The real problem is that I just have no patience for settings and such. Plus, typically when I shoot outside it is much more of a run out of the car, snap a few pictures, and then run back in before a large crowd gathers :).

BTW... is that SFO? I think I have been pretty close to that exact spot if so :). I love that little grassy hill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

The real problem is that I just have no patience for settings and such. Plus, typically when I shoot outside it is much more of a run out of the car, snap a few pictures, and then run back in before a large crowd gathers :).

BTW... is that SFO? I think I have been pretty close to that exact spot if so :). I love that little grassy hill.

---

Alamo Square. I hope to take an updated version of this picture next month. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie Escalade

I've been told as well the lighting makes the difference more than the equipment. Take the picture below; I snapped it back in 2010 with my Canon SX10is...which is basically a fancy point-and-shoot. I lucked out with the light; it had rained the previous evening and the skies were clear. No tripod, but I did (just recently) fiddle around with the colors and such in Adobe Lightroom.

Eventually I'll get a good light kit for shooting portraits and such.

I'm STILL practicing with the manual settings on my camera. I have a long way to go, but I'll get there. Krissy, so will you!

---

Very good, Willie, very nice!
But where is that thread, you know? "post your own pics" or something? Willie, you really should post more of this stuff! You're so talented. Your pictures are a joy to look at. Really!
Or post some of them on that new thread by Nikki. What is it? "Favorite pics"?

I'll be taking more pics soon. I'll be hitting up San Diego next weekend, and St. Francis next month.

Of course I'll try and get pics of the local ladies as well muahahahah :lol:

Krissy,I looked at the pics in the k4u thread and I don't see a lot I'd put down to a problem with the camera. Some of your pictures are heavily backlit, and modern cameras will automatically expose for the foreground, which on digital will just blow the bright background to white. (Digital is actually more like transparency in its dynamic range, or latitude, than colour neg.) In backllit situations, use fill flash or a big white reflector to kick light back in without having to expose so much. In movie use a fixed light.

Your bedroom scenes appear to be lit by not very bright available light (which some of us know as 'available darkness'). To take in situations like this, in film, you'd use a wider aperture, a slower shutter and a faster emulsion. Digital cams it's the same, wider aperture, slower shutter, and more gain on the sensor. More gain on the sensor means more noise, which makes the image look 'grainy'. In situations like that you really do have to use lights to get a decent result. In addition, BTW, your camera is struggling to give a decent white balance in those pictures. Lights will fix that.

If you have a sharpness problem then that could be an equipment issue--autofocus problem most likely--but I can't see that in the pics. The camera you are using is well capable of decent images. Don't waste money replacing it just now, invest in lights and learn how to use them.

The advice to use manual is good but you need to learn quite a bit more before you can use that properly. The pictures look well-enough exposed, just the lighting situations are fiendish.

Post some others here to give a better idea of the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Some of my galleries are shot in evening light but even the ones I take in broad daylight will either have grain or washed out spots in them.

---

You'll need to post a couple of samples for a decent crit, love.

GroobyKrissy,

Thanks for the welcome :) without seeing the metadata on the image let me give you a few pointers that might help.

I am gonna take a look at the pics and then comment a bit :)

GroobyKrissy,

OK had to reread your intro. If I am understanding you properly...the answer is no.. it isn't impossible to get great pics from a D5100. A D5100 is a pretty darn good camera for the money.

A couple of thoughts that might help..

1) Shutter speed matters. As a rule don't go below about 1/60th of a second shooting people. Based off of their movement increase your shutter speed. typically in studio I will shoot no lower than 1/100th to 1/125th.. on locations I drop it to a minimum of 1/80th of a second (since I am generally using flash). UNLESS you are using a longer lens..don't ever drop below the focal length of your lens when shooting people. if you are using a 105mm then try not to drop below 1/100th.. a tripod will give you a bit of fudge factor to go lower but your results may vary( camera shake, wind, etc). People are 3 dimensional.. even if you think they aren't moving.. they are :P

2) Be aware of ambient light and how it affects your images. There are times when we can still SEE in the evening, but the camera doesn't see like our eyes. Your camera has limitations, all cameras do. ISO 200 will yield much better results than ISO 3200 or 6400 (less channel noise, and will look sharper) Do you shoot with a flash? If not you might think about getting one :)

3) RAW vs. Jpeg... I would choose RAW any day of the week. There is so much more information there that you can use to recover a shot if you overexpose or underexpose it. I always shoot RAW+Jpeg Fine. It is redundant, but works for my needs. Try shooting RAW and playing with it a bit. Do you use Photoshop/Camera Raw or Lightroom?

Hitting post..

4) Try shooting in a priority mode or manual mode instead of full auto. If you give the camera full control of itself.. then it will do great on a sunny day shooting with the sun. Otherwise it usually fails miserably. your camera has a built in light meter reading a bit on how it operates will help you immensely (+ is overexposing - is underexposing) regarding proper exposure. Try to keep the exposure to in the middle of the meter. You will have situations where you need to adjust this on a case by case basis.

5) Gear matters. The quality of a Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 vs. a Kit lens 18-55mm. The 24-70 will blow it away for sharpness. If you stick in the DX range the 17-55mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens too. It doesn't mean the 18-55 is horrible, it just means the 24-70 is THAT much better. I shoot a D3 as my main camera and it still rocks because of the sensor. There is a big difference in sensor ability and results between a D3200 and a D4, but unless you plan on dropping 6k on a body you make trade offs. Never underestimate the importance of good glass(lenses).


Hitting post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

Soooo...
I use a Nikon D5100, usually just the auto-settings on a Vanguard ABEO Pro Series tripod. It is not that I am unsatisfied with the picture quality, but it just seems that this camera should be able to take better pictures. Are the auto-settings just not good enough or am I doing something wrong to get the washed out places and grainy pictures? I am not a big believer in heavy post-production besides adjusting colors a bit. I shoot on the highest quality JPEG setting. Is RAW that much better?

---

Krissy, great recommendations by Jamie, MacS, and Tate, emphasizing the fundamentals: glass, lighting, exposure. By your description (washed out and grainy), I think Mac hits the nail re: backlit scenes being blown out, and the camera compensating in low light situations by automatically setting a high ISO ('gain'):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacShreach

Your bedroom scenes appear to be lit by not very bright available light (which some of us know as 'available darkness'). To take in situations like this, in film, you'd use a wider aperture, a slower shutter and a faster emulsion. Digital cams it's the same, wider aperture, slower shutter, and more gain on the sensor. More gain on the sensor means more noise, which makes the image look 'grainy'. In situations like that you really do have to use lights to get a decent result. In addition, BTW, your camera is struggling to give a decent white balance in those pictures. Lights will fix that.

---

It's awesome that dSLRs can give you extremely high exposure levels by pushing the gain, allowing the capture of images in very low light situations (the Nikon D4 goes up to 12,800 ISO, expandable to 204,800), but this will always yield grainy, noisy images. For crystal clear photos, you want a much lower ISO, 200 (like Tate suggests) and no more than 400. Better to add light, to keep the ISO low for much clearer images.

The sensor in the D5100 isn't a match for the D4, but it's a fine sensor and keeping your ISO lower and using more light (incident light on the subject, not backlight) is essential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tate07

1) Shutter speed matters. As a rule don't go below about 1/60th of a second shooting people. Based off of their movement increase your shutter speed. typically in studio I will shoot no lower than 1/100th to 1/125th.. on locations I drop it to a minimum of 1/80th of a second (since I am generally using flash). UNLESS you are using a longer lens..don't ever drop below the focal length of your lens when shooting people. if you are using a 105mm then try not to drop below 1/100th.. a tripod will give you a bit of fudge factor to go lower but your results may vary( camera shake, wind, etc). People are 3 dimensional.. even if you think they aren't moving.. they are :P

---

Spot on! I rarely shoot at 1/60th, usually 1/125th - 1/200th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tate07

2) Be aware of ambient light and how it affects your images. There are times when we can still SEE in the evening, but the camera doesn't see like our eyes. Your camera has limitations, all cameras do. ISO 200 will yield much better results than ISO 3200 or 6400 (less channel noise, and will look sharper) Do you shoot with a flash? If not you might think about getting one

---

As noted above. Flashes can be problematic--those deep, dark shadows they can cast, the sharp, flat contrast they create--but as fill light very useful, even in sunlight. For the Nikon, a Speedlight 600 or 800 will do, or you can experiment with off-camera light, like an LED array (one with adjustable white balance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tate07

3) RAW vs. Jpeg... I would choose RAW any day of the week. There is so much more information there that you can use to recover a shot if you overexpose or underexpose it. I always shoot RAW+Jpeg Fine. It is redundant, but works for my needs. Try shooting RAW and playing with it a bit. Do you use Photoshop/Camera Raw or Lightroom?

---

I always prefer RAW (NEF in Nikonese). RAW allows all sorts of post-production corrections that are impossible, or nearly so, with JPEG, particularly adjusting the white balance after the fact. Oops, you had a tungsten white balance (3200K) accidentally in a sunlight (5500K) setting? Try to fix that in JPEG! Almost impossible, and being a lossy format, you're going to lose data anyway. But in RAW, just adjust the white balance (easy in Photoshop), and voila, you're at 5500K or whatever level you desire. There are several other adjustments as well, all made in RAW before the image is opened in Photoshop proper, for final adjustment and save as JPEG for the web.

Thanks everyone for the input and good information.

I guess though, what my actual question is:

Does the Full-Auto function on a camera such as the D5100 "top out" at some point... and have I reached that point?

I realize that I could achieve better results using other settings, but I simply don't have the time / patience to take a picture, readjust the settings, take a picture, etc. etc. When I shoot outdoors, there are usually numerous people about and I dislike gathering crowds. The auto function allows me to take about 500 pictures in just a few minutes, which is great.

Maybe there isn't a YES/NO answer to the question. Really all I'm looking for is the very BEST full-auto camera out there (with articulating view finder).

Well yes, it "tops out" with the inherent limitations of auto setting: there's only so much latitude that auto will allow, nothing like what manual will allow. I don't think you'll gain that much with a move to a D5200, D7100, etc. Moving up to FX (full frame) could help (larger sensor, eliminating the 1.5 multiplication factor of the DX level), but still you'll have auto limits.

Maybe the P (program) setting will be more adaptable to your sets? But I'd prefer going to aperature priority over Auto, so that you control the depth of field, which in itself could sharpen your images, so long as you know the distance you are from the camera for the exposure within the depth of field range. If you're not moving, then the shutter speed will not blur the image when it's snapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tate07

GroobyKrissy,

OK had to reread your intro. If I am understanding you properly...the answer is no.. it isn't impossible to get great pics from a D5100. A D5100 is a pretty darn good camera for the money.

A couple of thoughts that might help..

1) Shutter speed matters. As a rule don't go below about 1/60th of a second shooting people. Based off of their movement increase your shutter speed. typically in studio I will shoot no lower than 1/100th to 1/125th.. on locations I drop it to a minimum of 1/80th of a second (since I am generally using flash). UNLESS you are using a longer lens..don't ever drop below the focal length of your lens when shooting people. if you are using a 105mm then try not to drop below 1/100th.. a tripod will give you a bit of fudge factor to go lower but your results may vary( camera shake, wind, etc). People are 3 dimensional.. even if you think they aren't moving.. they are :P

2) Be aware of ambient light and how it affects your images. There are times when we can still SEE in the evening, but the camera doesn't see like our eyes. Your camera has limitations, all cameras do. ISO 200 will yield much better results than ISO 3200 or 6400 (less channel noise, and will look sharper) Do you shoot with a flash? If not you might think about getting one :)

3) RAW vs. Jpeg... I would choose RAW any day of the week. There is so much more information there that you can use to recover a shot if you overexpose or underexpose it. I always shoot RAW+Jpeg Fine. It is redundant, but works for my needs. Try shooting RAW and playing with it a bit. Do you use Photoshop/Camera Raw or Lightroom?

Hitting post..

---

1. I bought the camera as a kit so I just use the wide-angle lens that came with it... it is 52mm if that means anything. I always use a tripod when shooting. The camera guy said this Vanguard one ($206.99) is good and I've been happy with the results from when I switched from a cheapo Sony one ($29.99)

2. I NEVER shoot with a flash... Seanchai gave me that little bit of knowledge a long, long time ago. What frustrates me is when the lighting is fine but the picture comes out washed out. (see sample). It is like the camera cannot focus... or else I am just too white and I need my Asian card taken away from me. This just seems like it should have been a better picture. If I was wearing black stockings, it would have turned out fine... Is there a setting to compensate for that?

3. I use Photoshop CS6... I have Lightroom but haven't really spent the time to figure it out. Basically, I spend about 5 seconds editing / cropping / resizing / watermarking each picture. And that is how I need it to stay. I just don't have the time otherwise. That is mostly why I've stayed away from RAW but if there is going to be a huge increase in quality, I may change that and reduce my gallery sizes to compensate for the extra time involved.

The picture I was talking about in the previous post.

It really depends on the lighting. In good light, sun over the shoulder, the camera's program functions should perform well. As soon as you go away from that, against the light, low-light, whatever, you're making more demands, and eventually you'll run in to problems. The real question is 'Is your camera better at making exposure decisions than you are?' and for most beginners, the answer to that is 'yes'. The simple truth is it takes a long time to learn to be a good photographer. The best investment would be a workshop or two with a pro who has a proven track record in teaching.

I'm still curious about these 'washed out spots' and wonder if the problem here might be lens flare. Modern zooms have a lot of glass/air surfaces. They are not that easy to shade, but as soon as you work into the light they'll flare. Need to see um.

Having looked at the pics you posted in the other thread, I don't think the problem is your equipment. Even the RAW/NEF/jpg issue is not going to make much difference, because to see the difference, using RAW, you need a really good image to begin with....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

The picture I was talking about in the previous post.

---

Right, that's just over-exposed. Use your peview screen to check and then set the exposure compensation a stop under and see how that looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacShreach

Krissy,I looked at the pics in the k4u thread and I don't see a lot I'd put down to a problem with the camera. Some of your pictures are heavily backlit, and modern cameras will automatically expose for the foreground, which on digital will just blow the bright background to white. (Digital is actually more like transparency in its dynamic range, or latitude, than colour neg.) In backllit situations, use fill flash or a big white reflector to kick light back in without having to expose so much. In movie use a fixed light.

Your bedroom scenes appear to be lit by not very bright available light (which some of us know as 'available darkness'). To take in situations like this, in film, you'd use a wider aperture, a slower shutter and a faster emulsion. Digital cams it's the same, wider aperture, slower shutter, and more gain on the sensor. More gain on the sensor means more noise, which makes the image look 'grainy'. In situations like that you really do have to use lights to get a decent result. In addition, BTW, your camera is struggling to give a decent white balance in those pictures. Lights will fix that.

If you have a sharpness problem then that could be an equipment issue--autofocus problem most likely--but I can't see that in the pics. The camera you are using is well capable of decent images. Don't waste money replacing it just now, invest in lights and learn how to use them.

The advice to use manual is good but you need to learn quite a bit more before you can use that properly. The pictures look well-enough exposed, just the lighting situations are fiendish.

Post some others here to give a better idea of the issues.

---

As I take the majority of my pictures outside in public areas, I really don't have the luxury of having a big, complicated setup with reflectors and such.

Indoors though, I do have more than ample lighting (around 10,000 lumens of LED 6,400 (5?) K lights on three tripods. I think it is probably because I suck at interior decorating and always shoot against a glossy white wall. I have much better results when I actually set up a shoot against a darker backdrop. I was thinking about getting some reflectors and such though... perhaps that will help.

continuing (phone) keep playing with the exposure comp till the images look right. Now there are advantages tomoving off program to one of the priority functions, but you should understand depth of field first. If the camera is on a tripod as I think you said, you can safely go down deom the hand-holdiong minima someone suggested, in static poses like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

As I take the majority of my pictures outside in public areas, I really don't have the luxury of having a big, complicated setup with reflectors and such.

Indoors though, I do have more than ample lighting (around 10,000 lumens of LED 6,400 (5?) K lights on three tripods. I think it is probably because I suck at interior decorating and always shoot against a glossy white wall. I have much better results when I actually set up a shoot against a darker backdrop. I was thinking about getting some reflectors and such though... perhaps that will help.

---

In the studio ALWAYS GO MANUAL. It would not be dumb to buy an inexpensive incident light meter, or even an 18% Grey Card and meter off that. The reason is that white backdrops etc play hell with the camera's meter.

You can get Lastolite-type folding refelctors of Ebay for silly cheap. Good investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tate07

4) Try shooting in a priority mode or manual mode instead of full auto. If you give the camera full control of itself.. then it will do great on a sunny day shooting with the sun. Otherwise it usually fails miserably. your camera has a built in light meter reading a bit on how it operates will help you immensely (+ is overexposing - is underexposing) regarding proper exposure. Try to keep the exposure to in the middle of the meter. You will have situations where you need to adjust this on a case by case basis.

5) Gear matters. The quality of a Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 vs. a Kit lens 18-55mm. The 24-70 will blow it away for sharpness. If you stick in the DX range the 17-55mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens too. It doesn't mean the 18-55 is horrible, it just means the 24-70 is THAT much better. I shoot a D3 as my main camera and it still rocks because of the sensor. There is a big difference in sensor ability and results between a D3200 and a D4, but unless you plan on dropping 6k on a body you make trade offs. Never underestimate the importance of good glass(lenses).


Hitting post...

---

4. I have tried both of those and almost ALL the pictures in the gallery came out blurry. The ONLY setting that I've had that actually takes good pictures on the Interval Setting at 1 sec. is the Full-Auto setting. All others seem to come out way blurry.

5. Hmmm... this seems to be pretty widely contested. I've spoken with people who say that the lens doesn't matter when you use a full-auto fuction... only when you are behind the camera itself...? I don't have a problem dropping money on another lens as long as the results are sure... So you think a different lens would help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

The picture I was talking about in the previous post.

---

And....that picture desperately needs fill but not from the camera position but over to the right, deep, to lift the shadows which, when the highlight skin is exposed correctly, will be very dark. A reflector on one of your pods would transform it

It's quite amusng, (not at you Krissy) that everyone thinks digital makes photography easy. Actually digital is like transparency, long the standard that separated the sheep from the goats in exposure terms. It has very little tolerance for over-exposure. That image you posted above would still have been tricky, but would have held on chromogenic no trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

4. I have tried both of those and almost ALL the pictures in the gallery came out blurry. The ONLY setting that I've had that actually takes good pictures on the Interval Setting at 1 sec. is the Full-Auto setting. All others seem to come out way blurry.

5. Hmmm... this seems to be pretty widely contested. I've spoken with people who say that the lens doesn't matter when you use a full-auto fuction... only when you are behind the camera itself...? I don't have a problem dropping money on another lens as long as the results are sure... So you think a different lens would help?

---

Blurry? You need to show us this. I appreciate your need for privacy, but a squint at the original file would really help. Can you upload it someplace you feel comfortable with and post a link? Alternatively I'm happy to give you a real email for me and you can send it direct, only if you're comfortable with that.

Lenses always matter but actualy I doubt if this is the issue here. But without seeing the original I can't comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacShreach

Blurry? You need to show us this. I appreciate your need for privacy, but a squint at the original file would really help. Can you upload it someplace you feel comfortable with and post a link? Alternatively I'm happy to give you a real email for me and you can send it direct, only if you're comfortable with that.

Lenses always matter but actualy I doubt if this is the issue here. But without seeing the original I can't comment.

---

I'll take some more over the weekend and post here. For obvious reasons, I don't keep blurry pictures so I don't have any of the originals to share taken on those settings. I can easily strip metadata out that I don't want shared so that is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

I'll take some more over the weekend and post here. For obvious reasons, I don't keep blurry pictures so I don't have any of the originals to share taken on those settings. I can easily strip metadata out that I don't want shared so that is not a problem.

---

I think that's the best plan. The words 'Nikon' and 'blurry' shouldn't even be on the same page, so we need to identify your precise problem.

I use a cannon rebel

I found that the best photos or with soft big light. make or buy a soft light box

the bigger and softer the better or you are gonna have to bonce the light to make it soft

if you are outside you are gonna need a scrim to soften the light.

you need to do 3 point lighting

get yourself a light meter

I took a photography class at a community college..


http://photo.tutsplus.com/tutorials/...-for-under-20/

http://www.diyphotography.net/how-to...-diy-softboxes

http://www.instructables.com/id/Soft-Light-Box/


http://www.shortcourses.com/images/b...rgesoftbox.jpg http://sinnottproductions.com/wp-con...oint_light.jpg http://www.shopwise2000.com/producti...crimStreet.jpg

How to Turn a Hard Light into a Soft Light: An Important Video Lighting Technique

• Email

Video Lighting Technique: Turn a Hard Light into A Soft Light - YouTube

• Email

Video shooters benefit from knowing how to turn a hard light into a soft light, because most people look best under a soft light source. If you’re lighting a person, you’ll notice they look quite different depending on whether they’re under a hard light or a soft light. Here are the five most common ways that I turn a hard light into a soft light.


What is a hard light versus a soft light?

First, we need to discuss the difference between a hard light and a soft light. I’ve noticed that many people can’t look at an image and tell which is which. Here’s an easy way to figure it out:
Look at the shadow’s edge.

• If the edge of the shadow is a hard, sharp edge, then the light source is a hard light.
• If the shadow’s edge is a soft, gradual transition, then the light is soft.

And of course, it’s a sliding scale. You have a very hard light on one end of the scale, and a very soft light on the other end, and a lot of variations in between.
What makes all this work?
The Magic Behind Soft Lights

The main thing to remember is: the bigger the relative size of the light source (compared to the subject being lit), the softer the light.
Keep in mind that I’m not talking about light intensity here. That’s something different. It’s true that sometimes when you soften a light, you also reduce the intensity, but when I talk about hard and soft light, this is what we refer to as the light quality, or the quality of the light.
Remember that it’s the relative size of the light source, not just the size. As an example, if we used a regular household style tungsten light bulb to light my face, and we held it three feet away, it would be a small light source relative to the size of my head. My head is much bigger than that little light.
However, if we use the same light bulb to light the face of a Barbie Doll (whose head is, yes, much smaller than mine), then the resulting light will be a soft light. The bulb, even at 3 feet away, is still bigger than the doll’s head.
It’s the same bulb. The only thing different is the relative size of the light source compared to the subject. The bigger the relative size of the light source, the softer the light.
Diffusion Paper

If you want to soften the light a little, but not too much, you can clip a piece of diffusion paper over the front of it. Barn doors are great lighting accessories, because not only do they help you control spill light, they also give you something to clip your diffusion paper and color gels to. Most people use regular clothespins for this.
A piece of opal, or frost, can be a great thing to clip to the front of the light, and this will increase the size of the light source. It will also reduce the intensity by stopping some of the output, but remember there’s a difference between light intensity (output) and light quality (hard or soft).
Bounce Light

Bounce light, sometimes called a reflected source, can be a great option for softening a hard light source. To use this lighting technique, you need just two things:

1. a light source that you can aim
2. a reflective surface to bounce off

A common option for bouncing light is a white foamcore board. You can purchase sheets of these from your local craft store for a couple dollars each. They’re easy to use and extremely handy. My only complaint is that they don’t last long, so you’re constantly replacing them — but hey, they’re only a few bucks each, right?
You can use nearly any kind of surface. To soften the light, it should be a white surface so it doesn’t introduce additional color into the light. (Don’t use a shiny surface such as a mirror or aluminum foil, unless you want to blind your subject.)
If I need a bounce surface bigger than the small foamcore boards, I’ll usually pull out a diffusion panel with a reflective fabric on it, and use it instead of the foamcore.
Diffusion Fabric

When you watch behind-the-scenes footage on DVD’s, you’ll sometimes see large panels of white fabric suspended over the actors outdoors. These are large diffusion panels. They consist of a frame and a fabric. The fabrics are removable so you can swap them out with various levels of diffusion. Light diffusion will let the light pass through without changing the quality much, and heavy diffusion will change the light quality dramatically.
Smaller 42”x42” diffusion panels can be a good option for diffusing light indoors too. To use them, simply put the diffusion panel between the light and your subject, and then “punch” the hard light source through the fabric. This will diffuse the light, softening it, and it turns the fabric itself into the new light source. Because it’s a much bigger relative size, the light is now a soft light.
You hear a lot about people using other kinds of materials instead of actual diffusion fabric. I’ve heard of people using bed sheets, window curtains, even shower curtains as diffusion fabrics. While these are certainly inexpensive options, be warned that..

1. They might be highly flammable and catch fire if they get close to the hot light source
2. You probably don’t want to bring a shower curtain along with you if you’re doing client work. You probably wouldn’t do that, but just in case you were considering it… :)

Soft Boxes

My favorite way to soften a hard light is to put a soft box on it. One of the challenges of working with soft light is that it goes everywhere, which isn’t good. To paint with light, we need to control it, and a soft box gives you the best of both words. It’s a soft light, because you can get a big soft box which will give you a nice soft light. And it’s also something you can aim — especially if you put a fabric grid (sometimes called an egg crate) on it.
A soft box is a fabric box that mounts on your light. The light is inside the box, surrounded by four opaque “walls”, and the front of the box where the light comes out is nothing more than a diffusion fabric, similar to the fabric on diffusion panels.
Soft boxes are the most expensive way to turn a hard light into a soft light, but if you’re shooting video of people, they’re a necessity. There’s nothing else that gives you the light quality and the control the way they do.
I almost always use a soft box on the key light when I’m using three point lighting.
An Easy Option to Forget

One last option that I frequently use, but it can also be an easy one to forget — maybe because it’s so obvious?
You can move the light closer to your subject to increase the relative size, or move it further from your subject to decrease the relative size. In other words, move it closer to soften the light, or further to harden the light. (Keep in mind this will also change the intensity of the light, so you might need to adjust your video camera settings to get a good exposure.)
Other Options

Can you soften the light other ways? Sure. You can bounce it off the ceiling and walls. You can toss white fabrics on the ground and bounce the light off them. You can put a light inside a china ball.
You have many options, but my goal here is simply to introduce you to the most common ways that I turn a hard light into a soft light
http://www.izzyvideo.com/hard-light-soft-light/

3 point lighting
FIlmmaking 101 - Three Point Lighting Tutorial - YouTube


THE SCRIM

Tech Tuesday: Lighting Versatility with the Scrim Jim - YouTube

Mac hit the nail on the head. You have to think of digital like slide film..if you haven had experience with slide film that may be hard to do. The washed out look you are getting is due to overexposure. with slide film I always underexposed about 1/3 of a stop to create density in the transparency. try doing that a bit. see what happens..if you were standing infront of me in Florida, I could straighten it out for you in 15 minutes and give you a few rules of thumb to go by.

Krissy, if the above pic is an example of what you are running into with things going white..you are in a position where it is a combination of dynamic range and exposure.. in some cases you have to make a choice.. expose for skin tone, expose for highlights, or expose for shadows. given the wide range of exposure values in that shot, the camera is trying to make a best guess choice. In that case it exposed for middle zone values and blew out the skin.

As far as glass..there is no substitute for good glass and no amount of post processing can fix bad glass. Lenses matter and can make an ok camera better as easily as bad glass makes a good camera look horrible.

As far as RAW try it.. yes the results are useful.

I don't know you well and wouldn't presume to know your experience with photography, suffice to say that the deeper you get into it the more there is to learn.

A suggestion for consistency.. take one shot in auto mode.. read the metadata if the exposure is what you like.. then switch to manual mode with those settings.. your results will be more consistent and at least easier to edit... Just a thought.

-Trey

DIY soft boxes
DIY Soft Box Very Nice - YouTube

man of steel rocks btw... In case anyone wondering!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

man of steel rocks btw... In case anyone wondering!

---

Yes Krissy glad you liked it. Mos. def. something I'm going to see.:)