Photo-a-day

[Blastuk]

Yeah, I know about the marks. I wondered whether to clone them out, but she really wasn't bothered and so I didn't worry about it.

But interesting that you comment on it, so obviously it's noticed more than both her and I anticipated.

In future, I'll certainly offer to remove them

I know it's a lot harder to judge your own photos, it's just a lot easier to see flaws when viewing other people's work.. strange that.

The skin showing at the bottom is pretty much competing with the face at the top for the eye's attention.

[r_j_k_p]

Criticisms/Praise welcomed.

[Blastuk]

Not critique, but from the looks of the bokeh it looks like it was shot with the 50/1.8

[r_j_k_p]

Not critique, but from the looks of the bokeh it looks like it was shot with the 50/1.8

was shot with the 18-55 lens @ 35mm

Shutter speed 1/1000
Aperture 4.5
Iso 100

[j.o.s.h.1408]

flour doesnt seem sharp enough imho.

[r_j_k_p]

flour doesnt seem sharp enough imho.

is that something that maybe decreasing the aperture size would help with or is that just due to an inexpensive average lens?

[kalniel]

I wouldn't expect a cheap lens to be shown up at that kind of resolution, decreasing the aperture might help get the back of the flower more in focus, but I don't think it's critical as it should still look sharp at the front.

My take is simply a lack of micro contrast makes it look less sharp than it could be - this is partially a byproduct of the lens, but equally it's a side effect of the bayer filter in cameras and possibly your resampling method. Oh and the jpeg seems to have some compression artefacts.

But onto the praise - I think it's a lovely photo. Really nice composition.

Here's what it looks like after a small amount of tweaking in the GIMP - though the compression artefacts have been shown up more, if I was doing this properly I'd sort that out too.

[Blastuk]

I wouldn't expect a cheap lens to be shown up at that kind of resolution, decreasing the aperture might help get the back of the flower more in focus, but I don't think it's critical as it should still look sharp at the front.

My take is simply a lack of micro contrast makes it look less sharp than it could be - this is partially a byproduct of the lens, but equally it's a side effect of the bayer filter in cameras and possibly your resampling method. Oh and the jpeg seems to have some compression artefacts.

But onto the praise - I think it's a lovely photo. Really nice composition.

Here's what it looks like after a small amount of tweaking in the GIMP - though the compression artefacts have been shown up more, if I was doing this properly I'd sort that out too.

Interesting take on things, I'll give that a try next time I see an image I don't think is sharp

[kalniel]

Interesting take on things, I'll give that a try next time I see an image I don't think is sharp

Well, it won't apply to every image But there's a checklist you can use to rule out the obvious causes:

Motion Blur/Camera shake: I hope not at 1/1000s!
Subject out of focus: Can you see anywhere else in the picture that *is* in better focus? I would be amazed if front focus was an issue with a close up subject like that, we can rule out back focus because the front of the flower is clearly sharper than the back.

Sure, the 18-55 is a poor lens, and it's not going to be easy to create really sharp macro-like photos with it, but if it's lack of contrast then USM will instantly make the photo look sharper - all USM does is increase micro-contrast. This helps counter the effect of a soft resampling method as well.

Finally canons tend to overexpose - this is usually a pleasant thing actually and aids getting the creamy smooth DSLR look they've got a reputation for (at the entry level). But that's the great thing about editing tools - we can darken the mids and raise the black level, while leaving the flower (highlights) alone.

[Blastuk]

Well, it won't apply to every image But there's a checklist you can use to rule out the obvious causes:

Motion Blur/Camera shake: I hope not at 1/1000s!
Subject out of focus: Can you see anywhere else in the picture that *is* in better focus? I would be amazed if front focus was an issue with a close up subject like that, we can rule out back focus because the front of the flower is clearly sharper than the back.

Sure, the 18-55 is a poor lens, and it's not going to be easy to create really sharp macro-like photos with it, but if it's lack of contrast then USM will instantly make the photo look sharper - all USM does is increase micro-contrast. This helps counter the effect of a soft resampling method as well.

Finally canons tend to overexpose - this is usually a pleasant thing actually and aids getting the creamy smooth DSLR look they've got a reputation for (at the entry level). But that's the great thing about editing tools - we can darken the mids and raise the black level, while leaving the flower (highlights) alone.

yeah, I noticed that it wasn't blur/shake or focus, just always amazes me how much better a picture looks with (more)contrast.

[r_j_k_p]

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Well, it won't apply to every image But there's a checklist you can use to rule out the obvious causes:

Motion Blur/Camera shake: I hope not at 1/1000s!
Subject out of focus: Can you see anywhere else in the picture that *is* in better focus? I would be amazed if front focus was an issue with a close up subject like that, we can rule out back focus because the front of the flower is clearly sharper than the back.

Sure, the 18-55 is a poor lens, and it's not going to be easy to create really sharp macro-like photos with it, but if it's lack of contrast then USM will instantly make the photo look sharper - all USM does is increase micro-contrast. This helps counter the effect of a soft resampling method as well.

Finally canons tend to overexpose - this is usually a pleasant thing actually and aids getting the creamy smooth DSLR look they've got a reputation for (at the entry level). But that's the great thing about editing tools - we can darken the mids and raise the black level, while leaving the flower (highlights) alone.

USM does more than increase the contrast. i heard its fast and accurate at auto focusing your shots and is generally more quieter during operation too.

The 18-55mm is an OK lens from what i have seen but compared to a USM lens or even an L lens its a no brainer as long as you take full advantage of the benefits of the more expensive lenses. Like you said Kal in another thread, taking a good picture is mostly down to the person behind the camera.

Once i get the very best out of my 18-55mm lens i will upgrade and i suggest others do the same otherwise your pictures wont look any better on a USM lens :S

@RJKP. Nice pic but imo i feel the background either needs to be a tad sharper( so the overal feel of the image is sharp) or more blurred out if you want the monkey to stand out more.

[kalniel]

USM does more than increase the contrast. i heard its fast and accurate at auto focusing your shots and is generally more quieter during operation too.

USM in this context means un-sharp mask, a post process technique.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Some Pictures mesing around with my new flash using my stock 18-55mm lens:

[Bobster]

Day 14

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Hows the tamron 17-50 F2.8? i heard its a bit noisy at focusing and is not that reliable?