[brightseal]

Where do you live? Is it crappy?

yes NJ is crappy!

[micromacro]

No I'm serious

Can you describe what exactly you don't like about your pictures?
By numbers, what's wrong in #1, #2, etc.

[brightseal]

Can you describe what exactly you don't like about your pictures?

They are just too plain , nothing exciting, not interesting.

[micromacro]

They are just too plain , nothing exciting, not interesting.

It's not the camera makes them exciting or interesting.
But I did not explain my point: I'd like to hear detailed analyses from you, by numbers, WHY you think they are not interesting.

[brightseal]

WHY you think they are not interesting

Hard to articulate except to say It's just an aesthetic type of thing, a certain feeling I get when I see an interesting photo. I would like to be able to take a pic of a hole in the wall and make it look interesting, or a door or a cat or whatever. How to manipulate light in order to create something interesting in a photo? pic #1 could be more detail. pic #2 it's just a duck #3 out of focus/not sharp just doesn't "pop", uninteresting. #4 Is just a photo

[TER-OR]

#3 macro photography - DOF is king (exposure second). If you're shooting like this try for f11 or higher, f16 is good for the 100mm macro lenses. You'll need a lot of light, center-point focus and shutter speed high enough to compensate for motion. Flash helps provide the required light.
Field macro is a skill which takes a lot of practice.

[Na Horuk]

Well then I suggest you find photos that you DO find interesting and emulate, copy them. This will let you figure out what they are doing that you need to do, and then you can build on it.
That said, your photos are not garbage. They are decently detailed, focus is right, colours are there. Dunno what you want, but a photo of a resting goose can only be THAT exciting. To make it more exciting, you have to lie down, take it from an odd perspective, give the goose some food, have it interact with other geese, etc.

I think your problem is that you don't "touch" the subject. You don't interact with it, you don't position yourself for it. You walk around, see a duck, take a shot, continue walking. That is fine. But if you want a National Geographic type photo, you will have to spend an hour with that duck, day after day. And one time it will do something interesting, or there will be cool weather, or you will learn its habits and take the best photo possible. And this goes for PP as well - you can easily add more saturation, sharpening, contrast.

But again! Those photos are far from garbage. Just because they aren't at Ansel Adams level doesn't mean they are terrible.

[micromacro]

Hard to articulate except to say It's just an aesthetic type of thing, a certain feeling I get when I see an interesting photo. I would like to be able to take a pic of a hole in the wall and make it look interesting, or a door or a cat or whatever. How to manipulate light in order to create something interesting in a photo? pic #1 could be more detail. pic #2 it's just a duck #3 out of focus/not sharp just doesn't "pop", uninteresting. #4 Is just a photo

#1 more details- close aperture more, but keep in mind that the background will be busy as well. Personally I think that the crop should be either tighter, or with more background space.

#2 Nothing wrong with the duck as a subject. It's just the angle which makes the duck boring, and your aperture settings, imo. Also the harsh light can be both: advantage and disadvantage.

#3 I like that shot, it just needs tuning up in LR or Photoshop. Check the macro club, and macro by any means thread here. You can learn about macro, then decide how much efforts to invest in macro. To me your picture is good as close up macro.
#4 Same here, it's nice shot, but need either flash, imo, or post processing.

I took liberty to slightly adjust two of your images in LR. What do you think?

[Sagitta]

From a quick glance at the four samples (if I had to critique), in order - focus is off, focus is off, focus is off, and thats actually a really nice photo. Maybe a bit of minor tweaking could make it pop more, but thats about it.

All three of the 100mm Macro shots seem to be front focused by just a smidge - it could need a minor adjustment in-camera to tell it to backfocus a touch more. I've never touched he setting on my K-3 (I mostly shoot manual, and most of my lenses reflect that) but its in there.

EDIT: It may not be focus but the lack of sharpness (yes, they differ) - the retouched shots micromacro posted seem a lot crisper.

[pres589]

The duck picture would maybe be improved by using a different vantage point. Like, get down on the ground and take it next time, something more along those lines.

I'm not very good at this so grain of salt.

[Ratcheteer]

watch a few videos on framing and composition, the very things camera's cant do for you

[brightseal]

What do you think?

Interesting

[Blacknight659]

I get it...

Let me just say, I cam from canon brand digital slrs and I felt like the images out of the canon camera were really nice. It took me a while to get a feel of how Pentax does things and now I finally have Images I am pleased with.

First, I agree with you... My images had the same results. Low contrast, sharpness, bad exposure ETC. Here is what I figured out...

1.) The sensors in the K-5 and newer tend to expose any "weaknesses" or "errors" in your photographic technique or choice of camera settings.
>>>> You will become a better photographer with this camera, don't give up!!!

2.) Pentax metering is a little different. I had to learn when to under and over expose my image after hours and hours of reviewing my photos in light room and deciding what I could do better. I find that on multi segment metering, the camera does its best, but often times opts to underexpose to save highlights. This seems to assume you will edit your photos in Light room or something else later instead of giving you a "proper" exposure to start with. I have since learned to add exposure compensation to give my photos more light.
3.) Alot of my first images lacked contrast. This can be a lens issue, but most often is related to the under exposing issue I mentioned above.


Things to try?

Maybe give this a test outside on a flower or something.
First, Set your camera to multi segment metering.
Second, Set the camera to an auto mode like P, AV, TV.
Choose a higher ISO, maybe 400-800
Set exposure comp to +1 or +2
Take some shots. >>> How do they look?

I am willing to bet you will see some additional detail, contrast, and color information you are missing in the files you uploaded before.

Try your hand in Lightroom
When you get your file in light room, try adding 25 contrast, +15 whites, -25 blacks, +exposure to taste, and +clarity to taste. I bet you find the images will be a lot closer to what you were wanting.


You will get the hang of this camera and I hope my experience helps you.

[micromacro]

Interesting

Do your pictures look more interesting to you, or just the fact that you can pp of images is interesting? I'm lost here.
You told that you have LR and Photoshop subscription, do you use them?

[jpzk]

Five months ago I purchased a K3II. Never used a digital camera before save a little panasonic point and shoot thingy. So I thought to my self, "I said self, this is digital how hard can it be". My pics are horrid and I can't really understand why. After all it is digital, not like I have to think about what I'm doing, right? If I use full auto my pictures come out crappy and the same in M. I have pretty much a lens for any occasion. With all this nice equipment I'm starting to feel like it's not the equipment but rather some sort of a "user error". What gives? What am I missing?

Didn't you have a K10D at some point ? ... Well, that's what is showing in your profile (and signature).
The K10D works pretty much the same as the newer cameras.
Anyway, I am sure you will find lots of great help here!