So I bought the new camera and lens - Canon EOS 600D + 18-200mm Canon lens - but the photos just aren't that stunning! They look fine on the tiny camera screen - sharp, crisp colours - but they looked faded on my laptop. The only saving grace is that I get more bokeh with this camera than my point-and-shoot. What am I doing wrong? Is it a RAW thing? Do I need better camera equipment like Chlidonias's top secret gear from Skunkworks (or is it DARPA? )? Or am I simply not a good photographer yet and need to understand ISO, shutter speed, white balance etc some more? Any thoughts on how to improve my photos? Cheers.
Show us some pictures you`re not happy with and then it`s a lot easier to help you. I doubt that the lens is the problem, at least not unless you look at the pictures in the largest resolution.
My camera equipment is not actually so fantastic nanoboy. And I don't why you think its so secret -- all you need to do is have a look at the EXIF data under my photos in the gallery and it will tell you which cameras I use I have two cameras and neither of them are fancy. My "proper" camera is a Pentax *ist DL (see here: Pentax Ist-Dl-Slr Review: Overview) which I got in 2006 basically because it was cheap and I was sick of the limitations of 24-frame film! The kicker with this one is I use the long lens from my old film camera on it so that I didn't have to buy a new one, but when doing so there's some technical reason which means the camera will only work on automatic functions. I can't change any of the settings. That's why so many of the EXIF readings are really odd and the real photographers probably look at them and think "why the dickens has he used an ISO that low?" or something along those lines!! My other camera is a Canon Powershot A470 (see here: Canon Powershot-A470 Review: Overview) which I got in 2009 I think, because when I'm travelling I can't be bothered changing lenses half the time so I figured if I got a little point-and-shoot model then I can use that for landscapes, buildings, people, whatever, and keep the long lens on my proper camera for animals that aren't very close. And again it was very cheap. I do like this camera -- its not fancy at all but it does produce really nice photos for what it is. At zoos I usually use this camera for the exhibit photos, and my other camera for the portrait shots. Both of these cameras need replacing though. The Canon is getting old (they don't last long these days!) and the shutter jams sometimes. And the Pentax I dropped on Rottnest Island last year and it hasn't been the same since. I'm going to be looking at cameras when I have money to spare. I really like Hix's camera. If you look at the two photos I've attached below this post, one is Hix's and one is mine with my Pentax, both are the long-beaked echidna in Taronga's nocturnal house. They were taken within minutes of each other in the same light levels etc. Its quite plain to see that the only explanation is that Hix's camera is magic!!! Personally I don't see myself as a photographer at all. I like using cameras, but I don't take it seriously. Its nice to get photos of the animals I see but if I can't then its no big deal. In your case I'd say that you just need practice. When I first starting taking photos I was crap at it. But the more you do it the better you get. The camera equipment you have isn't too important really. I know people may disagree but if you think of past wildlife photographers like Eric Hosking, Dennis Avon, Alan Root and innumerable others they didn't have anything like the equipment available today and they still produced magnificent shots. You can have limited equipment and still be a good photographer - it just takes practice and a good eye.
I should say too, that the two very best photographers on Zoochat in my opinion are nikola (see here for example: Poland - Wildlife Gallery) and gentle lemur
@Childonias I must I have just looked at Nikola's galleries and she is good infact she is very good and yes she and Gentle Lemur must be the best on here.
It might not be the camera or the photographer that's at fault - it could be your laptop. Have you tried viewing them on a proper monitor - preferably one that has been colour calibrated? Good equipment, basic knowledge and lots of practice can all help you to take better photos. But if you can't view the photos properly you'll never know if they are any good or not Alan
They are certainly good but i would have to add Eagle to that list - if i could get my photos even half as good i would be pleased. Fantastic composition as well.
Without seeing your photos of course it is hard to say. I will say the 18-200 lens is not great quality, but you should be able to get decent photos out of it (unless you are printing them out poster size). As a general rule, the longer the zoom range on a lens the lower the quality, meaning you would have better quality splitting the range up into two lenses, such as an 18-55 and 70-200 or even 70-300. Of course then you have to carry two lenses and switch them as necessary, so if you do not think you would do that then there is no point in having two. But as others have said, technique trumps equipment any day. Any professional photographer will tell you that. A lot of novices think that if you buy a pro camera you will automatically get pro results. That is like saying if the average driver goes out and buys a sports car they are ready to enter the Monte Carlo Grand Prix. Photographing in zoos complicates matters, because you get haze from wires or glass. Since you mentioned your photos look faded, that may very well be the culprit. Or maybe it is just sun flare and you need to buy the optional lens hood. There are techniques for improving shots through fences or glass, but I am rambling on so you can PM me if you need more tips. (BTW I work at a professional photo lab and teach photo classes and workshops, so I would like to think I know a little bit about the subject).
Thanks for the replies folks. Yassa: Great idea. I will post a few of my photos that just did not come out the way I thought that it would. Chlidonias: You are too easy to taunt and goad. You get great pics from your gear though. Great point about practicing more and a comparison between photographs of yesteryear and today's cameras. Gentle Lemur I don't think that it's an issue with my monitor, as professionally done wildlife photos look great. I have an ever changing desktop theme with a multitude of stock photos of raptors, and they look stunning. So it has to be my pics. Arizona Docent Cheers for the tips. I'll give you a discount on the Eiffel Tower. I think that I fell into the trap of being a novice who thought that the magic was in the camera, and not the technique. I got so accustomed to point-and-shoots on the 'Auto' setting, that I thought that the 'Auto' setting on a DSLR was a magic formula. I don't think that it was the fence or glass, because these shots were without obstruction. Sun flare sounds like it could be a culprit. I do wonder though, how much post processing is done on your awesome photos, folks?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I do a bit: I use Nikon Capture NX2 to process the raw file from the camera set white and black points adjust histogram curve check colour against original, adjusting as necessary save as TIFF file Then I use Photoshop crop to ratio (usually 1.414:1) resize to 800 pixels wide change to 8-bit colour mode unsharp mask save as JPEG The Capture NX2 changes are the skilled 'darkroom' type of work - I say that because it is exactly the same type of processing that skilled darkroom workers used to do to get the best possible print from a negative. Cropping takes some care as well, but the rest of the stuff with Photoshop is just routine. Like anything else, processing gets easier and hopefully better, with practice. Alan
I process my RAW files in Lightroom (don't let anyone ever talk you into using JPEG). On import, I have a profile that runs lens correction, automatically applies some finely tuned noise reduction (which depends on the camera and ISO), puts the files into the correct colour space, sets my benchmark processing points, which in general terms mean reducing the saturation and contrast and saves the files as DNG. Then it's a case of adjusting the white balance if needed, followed by a set of manual adjustments referencing the histograms. As Alan has said, these are all essentially modern darkroom techniques - Lightroom really can't be used as a cloning tool or to make people thinner etc. I then crop and re-adjust as necessary. The final step is to export, and the profile used depends on the destination of the photos. For the web it's a downward re-size and a conversion to sRGB with moderate sharpening. For print, I'd use the ProPhoto colour space and a sharpening algorithm depending on the size of the print. I hardly ever touch Photoshop. Incidentally... it's really important to use a good quality, calibrated monitor whenever possible, otherwise setting colours and contrast levels can be a really hit-and-miss affair.
There are some good workflow tips there for you Nanoboy, but put simply, the images from a DSLR must be processed. Your point and shoot processes to a much greater extent in the camera and the output is ready to go. Not so with an SLR, where a typical user doesn't want the camera to make irreversible assumptions on his/her behalf. You don't need to go straight to RAW though, there's much you can do with a JPEG and Photoshop Elements, even with 3 or 4 simple steps. Levels to adjust the brightness/contrast/colour of the image, a crop or a resize, then sharpening. I don't get any pleasure from processing my images, I spend too much time in front of a computer anyway, but, it has to be done
Thanks for the tips folks. Looks like I really need to use the software to improve my pics - clearly another skill that I need to learn. Speaking of which, I took a photo of a juvenile mandrill over Easter that I really like - see attached - and according to you, I can jazz it up a bit with some post-processing? Anyone want to have a go at a 'before and after comparison'?
On another note, do you folks use the auto-focus, or manual focus? I am finding that with static objects, the camera automatically focuses on the wrong things, especially if the scenery is quite busy. For example, it might focus on leaves or branches, instead of the koala! I seem to get better pics by focusing manually, but many times I think my subject is in focus (through the tiny viewfinder) but the actual pictures prove that I am still off by a bit (so chest feathers may be in focus, but not the bird's eyes, for example). Any suggestions?
I´m certainly not in a position to give photography advices, (I might have a good camera and equipment, but only because I inherited it and keeping it for sentimental value; I won´t pretend to understand all the functions and buttons), but one thing I discovered pretty soon was tripod. Everything else aside - the pictures are always better when I use a tripod. Automatic versus manual. - it depends on situation. E.g. manual when there is a fence in the way and auto-focus when trying to follow fast moving animal with my camera. I use Zoner to improve my pics. I don´t know, what the professionals will say, but I find it satisfactory and user friendly. But then again, don´t take me too seriously, I´m just a novice like you. Thanks for this thread, I might learn something here.
Nanoboy, I found that autofocus is great as long as you are aware of other factors. The first is the environment, as you mentioned - leaves from trees, grass, obstacles, or even wire on a cage. Your DSLR will have multiple AF points, you can see them in the viewfinder and in my Canons they show up as red when each one is the focal point. Usually, with multiple focal targets, they focus on the thing closest to the camera. So what I do is change the AF setting to centre focus only and then only the centre point focuses. The only time I go back to all points focusing is when I'm trying to get a bird in flight and there are no trees around, only sky. The second important thing to be aware of is depth of field: even if you have only centre focusing active, when you you have an animal nicely framed it's usually a part of the body in the centre of the frame, which is where the AF spot is. With a small f-stop (eg. f4) you'll find that the eye is just out of focus but the wing or flank is sharp. The easiest way around this is to position the centre AF spot on the eye, depress the shutter button half-way so it focuses, and holding the button half-way re-frame the subject and then press the shutter button the rest of the way. By holding the button halfway you are essentially locking the focus and allowing you to re-frame. Another option is to set your aperture at something larger like f10 which has a greater depth of field, although this will often result in a slower shutterspeed or higher ISO (or both) to compensate, especially if light levels are low or there are a lot of shadows or blacks in the picture. Slow shutterspeed can be somewhat remedied by the use of a tripod - as mentioned by Stefka above - but unless the animal is very still a slow shutterspeed will still produce a blur. Having said all that, some enclosures/cages can confound your autofocus and it will 'hunt' for the right focus, and this can happen in very poor light aswell. I discovered last week that most of the bird aviaries at Honolulu Zoo had a mesh that had my autofocus hunting non-stop, so I had no choice but to use manual focus. And most of the aviaries fronts were in the sun too, but that's another problem! Hope this helps. Hix
I'd leave that photograph well alone... On the subject of auto-focus, 95% of the time it's more accurate than manual, provided the camera selects the correct focus point. You can help it by doing that part, so instead of allowing the camera to arbitrarily select the point it thinks best, manually select the point on the subject you want in focus. The use of all the focus points is best reserved for birds in flight.
As a Nikon user I cannot comment on Canon autofocus, but I would certainly try to make the autofocus system work for you. Digital SLR viewfinders are not really built for manual focus in the way that the old 35mm ones were (in the olden times when autofocus was very expensive but not very accurate). I had a look at your mandrill - which is a very nice shot: as it is a jpeg file there is not very much you can do to it in Photoshop. I could make a few changes, but I tend to be criticised in photography forums for reducing the contrast and saturation of my images, so I don't like to do anything to other people's images. PM me if you want a personal version Alan
As someone said, that is a fine shot and it really does not need any work. The lack of harsh sunlight and shadow when you took the picture made your job much easier. Bright sun is the toughest thing to deal with in animal photography. Of course there are any number of editing programs and you could go nuts. Just for a quick exercise (since you asked), I added two filters from a program I bought recently called Nik Color Efex Pro 4. It is what is known as a plug-in program, meaning it only works in conjuction with recent versions of Adobe Lightroom or Elements or Photoshop CS. (In my case it is used with Elements 9). I used the tonal contrast filter and the black vignette filter. Just a quick and dirty job and I am not sure whether or not it is an actual improvement over the original. As for shooting RAW vs JPEG, every serious photographer except me will tell you RAW is the way to go. I have shot JPEG 100% of the time because RAW seems like an extra unnecessary step. But everyone says I am crazy, so just this morning I shot RAW plus JPEG for the first time during an outing to the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. I am going to test it to see if it really helps. BTW the photo on left is your original and the one on the right is my edit.
Hi folks. Thanks for the great comments. I will post a more detailed response later (off to work now). PS* Arizona Docent: for some reason I cannot click on your thumbnails to make them larger.
