New D90 Taking Surprisingly Average Pics

[No Crust Racing]

Yeah I'll reset it tonight and see what difference that makes, to be fair I have played with quite a few settings

To be honest, I'd expect that even "crappy" kit lenses should smash a basic point and shooter without needing to be a pro photographer to make it so.

We'll see what resetting the settings does. I might also do some testing with the 55-200

[MaTBoY]

to be honest, i dont see a problem with those shots. The problem might be the picture you see isn't what you were trying to capture, or your expectations from the camera in auto mode.

There's more settings, more options, more information. It's kinda like the difference between describing something to someone who knows nothing, or describing it to an expert.

Like explaining a car to your girlfriend (Point and shoot) It's a red car and it's new.

'cool'

Or to an expert it's a red car and it's news

'what make model?'

what year?

what mods?

power output?

RWD?

blah blah

you need to fill in more blanks to paint a richer picture or tell a more detailed story.

[No Crust Racing]

Yeah I get what you're saying.

Am I the only one who thinks that on "actual size" the engine bay of the car doesn't look that clear or that the pictures of the book look a little soft around the edges? Surely that's not being too picky?

I guess I was under the impression that given the camera has a much wider ange of settings to choose from it would be smart enough to outdo a point and shoot on auto in most situations.

[ZENNON]

Am I the only one who thinks that on "actual size" the engine bay of the car doesn't look that clear or that the pictures of the book look a little soft around the edges? Surely that's not being too picky?

By actual size you mean when zoomed into 1:1? I'll be amazed if you can find any kit lens (or any P&S) that can produce sharp clear pics at 1:1 crop

I guess I was under the impression that given the camera has a much wider ange of settings to choose from it would be smart enough to outdo a point and shoot on auto in most situations.

Yes it can - maybe do exactly what you said - do some side by side auto tests (making sure settings are reset) - then go from there

OR if you care that much you could always do something crazy like getting a good lens for $137

then you can do some side by side comparisons at 50mm between the 50mm lens and the 18-55mm kit lens

[No Crust Racing]

Yeah will do the rest and test tonight

Appreciate the help so far guys

[ZENNON]

Some day time testing might be good too (since that's probably what would would be doing most of the time)

[No Crust Racing]

The dog and car shot were daytime and well lit, the book shot was around 6pm but under the pergola.

I've found that without the flash It's almost impossible to get a good shot in low lit indoor scenarios so far, I wasn't overly impressed by the fill of the flash either, and by fill I mean how deep into the photo it can light up. (Trying to take photos of someone doing a speech from a respectable distance for example)

But we'll get to that

[siddr20]

i cant see any pics?

[No Crust Racing]

Links are still working for me?

[siddr20]

I didnt bother reading all the text.. was waiting for pics to be posted in here lol..

where are the links?

[No Crust Racing]

OK here we go.

1 - UV Filter, no timer - just press botton

2 - UV Filter with timer

3 - No UV Filter and timer

4 - No UV Filter, no timer, no steady base (I'm holding the camera)

5 - Random shot of the dog, clarity here is quite good even at "actual size" when viewing on the PC. Camera is just being held in hand, set to auto with UV in place.

6 - Random shot from the Hot Rod Run - Camera held in hand, UV in place, on Auto - Clarift of the engine bay/components is average at actual size.

All in all though, clarity isn't stellar though the Dog shot isn't bad, the first four shots that were on a solid base look like they could use some extra lighting or something and the hot rod shot seems like maybe the reflecting light from all the shiney stuff is upsetting the camera maybe?

Thoughts?

Voila.

[siddr20]

Your file download should start immediately.

If it does not start automatically, please click here to start the download process.

man just host pics with photobucket and copy IMG tags in here.

[No Crust Racing]

I put them on flicker not realising it resizes them, then just chucked them up there as I already had an account for work.

I reckon you'll be ok

[siddr20]

just feeling lazy.

[No Crust Racing]

You and me both..

[funkymonkey]

man just host pics with photobucket and copy IMG tags in here.

i actually prefer file hosting over image sharing, at least they don't fuck with your photo and ruin the metadata etc.

[siddr20]

Never had a problem with that.. must be just you lol

[No Crust Racing]

This was another thing I thought about when you guys said you wanted untouched images, when I realised flickr was altering the image I opted for basic file hosting.

[siddr20]

No idea about flickr as I dont use it.. But never had a problem with photobucket ever.

Dan - just open up image in lightroom or photoshop. Resize to 1024 max width or height.. then apply slight sharpen and save as srgb jpeg.

Perhaps your uploading rgb format images. If thats the case then colours will look off. srgb is best view on web browsers.

Then upload to photobucket (which is free). Then just copy the IMG tag link in here. Saves people clicking on links and downloading each image.

my 2 cents.

Edit: how is flickr altering your image? As in what happens?? Millions of people use flickr so doubt it is.

Edited November 9, 2010 by siddr20

[No Crust Racing]

Happy to do that next time, but I'm not about to go back and do it for these ones unless the consensus is it's killing people horribly to click the current links lol

there's that laziness coming out..