Need some pointers.

Just got back into photography after an almost 20 year hiatus. Took a trip to Idaho last month and snapped a few shots from the side of the highway as the sun was setting.

What can I do to make them better?

Your shots are nice. I am assuming you are interested in what you can do in photoshop to make them better so I took the first one and made just a few quick edits to show what you can do. Honestly is all a matter of opinion and what you prefer... just play around with the program and get comfortable with the tools.

First thing I did was a slight rotation as the horizon looked slightly tilted. Then I applied the Shadow/Highlight filter to bring out more of the foreground. Slightly bumped up saturation and then select dodging and burning.

If that last shot is straight out of the cam then you sure nailed the exposure and had good light on that one.

If you're shooting jpegs then playing with the in-cam settings will go a long ways towards good images with little PP, if you shoot RAW then learning how to adjust your RAW conversion settings and learning some PS tricks like Russell mentioned above is the way to go.

They look like fairly nice shots to me. Did you shoot raw ?

I was shooting in jpg at the time. I only recently switched the setting to raw. I don't understand the difference, though. I only switched because everyone said I should. Now the camera records two images, one raw and one jpg on my card.

Digital is a different world!

With a jpeg the image is "developed" from the RAW data by the processor (computer) in the camera itself. With a RAW image you need to "develop" it with your computer using software of choice.

Doing the conversion yourself with your computer allows you to control just about every facet of the image. If you let the cam do it, it's based on the jpeg picture styles (Canon) or whatever Nikon calls their jpeg settings.

You have a more limited ability to digitally manipulate an image if it's already in the jpeg format.

I like the last picture, that turned out great.
Correct me here, but if you shoot jpeg & have CS3 you can process it using Bridge's Camera Raw.
Also isn't saving both images using (" wasting" ) a lot card space?

---

quote:

Also isn't saving both images using (" wasting" ) a lot card space?

---

Thats why you get a big CF card.

A couple of those shots may have made cool HDR images.

I can manipulate all of my jpegs using the RAW sliders in Aperture as well, (that feature is not limited to CS3) but trust me you can't push the levels with a jpeg and squeeze all of the dynamic range out of a jpeg like you can with a RAW file regardless of the SW.

I agree with you about that last picture, it's a great example of how perfect light and exposure almost eliminate the need for PP. I'd have bet good money that shot was processed in PS or some other SW if Barry hadn't told us those were all straight from the camera.

All the shots were toyed with in PS, they weren't straight from the camera.. well, I guess I should qualify that. Do you mean straight from the camera in jpg? I opened them up last night and used some layering darkening thing until they looked right to me. Here's the originals.

Looks to me like you're already getting it figured out!

I thought that one shot looked pretty good for an out of the cam jpeg (unless you had the picture settings all cranked up.)

The more I shoot JPEG images, the more I lose faith in its ability to find a nice white balance.

There's too much red in the above photo. Run it through PS or Lightroom's RAW editor and hit "auto" in the white balance settings. Those little flowers that are on the weeds are supposed to be yellow, right?

You might want to try shooting at a smaller aperature. Looks like you shot those at f/5.6 Landscape shots are about crystal clear images from high f stops and long exposures. Put the camera on the tripod and then set it and forget it. Usually horizons smack dab in the middle of the frame is a no-no but it works here because the jagged mountain range breaks it up. Looks good.

Rich, trust me.. I got lucky. I have next to nothing figured out- in life or Photoshop.

I didn't mess with any camera settings or picture settings.

Scott, those 'flowers' are dead. They may have been yellow at one time, but certainly not when I was in front of them. At least not yellow enough for me to take notice.

Antonio,
Okay, I'll work on that. I know they're not crystal clear but the colors looked pretty nice to me and I couldn't pass then up. Thanks.

barry, have you thought about taking up line dancing?

just kidding dude. just keep practicing. buy a book or something. better yet, pick a color. then take pics of stuff w/ that color using different settings. go home and review. the next day, apply what you learned and pick a new color. take pics of stuff w/ that color using different settings. go home and review. you see the pattern?

Scott,

Do you calibrate your monitor?

The AWB on the mkIIn was supposed to be fixed and most guys rave about it. The shot above you're talking about has a red bias to it but looks OK to me given the lighting of the shot.

The monitor I was viewing the pics on earlier is calibrated. The thing is that I've been shooting a lot in mixed lighting lately so I can't really slight my camera. I just feel like I have to go back and clean things up sometimes.

Joe, that color tip is a great one. I'm lurking in this forum learning from you guys. Taking it one step further (for me at least) would be to shoot the same image or scenery from day to day, making adjustments as I learn.

I love it that all of you experienced guys share so many tips with us that are new to it.

no prob, dennis. i'm a rookie as well when it comes to photography. i actually got the color tip from bug. it's a great tip and probably a cool way to learn. and one of these days, i'll try it.

Can I hijack?

Barry, these are beautiful images. Looks like the Eastern Sierra from highway 395 in the fall.

Your photos offer a perfect example of something I am struggling with in learning to use my new DSLR. When I look at these photos they appear out of focus. Looking at the reeds, grasses and the tree in either the original jpeg from Barry's camera or the PS version, all seem slightly blurred. Same with the "golden hour" photo of the sunlit mountain across the open plain.

On another recent thread Rich was trying to help me with discerning the difference between camera shake, subject motion and out of focus blurring. These shots look very much like the images I'm getting with the Canon XTi and the kit lens, EF 18-55 3.5/5.6.

If you agree that these images are not tack sharp, what is the cause and the remedy? I don't like using PS to sharpen images because of the artifacts introduced, so I'd like to fix it at the point of creating the image if possible.

Also, Rich mentioned that because of the very small sensor and FL on the point and shoot camera many photos might appear sharper by comparison because of the greater depth of field. I don't understand how the greater depth of field of the point and shoot should make any difference beyond 30 feet. Shouldn't most everything in these shots be perfectly sharp with either system because the subject is at infinity?

It looks like everyone of those photos was shot at f/5.6 so that might explain why some of the shot is a bit out of focus. (SDOF)

You are always going to be challenged with sharpness issues if you are not using a quality tripod (the good ones cost at least $300) and a release (although you can cheat by putting the timer on 2 seconds or so). That and a nice small aperture will go a long way. Some use the mirror up function as well but I think that is mainly for macro shots or shots taken with a really long telephoto.

When you are making your decisions regarding aperture you need to decide which situation you are in

1) Storytelling -- ~f16 and smaller -- You want everything in focus. Think the grand landscape shot with a nice foreground as well as distant background

2) who cares -- about f11 -- You subject is up against a wall or something and you want to get the subject sharp but the background is so close it is going to be mostly in focus no matter what you do. Think studio portrait

3) Subject Isolation -- Less than f4 or so -- You want to isolate the subject from the background (or foreground).

Your shots are primarily story telling and should have a much smaller aperture.

A great book on the subject is "Understanding Exposure"



Later

Bakes

PS --> Don't forget to turn off the VR or IS if you are using a tripod

One more thing. A graduated neutral density filter will help you expose the foreground better while not blowing out the sky

Les,

Another factor that may be causing a difference in what you're seeing between the 2 cameras is the in-cam sharpening. Again a P&S is set up to sharpen quite a bit by default, the XTi way less because Canon figures most people buying a DSLR will figure out what they need and may want to do it all in PS. If you take RAW images out of the XTi into the Canon bundled SW: DPP and turn sharpening off in the SW's processing module you'll really freak out. An unsharpened RAW image straight off the sensor ain't pretty. Most P&S's up until recently didn't even offer a chance to shoot and save in RAW. Bakes is right on about the tripod, when I really want to compare 2 lenses for IQ I always do test shots off a pod. It's the only way you know you've eliminated all the other variables that can affect the image.

For the graduated neutral density filter I thought I might use my son's stunner shades and just hold them in front of the lens. (on a tripod, of course)