No "clear" pics with Kr and 18-135 lens

kh1234567890 · 09-22-2011, 01:14 PM

Still hard to tell. It is probably post processing that is making them look a bit fuzzy. A quick contrast and saturation tweak, remove that blue cast, take out the bit of CA, a bit of sharpening - and you can almost smell the wet leaves and moss

:

Last edited by kh1234567890; 05-04-2015 at 08:48 AM.

**paulh** · 09-22-2011, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by New Englander

that's what i am thinking. says size limit 1024x700 and mine are 4288x2848

Sorry, forgot about the size limit - I just wanted to make sure the EXIF data was intact by not modifying the photo. By the way, your photos aren't that bad, other than overexposed a bit. As others have said, read up on depth-of-field, and how it affects how the subject and background appear in a photograph. Lots of resources online, and I highly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson: Understanding Exposure photography book review

New Englander · 09-22-2011, 04:48 PM

Thanks for everyone's input. Because it is the same with both lenses I think it's me more than the
equipment. Thanks for your advice and will check up on your suggested reading. Guess I am so used
to film that digital is a different learning curve in a way.
And yes, the photo's aren't that bad, just need some slight improvement on my end.
Thanks again from New England.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist?	lovemehate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm"	hoomanshb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-30-2010 09:50 AM
K-mount Experts: How to convert a "KAF2" lens to "KF"?	panoguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	07-08-2010 05:20 PM
kid pics with my "new" Pentax-F 35-135	mbh	Post Your Photos!	3	03-24-2009 04:58 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

09-22-2011, 01:14 PM	#31
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Still hard to tell. It is probably post processing that is making them look a bit fuzzy. A quick contrast and saturation tweak, remove that blue cast, take out the bit of CA, a bit of sharpening - and you can almost smell the wet leaves and moss : Last edited by kh1234567890; 05-04-2015 at 08:48 AM.

09-22-2011, 01:59 PM	#32
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,301	Originally posted by New Englander that's what i am thinking. says size limit 1024x700 and mine are 4288x2848 Sorry, forgot about the size limit - I just wanted to make sure the EXIF data was intact by not modifying the photo. By the way, your photos aren't that bad, other than overexposed a bit. As others have said, read up on depth-of-field, and how it affects how the subject and background appear in a photograph. Lots of resources online, and I highly recommend the book "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson: Understanding Exposure photography book review

09-22-2011, 04:48 PM	#33
New Englander Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 216 Original Poster	Thanks for everyone's input. Because it is the same with both lenses I think it's me more than the equipment. Thanks for your advice and will check up on your suggested reading. Guess I am so used to film that digital is a different learning curve in a way. And yes, the photo's aren't that bad, just need some slight improvement on my end. Thanks again from New England.