Hi All,

I couldn't find a related topic in forums (maybe there's if so it's my mistake) but i need tips about clarity tips, i used D40 D80 D300 and now D700, especially i hated D300 all my pictures were muddy, i'm new to the D700 so i don't have too much idea, do you have some methods or what are the things i should care to have clear pics?


Regards

Not sure I understand Uzay. Muddy ? like soft ?
What lenses do you use ?

Actually not the sharpness i mean they're not clear, i saw some pics especially in fashion, still life photography some crystal clear pics but i could never managed to make pics like those. I used several lenses i don't think that it'S about sharpness, it looks like dealed with some pc skills i guess.

for fashion it just could be lighting related. or PS. or both. or lens. or camera. bit difficult to say like this. do you have an example of a photo by someone else, and then one of your results to compare ?

Exactly.
Show us examples, please.

http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2d658c606a3e3b596e56a02.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bde5fa695cec10a0c3ac0ae.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f39c159ae8ba98d9888ad56.jpg


are some examples

The look of the example images are obviously results of postwork but I would not say that there is an extraordinary clarity or quality.

The sunflower image shows an unnatural sky (blue clouds),
the scond one seems to be a HDR/TM image (see the bright halos around the hills),
the third one is a montage with fairly good lighting

I cannot see really outstanding quality here.

lol... so much for fashion and macro.

the first one seems like a complete post processing job to me. Either the photographer worked separately on the sky, or the sky is just pasted in from another photo. And he probably worked quite a bit on the colors of the sunflowers as well. but do you want your photos to look like that ? Personally I think the colors look very fake and the flowers in the back stand out very weirdly (cut out feeling) against that sky (which is why I think the sky might just be pasted in).

little idea about the second one. it's a landscape which is pretty sharp throughout. but hard to tell what editing has been done. for all I know it's a HDR job. Those greens look a bit wrong to me though. But can't really say more.

number three... well that is terrific work. Not sure what has been done in PS. first I thought he had just photographed a shoe hanging from a string and then cloned out the string and added that movement blur in the back of the shoe, but the shoe laces aren't hanging down which would indicate the shoe was actually thrown or moving fast. suppose he did some PS on it though.

but I don't really understand the relevance of these examples to the question you ask. like the 3rd one is just a (very good) photo using very narrow dof. Quite a bit of grain. perhaps he pushed the yellows a bit more (the carpet) in PS but the yellow was probably already there because of the lighting. probably the 3 examples were taken with a tripod though. perhaps may explain something ?

edit : oops, KPK beat me to it.

OK:) Let's forget the examples and could you please tell me about what you do in ps to make photos more clear?

seems to me that 'clear' here is related to how vivid the colors are. Not exactly my field (colors) I'm afraid Uzay. guess the basics in PS would be levels and curves (apart from taking the photo with good light in the first place), but not even sure, as I really struggle with PS myself. Sorry I can't be of more help. Perhaps one of the landscapers or macro people can jump in ?

(cowardly runs off)

KoPi, yes vivid colors maybe, sorry, maybe i couldn't tell what i mean exactly, my english sucks :)

No it doesn't Uzay. It's better than my Turkish and I spend 3 years in Turkey

If you shoot raw, there are setting in Adobe Camera Raw for Clarity, VIbrance & Saturation. There are also sharpening tools. You could probably get the type of "clarity" your looking for there...

I'm not 100% sure what you are requesting Uzay but I think you are enquiring about the vividness of colours that the camera produces. I have used the D40 then D200 and now use a D300 and to be honest am amazed by the richness of tones and colour out of it but I did need to alter a few settings in it to get my desired preference. Then you must also match and calibrate your PC monitor, viewing software, editing software and finally printer to ensure that what the camera records is faithfully represented throughtout the path through your processing to final use.
Briefly here is my set up:
D300: sRGB, Standard Picture Control but with 1 click + for contrast and saturation, Sharpness is max + clicks, 9
The Colour profile in NX View is set to sRGB.
Calibrated monitor using Spyder2 every 4-6 months, it drifts very slightly.
Elements 5 colour profile set to sRGB space.
HP 9180 printer aligned with sRGB and I use HP papers and the profile plug-in for PS CS2, I print from here but edit in Elements.

All in all, I get sharp very crisp and high clarity images in camera and the final prints are exactly as i see them on my monitor, well better actually as you'd expect.

Hope all this helps,
John

Thanks a lot Clyde, i'll try the settings you've mentioned, actually i hated when i use D300, it was totally different what is see in camera's LCD and the product at the end on my computer, i tried too many variations but still pictures like how can i tell...as if muddy, rusty...

Now i use D700 and as far as i can see, thing are going better, i'm too new with D700 but as time passes i'll see the exact results.

Uzay,

I used a D60 before. I've upgraded to a D90 not so long ago, and I also found that my photos looked "Muddy".

I first blamed the preview version of raw converter (Bibble), but even the jpg's that came out of the camera were not all that sparkling as my D60. Especially the shadow areas looked dull. Now that I've switched ADR off, things have improved. I never used ADR on my D60 because it was to slow.

Maybe this helps ?

Joris.

You can't rely on what you see in a camera's LCD in regards to quality? Composition maybe? The d300 produces very good images that however need processed. It is all part and parcel of the processing of an image. You have to "buy" into the process. No camera produces good images straight off the camera

My Nikon One Touch that I paid $9.95 for does...

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2009/09/walkin-burbank-2/

My F100 that I paid $165 for does...

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2009/08/joshua-rocks/

Both of these are not post processed at all, just scanned and re-sized for web using Photoshop.

This is a image shot with a Lumix LX-3 point and shoot, only processing was to convert to B&W using Nik Silver Efex Pro. This was captured as a jpeg...

http://www.clydebeamer.com/2010/01/walkin-burbank-18/

I can get decent unedited jpg out of my FujiS5 too:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4274347596_7e07ef2afd_o.jpg

I guess nowadays it has to be heavily PP to be perceived as good... ;)

I'm not sure I agree with this bob, my wife's camera produces perfectly acceptable images of the family with no processing at all, my D300 in Fine JPEG mode shooting a correctly exposed image produces brilliant results with no processing required.

I do happen to shoot all my landscapes in RAW with the Picture Control settings optimised to my prefered tastes and many come out of camera with a straight convert to TIFF and I believe would be more than presentable, I do however choose to apply minor processing tweaks for artistic and aesthetic reasons to further enhance them but I simply cannot say that my camera cannot produce good images straight out of it.

Many sports and newspaper photographers shoot and send images straight to desks from events, their images straight from camera must be perfectly adequate I would have thought?

Unless I'm mistaken, of course.

JP