# dissapointed 6d 100mm f2 and 24mm 2.8 (non l)



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

i took my 6d on holiday with my 24mm 2.8 (non l) and my 100mm f2 (non l) and the shots looked pretty good on the back of my camera. but after getting the raw files into light room, i am extremley disapointed with them, i expected a lot better shots than my old 400d , this is quite an investment for me, and to see the results so unimpressive is such a let down.

am i just being picky, for 2k worth of gear should i expect better than this? ive never been as dissapointed with a set of pictures than i am with these, it was my first proper foray with my new camera and although im no expert and i have taken some pleasing shots before with my old camera and the 50mm 1.8!

is it the camera or me?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

What don't you like about them? Color, contrast, OOF?


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!

id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent. im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2013)

The larger sensor, even over a APS-C will give shallower depth of field which some users just don't like. It also means AF accuracy is more critical, being off just a little affects the image noticibly.

At low ISO's, do not expect a noticeably better image from FF, that's not where the difference shows up.

I always recommend doing a AFMA on a new camera or lens. Using the rear LCD to determine sharpness can be misleading unless you put the camera on a tripod and use magnification.

If you have a close subject, using one shot can cause focus errors just do to tiny movements of your body.

Its a complex subject, and in order to help you, you need to post a link to a full size image and supply your camera settings. Otherwise, we assume that its a focus error just because it often is the issue.


----------



## hsbn (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!
> 
> id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent. im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.


Focus and recompose is a sure way to make your photo miss focus when shooting wide open.


----------



## Axilrod (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!
> 
> id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent. im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.



Sharpening out of focus shots isn't going to help anything. I wouldn't feel cheated unless no one had ever get a good shot out of that camera/lens combination, but that's not the case. It may just be that you haven't quite gotten used to the gear or something is configured wrong. It's much more difficult to shoot wide open on an FF sensor vs your old 450d though, DOF can get very thin, that's something to be mindful of. I'd shoot with it some more, try shooting with some better glass and see if you're happy with those results. If you're not go back to the 450D if you're happier with the pictures from that.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

Welcome to the world of 20d/5dc/5d2 6D AF.


----------



## Skirball (May 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Welcome to the world of 20d/5dc/5d2 6D AF.



Yes, my capture rate for getting an Egyptian pyramid in focus with my 6D is dismal. The AF just can't seem to zero in on it.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

Skirball said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the world of 20d/5dc/5d2 6D AF.
> ...



I concur. Better off using the old focus ring + eyeball combo. :


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!



In most cases, the problem is behind the camera and not in front of it.



jimjamesjimmy said:


> id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent. im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.



There's no way around it to pinpoint the cause, upload some raw .cr2 files somewhere, give us the link. If the focus is slightly off after focus & recompose that may be the 6d/5d2 af problem, but in any other case it'd be a combination of the mediocre af, wrong technique and weak postprocessing.

But don't be embarrassed: Canon makes its main profit from making people believe they can just buy being an experienced and good photographer...


----------



## Tanja (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i took my 6d on holiday with my 24mm 2.8 (non l) and my 100mm f2 (non l) and the shots looked pretty good on the back of my camera. but after getting the raw files into light room, i am extremley disapointed with them, i expected a lot better shots than my old 400d , this is quite an investment for me, and to see the results so unimpressive is such a let down.
> 
> am i just being picky, for 2k worth of gear should i expect better than this? ive never been as dissapointed with a set of pictures than i am with these, it was my first proper foray with my new camera and although im no expert and i have taken some pleasing shots before with my old camera and the 50mm 1.8!
> 
> is it the camera or me?



it´s you... trust me.


----------



## Tanja (May 6, 2013)

Skirball said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Welcome to the world of 20d/5dc/5d2 6D AF.
> ...



ROTFL.....


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

heres an example, consider i was using a tripod, i think the picture, though i like th ecomposition , the results form the lens and camera are uninspring, uneditied raw lightroom jpeg export , f10 iso 100 24mm.


----------



## Skirball (May 6, 2013)

Just to note: you mentioned earlier that "the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong", and here you post a jpeg from an unedit RAW. You realize that unedited RAW images are suppose to be flat, right?

As for the softness, that could come from many variables. It's not though, despite RLPhoto's beliefs, due to the 6D's inferior of autofocus ability. Any digital camera on the market could get that shot using automatic point detection. Most anybody could get it using the old focus ring + eyeball combo.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

so you shouldnt take a photo at f10 for a landscape shot?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

A few tweaks in CS3. You need to tweak the RAWs to get what you want.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 6, 2013)

Not enough info so far to give much useful advice beyond what Mt. Spokane offered. but one thing I've learned is never to take off on an important vacation with a brand new camera. I have sometimes needed a thousand or more exposures to figure out how to use a new camera body, even with my old lenses.


----------



## Skirball (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> so you shouldnt take a photo at f10 for a landscape shot?



No, it's fine. Diffraction shouldn't be any issue. In fact the spec for the 6D technically is f/10.5, but this is just a mathematical calculation. But it says that diffraction should start to have an effect at f/10, but that doesn't mean it's noticeable yet. I don't know much about the 24mm, but it any lens should be very sharp at f/10 on a 6D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

FWIW, I'd have used a CPL on the shot, which would have boosted saturation and contrast in a way that PP can't really match.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

i should have added, i did use a cokin CPL on a lot of these shots including this one.


----------



## weixing (May 6, 2013)

Hi,
May be it's the high temperature that cause the issue?? I once going for birding under a very hot afternoon and most of my shots come out either soft or out of focus, so when I use live view to try to focus, I realize that it's the heat wave that cause the problem... can clearly see that the image in and out of focus in quick succession... like shooting through a wave of water.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> so you shouldnt take a photo at f10 for a landscape shot?



You should the aperture that covers the depth of field you want to have in focus (2/3 in front, 1/3 behind the focus you tell the camera) - if it's f10 that's what it is, diffraction only really shows at much smaller apertures depending on the lens maybe f16+ ...

... but if you have the choice or want to evaluate sharpness take the shot at the aperture your lens is sharpest at, and that very much depends on the lens but is afaik always <f10 even on lenses that need to be stopped down. In your shot, I don't think f10 was necessary, because the both subjects quite far away so the area covered by the dof will be large ... cheaper or older cameras even have an a-dep mode to tell you what aperture you need.



jimjamesjimmy said:


> i should have added, i did use a cokin CPL on a lot of these shots including this one.



I'm hesitant to use a cpl as a general color pop filter, but for removing haze (your shot) or reflections - esp. with wider angles you quickly get sky color differences that are impossible to remove in post, ymmv.


----------



## mb66energy (May 6, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Not enough info so far to give much useful advice beyond what Mt. Spokane offered. but one thing I've learned is never to take off on an important vacation with a brand new camera. I have sometimes needed a thousand or more exposures to figure out how to use a new camera body, even with my old lenses.



+1 !

I am just learning to use my 40D right and get the most out of it - I bought it in 2008 ! O.k., I am no professional shooter but I do reflect what I am doing deeply and have some extended knowledge about technical details of photography, electronics, etc. (as every physicist).
For me it is a joy to use an instrument over half a decade or a decade because I learn to master the tool - instead of being masterd by the tool ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i did use a* cokin CPL *on a lot of these shots including this one.



I see...in that case, a little softness at f/10 (which should be quite sharp, otherwise) doesn't come as a surprise.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 6, 2013)

i suggest you do a bit of reading about RAW files.

RAW files need to be EDITED to look good. 
it´s no suprise an unedited RAW will look flat and colorless.

there are a few good books and tutorial videos out about RAW editing.




> uninspring..



well no camera will help you with that.


----------



## hgraf (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off, i was in egypt so light wasnt a problem, and i was also trekking in uganda and the landscape shots just lack punch. the colours and contrast just seem a bit wrong. out of 1000 pictures and some extensive sharpening, there arnt that many im happy with!
> 
> id upload a few shots but frankly im embarresed. i feel a bit cheated out of money spent. im gonna have to rent an expensive l lens and compare, but at the moment, im really disheartened.



OK, there are 2 issues here.

First is focus: you mention alot of light, were you shooting wide open? It's possible your focus and recompose is affecting your focus if you're shooting wide open, especially for objects that are closer.

As for "punch", are you just looking at the raw images? Those will lack punch and contrast, that's something you adjust in post. You posted a short of the pyramids and yes, that lacks "punch", but then you didn't do any post on it, so it's what I'd expect.

When you open a "raw" image it will seem quite flat, that's normal.

Can you upload a few of the raw images so we can have a look? If your landscapes are being shot at narrower apertures and they still look out of focus I'd say the problem is probably the equipment.


----------



## hgraf (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> so you shouldnt take a photo at f10 for a landscape shot?



As with everything it depends.

On the one side, at f10 with a FF camera you are starting to hit the diffraction limit, so there might be a little more softness in your image then at f8 or f5.6. Of course there are a TON of other factors at play here, your lens is one of them.

OTOH if you need to have a wide DOF you don't really have a choice, it depends what you're doing. If you taking a pictures of mountains in the distance and want the grass field in front of you to be in focus you might have to sacrifice some sharpness to get the DOF wide enough to catch everything.


----------



## bear (May 6, 2013)

It is impossible to take picture in hot air at big distance. Even perfect camera, lens, focus and exposure will not help. Wait for colder weather or wake up early morning to take better picture on places like this.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i should have added, i did use a cokin CPL on a lot of these shots including this one.



what type of cokin did you use? (i.e. cokin a, p or z)


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

hgraf said:


> OTOH if you need to have a wide DOF you don't really have a choice



You do - use focus stacking.


----------



## Frodo (May 6, 2013)

I remember disappointment going from my 20D to a 5D (mkI). The RAW files needed a fundamentally different approach to get the best out of them. I suspect it is the same with your 400D / 6D comparison. As others have said, RAW files need processing, otherwise they will be flat.

I doubt very much that it is a focus problem (unless you have a really sick camera). The 24/2.8 is not one of Canon's best lenses, but the 100/2 is very good. So I doubt it is your gear. Spend a little more time in processing.


----------



## hgraf (May 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> hgraf said:
> 
> 
> > OTOH if you need to have a wide DOF you don't really have a choice
> ...



Depends. If you're subject is changing, focus stacking might not give you the result you want (i.e. grass waving in the wind). Sometimes the only way to get the shot is to increase the DOF.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

hgraf said:


> Depends. If you're subject is changing, focus stacking might not give you the result you want (i.e. grass waving in the wind). Sometimes the only way to get the shot is to increase the DOF.



Correct, I just didn't want to elaborate on focus stacking but just mention that it isn't only good for macro shots but you can do nice 100% dof landscapes with it, too - in many cases when something is in motion you might get lucky and the software will figure it out and still assemble the shot correctly w/o artifacts.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 6, 2013)

hgraf said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > hgraf said:
> ...



ANY image like the one the OP posted should basically be completely in focus regardless of the camera's focusing system when shooting a 24mm lens at f/10. He doesn't even have to have his camera in AF or even look through the viewfinder as long as he's focusing a little beyond the hyperfocal distance. There is nothing significant in the foreground of his shot, so I'm assuming he's focusing somewhere at least beyond 8"- which would give him focus from 3'7" to infinity.

Not sure why focus-and-recomposing as an issue or the 6D's inferior focusing system came into play on this thread, or solutions like focus stacking with a distant landscape shot.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

^I'm sure that the OP took more photos than just a distant landscape... :


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 6, 2013)

yeah i took lots of different shots, there are 1000 photos! but alot of them are landscapes, and i was trying to experiment with different settings, wide/small apertures, tripod,mirror up, polarisers,and a nd grad , but im still generally disappointed with the results. they were quite hard shots, big landscapes, sunny/steamy weather maybe the 24mm lens just wanst up to it, maybe i wasnt up to it , but i expected to get at least get lucky enough a few times! ive used photoshop and raw processers alot before so its not like im forgetting to process, 3 years ago i went to mexico with a 400d and a 50mm 1.8 and i came back with so many sharp good looking pictures, this time around it was a complete failure on my part!!!! im very confused!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> maybe i wasnt up to it , but i expected to get at least get lucky enough a few times! this time around it was a complete failure on my part!!!! im very confused!



I'm also rather new to photography, but in this limitied experience I'd say that "semi spray'n pray", i.e. having some clue but also relying on luck, heavily depends on daily form (I hope I got the correct word, I'm not a native speaker). 

On some days, I'm just producing crap shots, no matter how many shots I take. This is indeed confusing but I have learned to recognize this and settle back accordingly. I understand this separates an amateur like me from a pro who can take good shots in any situation no matter what.

Still, you can learn from it - after calming down look through the shots, try to identify what you can recover in post and what you did wrong while shooting, read up on composition and then do better next time w/o relying on lucky shots


----------



## DJL329 (May 7, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> heres an example, consider i was using a tripod, i think the picture, though i like th ecomposition , the results form the lens and camera are uninspring, uneditied raw lightroom jpeg export , f10 iso 100 24mm.



The first thing that I noticed was all the empty space in this photo. With the 24mm at that distance, the pyramids look rather small, which IMHO is _why_ they look uninspiring. Did you try the 100mm from that location or get closer to them?

Also, when shooting in the middle of the day, the sun makes your subjects look flat, which is why you don't see much detail. Shoot earlier in the morning or later in the day, when the sun is lower in the sky, to get better lighting and warmer colors.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 7, 2013)

theres lots of space because its a desert! thats what i was trying to get across. i have hundreds of different pyramid photos, but this is sadly one of the more successful captures.


----------



## skitron (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> theres lots of space because its a desert! thats what i was trying to get across.



A bit off topic I suppose, but depending on what you plan to do with the output, another thing you might play with is cropping at different aspect ratios to emphasize the horizontal vastness. I kinda like 2.66:1 (cinema) to 3:1 aspect ratios for shots like you posted. Might make for an interesting framed/matted print - or might not be your cup of tea - just tossing out an idea. Below is a cinema (2.66:1) crop.


----------



## risc32 (May 8, 2013)

i don't think you've commented on what has been done here by a few members with your shot. are they fairly close to what you were hoping for? when you where getting stuff you liked with your older camera, were you also shooting it in RAW? have you changed your editing since? What about the "picture styles"? you say they looked pretty good on the camera's LCD but then not so much on the old computer? maybe you should shoot RAW + jpg, and see how raw's need some extra love, or just shoot jpg for a bit and see how that goes.

your posted shot certainly isn't lacking from recomposing, AF performance, diffraction limits, depth of field or bad lenses. I don't know the 24mm first hand but at f10 nearly every lens can get it done. i do know the 100mmf2 first hand, and it's very good. 

I also wouldn't have guessed you used a CPF for that shot, not that it changes anything.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 8, 2013)

Just to add for the shot in question - I got a Cokin circular polarizer with a used copy of a 70-200 f/4L IS and after a short time of use, quickly replaced it. I found it a very inferior filter. I do have the Cokin P square filters, but only use those in certain situations.

When I went from primarily using a 60D to a 5DII, I was initially disappointed. I expected to be mesmerized, and I wasn't initially. FF sensors produce a broader range of color, and your approach to post processing has to be, by nature, somewhat different. Once I became accustomed to the new workflow, I found that that I didn't enjoy the results from the 60D nearly as much.

That being said, I saw an immediate difference when going from the 5DII to the 6D (which I now own two of). Better tonal graduation and a much cleaner output. I love them.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > i did use a* cokin CPL *on a lot of these shots including this one.
> ...



yep i think its inferior quality filter that might be the culprit try a high quality hoya or B+W


----------



## DJL329 (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> theres lots of space because its a desert! thats what i was trying to get across. i have hundreds of different pyramid photos, but this is sadly one of the more successful captures.



There's lots of space not because it's a desert, but rather because of _where_ in the frame you placed the subject. In fact, the empty sky, not the desert, takes up more than half the frame! Some quick horizon basics. Also, there's nothing on the right side of the frame to draw your attention over there, so there's no balance -- it's just wasted space. Finally, study the Rule of Thirds to get better placement of the subject in the frame.


----------



## Aglet (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i suppose it is the focus, i only used the centre point and recomposed, but so many the focus is off..



Just to confirm, did you have the AF option set to single-shot? if so, focus and recompose should work fine on that example shot.

If it was set to AiAF or any other mode then the system may be AF-ing on something else as you re-compose.
Even experienced photogs can sometimes miss that little detail when rushed.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 8, 2013)

thanks for all the input , yes i had it on one shot focus, i used back button focus also.

i like waht people have done with the picture, but my point wasnt really about the composition, i have many variatins of this photo examp[e, more sky, less sky, foreground people at different area of the frame etc l its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from. even when processing, im struggling with getting good punchy images. i did used to shoot raw before aswell.

i suppose my problem could be dealing with subject matter, the heat and humidity might be one fo the problems i was encountering, plus possibly poor quality Polariser. i was going for the wider landscapes this time, rather than a 'street' style were everything is closer.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from.



Unless you post a full resolution image we'll never be able to tell, will we? If this board doesn't allow such a large attachment upload it somewhere else like imageshack and give us the link.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from.


With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.

Also, you have to get up early in the morning or wait till sunset to get great landscape shots. If that is not possible than try bracketing your shots and have a go at HDR.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 8, 2013)

what basic rules of photography have i not applied? aside from the rule of thirds.


----------



## Jura (May 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.
> 
> Also, you have to get up early in the morning or wait till sunset to get great landscape shots. If that is not possible than try bracketing your shots and have a go at HDR.



With due respect I have to tell you that you come across as an ass in this post...having seen the comment you posted, I feel that it is your lack of tact that is the cause, there's nothing wrong with your spelling or grammar...that post clearly shows that basic manners were not applied. I'm sure you've got lots of other posts with better levels of politeness, if so you should have referred to those in terms of how to behave in this instance instead of posting this rude drivel.

In other words:
easy on the personal attacks, the guy asked for some advice about why the image quality he's getting from his new gear isn't as good as he hoped for and you start laying into his composition and saying he lacks skill and did not apply the basics of photography?!


----------



## Don Haines (May 8, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jimjamesjimmy said:
> ...



I concur. When I got my 70-200 I also bought a cokin circular polarizer for it. With it on, all shots were soft. With it off, they were sharp. I returned it. It cost me a week of fuzzy pictures to find it out.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

Jura said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect, I have to disagree with you ... having seen the pic you posted, I feel that it is your lack of skill that is the cause and there is nothing wrong with your camera or the lenses ... that image clearly shows that the basics of photography were not applied. I know you say you've got lots of other photos with better composition, if so, you should have posted those images instead of this very poorly composed image.
> ...


"personal attacks"? ??? ... relax a little and read my post again, there is no personal attack. :


----------



## Don Haines (May 8, 2013)

There are a pair of great articles from Roger at Lens Rentals about filters. The first one, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/12/the-glass-in-front-of-your-glass-all-about-filters, is a general article, but the second one, http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters, shows the effect of a bad filter on your image.


----------



## oscaroo (May 8, 2013)

Gday.

I can relate to jimjamesjimmy
I have a 6d, a 24 f2.8 non IS, a 100 f2 and I recently went to Egypt!
Here's a photo.

I found that Egypt photos are tricky. 
Firstly, the sky is always dusty, even a clear day is still kinda dusty.
Secondly, it's really really bright. Which means, everything is pretty bright and stuff can wash out and you need to raw it back into reality, with bits dark and bits light.
Thirdly, the "picture style" can help, like 'Landscape". Not in this case though.

When I view my photo, and view your photo, they both look "equally as bland" in terms of colours. However, I recall that during the trip, the photo I took is /exactly/ the way it really looked like in the day.

Sometimes the expectation of what you want it to look like, is nothing like what it looks like. This results in you having to 'raw' it waaaaaaaay more.

First attachment was raw'd by DPP
Second through LR4. Different settings though. (I just raw'd this one right now)

I now think the second photo is better :/ but the first one is more realistic and took less time to prepare


----------



## oscaroo (May 8, 2013)

Also .. I wasn't using the 100 f2 nor the 24 2.8 non IS.

That was with the 24-105L I think.

If you look at the-digital-picture resolution charts, you'll find out that if you're shooting at small apertures there isn't any point to using a prime lens.

I find my 100 f2 to be inappropriate to use during the day. Too easy for purple fringing to occur if the AF misses, at f2.

The 24 2.8 has beautiful softness/vignetting off centre. So it's good to focus stuff in the centre. For daytime, it's ok - but watch the flare! That lens LOVEs to flare.


----------



## Albi86 (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> thanks for all the input , yes i had it on one shot focus, i used back button focus also.
> 
> i like waht people have done with the picture, but my point wasnt really about the composition, i have many variatins of this photo examp[e, more sky, less sky, foreground people at different area of the frame etc l its more the actual image quality theres no core quality to the photos to develop from. even when processing, im struggling with getting good punchy images. i did used to shoot raw before aswell.
> 
> i suppose my problem could be dealing with subject matter, the heat and humidity might be one fo the problems i was encountering, plus possibly poor quality Polariser. i was going for the wider landscapes this time, rather than a 'street' style were everything is closer.



Photos on snow/sand in a sunny day are tricky. Haze (especially in long shots), reflections, dark shadows, etc. 

The polarizer is supposed to solve some of the issue. It might be that you didn't set in the right position.


----------



## rpiotr01 (May 8, 2013)

I was in Armenia about a month ago and ran into similar trouble with landscape type photos. There was a haze everywhere in mountain valleys, nothing could be done about it. I imagine being in Egypt is the same - between heat and crummy air quality certain kinds of photos during the day are just going to be bland. As others have said, you have to go early or late, but sometimes on vacation that isn't possible due to schedule or safety concerns so it is what it is. In those cases you concentrate on not the big, grand shots that you can't get but the smaller ones that you can that still hopefully tell part of the story in a creative or personally meaningful way. 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I hope you enjoyed the trip otherwise, and I'd bet the farm the 6D and 100 f2 will give you lots of quality shots in the future (it's one of my favorite lenses!).


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 8, 2013)

oscaroo said:


> Also .. I wasn't using the 100 f2 nor the 24 2.8 non IS.
> 
> That was with the 24-105L I think.
> 
> ...




yeah i chose that 24mm becuase of the image quality at the wider end (according to those charts) compared to more expensive lenses was pretty close. (plus i got a deal on ebay) i was hoping it would make a good all round travel /landscape lens. would people agree with that? 

it is a coincidence you have the same set up, yes the pyramids sites were dusty and bright, i wish i hadnt turned up at 2pm but for me it was either early afternoon, or 8am (due to my schedule) shame they dont let you into the site at sunset or sunrise.

i am confuused now though, for landscape shots, where overall focus is desirable, what is a maximum aperture, people are saying oooh f10, youll get diffraction, but i thought that was a good trade off between diffraction and overall focus. would an f5.6 have been better? sharper?


interestingly the other area i visited was a wet uganda in the higlands, same problems, though slightly better results. the humidity and the overall cloudy mistiness was part of what i was trying to capture, but this gave flat pictures, others have taken good shots in these areas, so one day i must be able too!


----------



## Jura (May 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Jura said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...


well if they're not a personal attack and that's your normal way of offering advice, critique or just passing comment then I hope you dont have your heart set on a career as a diplomat...


----------



## rpiotr01 (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> i am confuused now though, for landscape shots, where overall focus is desirable, what is a maximum aperture, people are saying oooh f10, youll get diffraction, but i thought that was a good trade off between diffraction and overall focus. would an f5.6 have been better? sharper?



I think the diffraction thing is way overblown. Nothing wrong with f8-16. OOF areas are going to look a lot less sharp than in focus areas with a little diffraction in play.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

Jura said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Jura said:
> ...


Fortunately my career does not require your "hope" :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> what basic rules of photography have i not applied? aside from the rule of thirds.


Here are some basics:
1. The time of day for landscape image (I live in Qatar, a country which has the *exact same* landscape as your image ... Minus the pyramids of course) ... for that landscape (or any for that matter) the best time is around sunrise or sunset. Don't get me wrong I've made plenty of images far worse than the one you posted here. After screwing up many images, I know a little more than before.
2. Knowing that heat waves in the air cause images to look flat.
3. Not trying bracketed shots for HDR
4. Not getting closer to the pyramids ... Of course this may not have been possible
5. Knowing cheaper filters cause such results (btw, I am an expert at not learning this lesson many times over)
Peace


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 8, 2013)

1.the pyramids only open from 8am and shut at 4 or 5 , not great for the magic hours. and my trip dictated an early afternoon visit.

2. see above

3.i dont feel the need to bracket shots for hdr ( not my thing) , though i did take a variety of differently exposed images 

4.i took lots of images of all the pyramids at different angles/distances. this is just one shot.

5. agreed.

i do not agree with the castigation that i dont follow the rules of photography. your points arnt photographic rules they are desirable situations.


----------



## MarkII (May 8, 2013)

Why do you think HDR would help? It doesn't look like an image that is suffering from burned highlights or shadows.

Also it is unclear to me what the OP is looking for. If it is not pixel-level sharp, then maybe heat-haze or the polariser are the problem. If it is just lacking a general 'pop', then I agree that earlier or later light may have helped by perhaps bringing out some more texture in the sand.

FWIW, I usually hate any new camera's output for the first few weeks. But it is almost always just a question of figuring out the lens/exposure/PP tweaks that give me the image style that I want. Mostly I find very little difference in image quality between crop and FF for images like the OP's (big DOF, low ISO... shallow DOF and high ISO are another matter, however).


----------



## Skirball (May 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> jimjamesjimmy said:
> 
> 
> > what basic rules of photography have i not applied? aside from the rule of thirds.
> ...



Heatwaves cause images to look flat? I'd think it makes it soft.

And I'm going to have to disagree with the HDR statement. It's great for expanding your dynamic range, but not so much for adding interest to uninteresting photos. Well yeah, it was the first dozen times or so that I saw it, but that wore off.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> 1.the pyramids only open from 8am and shut at 4 or 5 , not great for the magic hours. and my trip dictated an early afternoon visit.
> 
> 2. see above
> 
> ...


There is no "castigation", too bad you feel that way but that was not my intention and neither did I say that you "*don't* follow the rules of photography" ... I don't even know you so I can't make that assumption ... but I have said that, you did not follow the basic of photography for that images you posted. Basics of photography is not only just about rule of thirds, f-stops, shutter speeds etc. Knowing the characteristics of your subject is part of the basics of photography. Agreed we have no control over many things, in this case the opening hours of the pyramids, but what is in our control is knowing the limitations of our tools and not being "disappointed" with those tools which cannot produce the results we want, in certain situations with out good quality accessories (in this case a good quality filter) believe it or not, knowing that is also part of basics of photography.  In the case of that image and with the tools you had and the situation you are dealt with, the only option I can think of is bracketing the shots for HDR ... that could have made the image a lot more colorful with a bit more pop.


----------



## Rockets95 (May 8, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I've used the Cokin P system with their split neutral density filter and feel the photos were "mushy" in the neutral density area of the photos. I quit using it. Your high quality FF sensor likey doesn't play nice with a low quality CPL.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 8, 2013)

MarkII said:


> Why do you think HDR would help? It doesn't look like an image that is suffering from burned highlights or shadows.


HDR is not just limited for "burned highlights or shadows" ... I make images in the desert all the time with exactly the same kind of landscape as in the image posted by the OP (minus pyramids of course) ... tomorrow I'll post some images I've made to show what HDR can do in similar conditions (I'm not at home right now and do not have access to my external drive that has those pics).


----------



## MarkII (May 8, 2013)

If they are not burned, you can simply process a single RAW image. The only downside to this is noise/banding if you push shadows too much - though there aren't really many shadows to push in the OP's original image (which is possibly the main problem...).


----------



## Axilrod (May 8, 2013)

I wonder if the "waves" from the heat inbetween you and the pyramids is causing the lack of perceived sharpness. I don't know the technical term, but you know in the summer when you look at the road or the hood of your car and it blurs everything?


----------



## Skirball (May 8, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> I wonder if the "waves" from the heat inbetween you and the pyramids is causing the lack of perceived sharpness. I don't know the technical term, but you know in the summer when you look at the road or the hood of your car and it blurs everything?



It's from the refraction of light as it goes through air of varying density. And I think it's a decent guess that the combo of that, and the apparently bad Cokin CPL, that caused the softness. But the conversation seemed to move on from that into a chest thumping competition of the 'rules' of photography.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 8, 2013)

Skirball said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the "waves" from the heat inbetween you and the pyramids is causing the lack of perceived sharpness. I don't know the technical term, but you know in the summer when you look at the road or the hood of your car and it blurs everything?
> ...




im trying to bring it back, lol i think wihtout uploading alot of different shots and comparing then to others of mine, i dont think i can get across my original point that the results i got from a 2 week holiday with my new 6d and fairly new lenses, to two interesting places were wholly dissapointing compared to previous exscursion on my 400d where i was happy with the results, forget the pyramid picture, that is just one photo from 1000! i just thought the investment , though no way in making me a better photographer, would improve the quality of images overall by a degree or two. being full frame , new tech, better glass etc but in fact my photos seem to be worse! less sharp focus, lots of off focus shots, i thought that centre point was meant to be good! i need to take lots more shots i guess. any way im disheartened and confused. i seriously miss my 400d and the nifty fifty!

im also paranoid that my lenses micro adjustments are off, and that my 6d is dodgy! is it worth getting then once over, just for piece of mind?

points to be taken away, get a better polariser/filters! if im serious about getting some good landscapes. be more aware of pollution and heat haze, compensate, i still would rather take a picture in these situations than avoid taken one all together. but be more creative. also i should probably take every photo following the rule of thirds exactly, or maybe i should implament a golden ratio grid to my viewfinder


----------



## Mika (May 8, 2013)

I'm a bit late from this bandwagon, but I'd also venture to guess it's the heat waves & sand in the air (seems a bit yellowish to me). Focusing through these is difficult to any AF-system, they cannot detect the presence of heat haze. The other possibility is a bad filter, try it out at home on mid day to see whether it degrades the image or not, I have had it happen to me with telephotos, but not with wide-angles. Your luck might be different.

I haven't figured a way of getting good landscape shots during mid-day, but that's my limitation, there's bound to be someone who can, but I'm not also a full time pro. I have climbed on top of a volcano to shoot about a hundred of photos there at the height of 3 kilometres, not realizing that the metering is different from sea-level due to 30 % more solar radiation and considerably less atmospheric haze - you can imagine the success rate... Should've brought CPL and a ND grad there, but that thought simply didn't cross my mind. But you learn something new every day.

I don't know, it's just a thought of mine, but occasionally it also pays off to exaggerate the natural phenomena. In your case, I don't know how it would have looked like if shot wide open and slightly closer to the camels so that they would be in focus and the background not. But then it wouldn't have been a landscape shot to begin with.

I wouldn't strictly adhere to rules of thirds, it's sorta saying that averagely stuff looks better if placed here, keyword being _averagely_. When on vacation and I was carrying a 28/1.8, I think I did have to apply a bit more contrast on the scenes to get them more to my liking compared to 85/1.8. But that's just a tad more, and I haven't tried 28/2.8 either.


----------



## risc32 (May 8, 2013)

i see this thread has gone to looney town, i'm out.


----------



## myone (May 9, 2013)

> i just thought the investment , though no way in making me a better photographer, would improve the quality of images overall by a degree or two. being full frame , new tech, better glass etc but in fact my photos seem to be worse! less sharp focus, lots of off focus shots, i thought that centre point was meant to be good! i need to take lots more shots i guess. any way im disheartened and confused. i seriously miss my 400d and the nifty fifty!



This is exactly what happened to me when I switched from my reliable 40D to 5D3. I got so used to the images captured with the 40D and its editing styles that quite a number of the pics taken with the brand new 5D3 seem awkward. I was complaining about the colors, contrasts, this and that, and finally, I realized it was me. The high expectations from all the $ spent on a more updated and sophisticated body is the reason why - at least to me. I expected too much but soon learned the proper way to work around it.

Take some time to properly edit images takes with your new 6D, and after a while, go back to the photos captured with your 400D. Look at pictures taken at night and day, and I can bet you, you will like the pics from the 6D more. 

OTOH, I find that HDR does have its advantages. I have taken a lot of dull landscape pics that were turned interesting with punches using HDR technique. Properly edit the stacked images using Photomatix or some sort, and finalize with Photoshop or Lightroom will definitely give you the images you like.


----------



## oscaroo (May 9, 2013)

Gday about depth of field.

It's proportional to aperture, distance, and focal length.
At your distance I'm pretty sure it would have been in focus at wide open.

Check dof master website, google it, and learn some sample values.

Also, just like one doesn't run a marathon with brand new shoes, one should never go on cold turkey and move to a new camera just before a holiday without learning it's strengths and weaknesses.

I had my 6d 3 months before going to Egypt. And I when I buy a new lens I learn all I can about it. Resolution chart, vignette, dof., flare, color. Etc.

This way I will never find myself at a critical situation wondering what just happened.


----------



## bholliman (May 9, 2013)

I agree with what several others have said about the dust and haze affecting the quality of landscape shots in Egypt. I have never been to Egypt, but have done a lot of photography in desert regions of the US. I recently visited Big Bend National Park in Texas which is a desert/mountain environment, and the conditions were very dry and windy. The dust limited visibility to maybe a mile or two our first two days there, it cleared somewhat on our final day. We camped over the weekend and had a good time, but almost all of my landscape pictures were very disappointing due to the air quality. 

We visited the same park two months earlier and I came back with hundreds of excellent photos. The difference was the clarity of the air and some awesome sunsets on the first trip. Same gear (6D with 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 II) and same (limited/developing) photography skills, vastly different results due to the environmental conditions.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 9, 2013)

I have shot enough in Arizona, USA and Southern Israel (similar harsh light during midday and dust in the air) to know that if you don't shoot at the right times of day, you WILL get harsh, flat images. Filters help, but it's a battle, even in post processing. 

That dust in the air becomes a major advantage in the morning and particularly in the evening, however, producing amazing sunsets unrivaled in other environments. It's difficult when you can't control the time of day you shoot, because I think you will find that the really stunning pictures of the pyramids were almost certainly not taken at the time of day that you were shooting.


----------



## jimjamesjimmy (May 9, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I have shot enough in Arizona, USA and Southern Israel (similar harsh light during midday and dust in the air) to know that if you don't shoot at the right times of day, you WILL get harsh, flat images. Filters help, but it's a battle, even in post processing.
> 
> That dust in the air becomes a major advantage in the morning and particularly in the evening, however, producing amazing sunsets unrivaled in other environments. It's difficult when you can't control the time of day you shoot, because I think you will find that the really stunning pictures of the pyramids were almost certainly not taken at the time of day that you were shooting.



its interesting doing a quick search on google of pyramid images, most are pretty average, and alot have what ibelieve to be skys added into them in post processing.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 9, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I have shot enough in Arizona, USA and Southern Israel (similar harsh light during midday and dust in the air) to know that if you don't shoot at the right times of day, you WILL get harsh, flat images. Filters help, but it's a battle, even in post processing.
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised if that is in fact the case.


----------

