# Disappointing Photos with Nikon D3200



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

I have been using the Nikon D3200 for nearly 3 years now having upgraded from a bridge camera. I have consistently been disappointed with the photos, which always seem to lack vibrancy and sharpness. The lens I use is: Nikon Dx AF NIKKOR 18-55  (VR). I also use a Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm which produces somewhat better results.

Previous photos from my bridge camera were more vibrant and sharper. I am familiar with holding the camera properly etc to avoid camera shake. I have also tried using a tripod. My wife seems to get better pictures using a budget phone (Moto G4 Plus). 

I attach a photo taken with the D3200 ( a little over exposed I think, but which still demonstrates the point, compared with the other photo of the same scene taken seconds later with the camera phone - so in much the same light and conditions.

I also always notice that photos from the D3200 seem to have a certain shade of green and appear very flat.

I am seriously thinking of selling the camera and starting again. 

I wonder first though if anyone might comment or advise ( Am I asking too much from an entry level DSLR). 

I have tried uploading my D3200 file but after 5 attempts of getting an error message, I am instead inserting a link to my google drive. The moto g4 image is below as a thumbnail.

walking with a friend.JPG


   Moto G4 Shot


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2017)

Wish you have much more information.
The image does not have the EXIF information so much is hard to discern.

Many newer photographers believe they are doing everything correct and understand everything.  As you move up the ladder on cameras details really make a difference as sensor size (and all the electronics) can make large variances in how one has to learn all the details of actually learning how to use it..  A bridge camera is designed to handle the load for the user.  A Dslr really starts requiring the user to learn more about everything, such as:
Focus Areas,
Focus Modes .. these 2 items allow the camera to properly focus on a subject.  Many just use whatever it is on the camera and things get out of focus.

Shutter Speed - many simply do not have a high enough shutter speed to stop any form of action. Someone walking is actually action and slow shutter speeds of 1/125 and lower will not suffice.

Aperture - larger sensor cameras the aperture really becomes apparent and can cause issues

ISO - using ISO to increase shutter speed.

Metering Modes - learning proper metering modes for the situation.

Many lower end cameras also process the image.  For instance a bridge camera may use a "Vivid" color processing mode, or one of many others.  In you DSLR it's probably set to "Portrait" which isn't going to be as vibrant as Vivid and different from the Panasonic which could be "Standard".  This is assuming you are saving everything in JPEG.   If you do RAW then you have to process it to make it the way you want it.

Knowing when to use VR and not when to use it .... so much to learn.
And so many questions as to what specifically you are seeing that you want to improve upon.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with most of what you mention - and have tried variances of them. Equally I have tried small and large apertures. In this instance I used an f8 as I was looking for a relatively small depth of field. But even with an f22 I would have got that same somewhat unsharp flat look. I have seen this with quite a few other photographers using the same camera. I attach a file with the photo data.


----------



## Designer (Jun 1, 2017)

I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two shots.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 1, 2017)

Welcome.

The cell phone may appear a little better because more things are in focus and it juices the color somewhat. Hard to really compare as I am not sure how much you understand about the art of photography and your understanding of the hardware (your first post).

For color cast, use the best described white balance setting for the scene your shooting, this will help a great deal. For the shot you took, you probably had it on auto white balance but the better choice would have been the cloudy setting. You should also have a setting (standard profile) where you can bump the color and sharpness a tad. IF I recall correctly I had my Nikon set to two clicks below the highest setting on sharpness and bumped the color about +1 or 2.

As far as adding dimension to the image (not flat) in camera, you need to understand how to control your depth of field. I would study that. It is about controlling the camera to produce the image the way you want. You don't mention what mode you shot this in. If you shot it in auto than you let the camera decide everything and cameras are stupid and often very wrong. Cell phone cameras average the stupid better by design. Bridge cameras do a pretty good job of stupid as well. What you have is a camera that is capable of controlling every aspect of your image and it assumes your going to make the decisions for it.

Are there better digital cameras than the older, entry level DSLR's? Sure, but your post lacks information to properly understand where your at. Just because you've had a camera for 3 years doesn't mean squat because you may be using it wrong since you got it.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

The phone shot seems sharper with better colour. I would expect more from an DSLR with a better lens etc.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2017)

your 1/320 Shutter seems "okay" for the situation.

A small depth of field (DOF) will require a smaller aperture number, such as f/4.
Shallow DOF usually is around f/1.8-f/2.8 (which is dependent upon the lenses), and deeper DOF is such as f/11.  Here's a quick example ==> Struggling with Focus

But also the ability of hand holding the camera steady may be very important.  ==> Stability - making yourself a tripod versus using one

One thing to do is to initially use static objects to work on your photography.

For instance at home, put an object on a stool and work on making that photo as sharp as possible.
use a tripod versus hand holding at the same setting, and compare.

You can add more images at different positions to work on Aperture settings.
once you improve on this "fixed" setting then you can work on other things.  Just learning to shoot birds or cars driving by it will help in shutter speeds.

When I'm out walking around on a hike the trees are always slightly moving from the wind or whatever and that can cause motion blur at lower shutter speeds.  So take pictures of a tree moving and make it as sharp as possible, pushing the shutter speeds higher and higher until it's acceptable ... then go a bit faster to compare.

What were your Quality Settings?  JPEG? (page 44 in your manual)

What is your (pg 76 in your manual) Picture Control ?  This will affect your colors if you are shooting in  JPEG.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

Thanks for all of the advice. I am really trying to find out if it is my "poor" technique or the shortcomings of an entry level DSLR. 

I was using the Aperture setting. Using on Jpeg with the highest resolution, standard colour setting. I have tried changing the sharpness setting or changing the colour setting to vibrant. I was using auto white balance.  I have also tried using a tripod. I am still dissatisfied with the results. I have an essential understanding of speed/aperture, depth of field, ISO,white balance etc. 

Another photo which again is typical of the flat, unsharp look:

DSC_0001.JPG

Photo data attached


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2017)

.


stevenlanephotos said:


> Thanks for all of the advice. I am really trying to find out if it is my "poor" technique or the shortcomings of an entry level DSLR.
> 
> I was using the Aperture setting. Using on Jpeg with the highest resolution, standard colour setting. I have tried changing the sharpness setting or changing the colour setting to vibrant. I was using auto white balance.  I have also tried using a tripod. I am still dissatisfied with the results. I have an essential understanding of speed/aperture, depth of field, ISO,white balance etc.
> 
> ...



1 - What was being focused on (the focus point) ?
I cannot determine that from the photo
2 - was VR on or off ?

Also I know Tripods are mentioned.  Tripods can be a curse if they are cheap.  they can actually induce poor performance - the really shaky ones.  "shaky" as to what the camera sensor sees, not the users' perception of shaky or not.  

That is why going to a static situation and learning the "basics" I always mention. It helps to focus the technique, settings, etc.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 1, 2017)

Actually, I like the colors and tones from the two D3200 images. They are not over the top, quite pleasing.

You have to remember that bridge cameras, point and shoot cameras and even smart phones process the images to make them "pop".

If you are shooting JPEG, then change the picture control settings to something like Vivid or Landscape and see if you like that. I'd HIGHLY recommend you shoot raw and use something like Adobe Lightroom or even Nikon's software to process the photos to your liking.

DSLRs are not point and shoot cameras.

If you want a camera that has beautiful SOOC vivid JPEGS, then maybe you should have gotten a Fuji X camera. But if you shoot raw, you'll get the same flat images.

Keep in mind though, a lot really depends on your environment. Hazy weather can cause photos to look flat, cloudy days often cause photos to look flat. There are a lot of factors involved and that's why I recommend shooting raw.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> .
> 
> 
> stevenlanephotos said:
> ...




In this instance I focused on the nearby bicycles if I recall (it is a while) ago.
VR was on and has always been on - my simple understanding was that it reduces camera shake - does it do so at a cost?

Yes, my tripod is cheap - around 60 Euro only ( 75 USD)

I did think that I knew the basics, but I take on board your advice and will return to that . Thanks.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

nerwin said:


> Actually, I like the colors and tones from the two D3200 images. They are not over the top, quite pleasing.
> 
> You have to remember that bridge cameras, point and shoot cameras and even smart phones process the images to make them "pop".
> 
> ...




Oh interesting - so you like the colours and tones - what do you think of the sharpness - it always looks a little blurred or softly focused to me?

Thanks for the tips on the settings - will try that. 

And I will try shooting RAW - I had not ventured into that yet.

Thanks so much


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2017)

Do you have any type of screw-on filter on the lenses ?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 1, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I like the colors and tones from the two D3200 images. They are not over the top, quite pleasing.
> ...



So you may want to check the quality settings of your jpegs as they do look somewhat compressed. Make sure you are shooting Jpeg Fine/Large.

Even when shooting the Jpeg Fine, the compression ratio is 1:4 so its 4 times smaller file size than the orginal raw image captured by the sensor. Even so, the compression is quite minimal and you "shouldn't" see jpeg artifacts that much.


----------



## Designer (Jun 1, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> - what do you think of the sharpness - it always looks a little blurred or softly focused to me?


There is always a chance that your particular lens is not as sharp as most of them are, but you would need to do some controlled testing to determine that.

More than once we have discovered that the problem is simply that the owner has installed an inexpensive filter of some type on the front of the lens and always leaves it there.  If you have anything screwed onto the front, take it off.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Do you have any type of screw-on filter on the lenses ?



No, no filters screwed on the front. And I get why you ask that because it does look a bit like that.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 1, 2017)

As previously said-

Dslrs generally are set up because most that buy one will do some kind of editing. Point and shoot it bridge cameras are different, they are generally set up to give "pop" straight out of camera.

If you are not going to edit raw files (many do, many don't) you'll need to take a little time setting up your camera for certain shots. Your camera has picture styles, for example "landscape". This can be used to take landscape shots and it emphasises the blues and greens. You can even tweak each picture style and add contrast or vibrance etc. You also have a portrait and a neutral or flat style. Neutral or flat will give very subdued results.

You will also almost always get better shots if you select the white balance yourself.

The d3200 should be better than most bridges, but unfortunately with dslrs you need to select settings yourself to get the best out of it


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

jaomul said:


> As previously said-
> 
> Dslrs generally are set up because most that buy one will do some kind of editing. Point and shoot it bridge cameras are different, they are generally set up to give "pop" straight out of camera.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I have experimented a fair bit with those (including white balance) without seeing much in the way of a difference to the sharpness. This is why I have continued to wonder about the camera or the lens.

But I get your point and will continue to experiment. It does seem I might need to experiment with RAW. I had a pretty good bridge camera which had similar controls to a DSLR,  and even won a few competitions. The photos were so much sharper - and that is on a camera bought 15 years ago!


----------



## KmH (Jun 1, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> But even with an f22 I would have got that same somewhat unsharp flat look.


Apparently you're not aware that using a small lens aperture like _f_/22 causes a loss of focus sharpness due to diffraction.
Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks
Do you know how to evaluate a histogram?

Understanding Histograms, Part 1: Tones & Contrast
Understanding Histograms, Part 2: Luminosity & Color
Light direction and quality are another huge factor for making pleasing photos.
The photo you posted was shot under overcast skies a light quality condition that will always produce flat looking (low contrast) images.
Auto focus also relies on contrast to work at it's peak.

Raw files have to be edited but they give the photographer the broadest latitude for editing because they have 1 16-bit depth.
Raw files are not finished images.
JPEG is edited in the camera, limited an 8-bit depth and the picture control settings only offer crude adjustments that are made to the entire (global) image.
Editing Raw files allows us to make both local and global edits.


Understanding Bit Depth
Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF
Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

nerwin said:


> stevenlanephotos said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



Yes, exactly, they look compressed. I can confirm I am using fine and large. Thanks


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

KmH said:


> stevenlanephotos said:
> 
> 
> > But even with an f22 I would have got that same somewhat unsharp flat look.
> ...



Thanks for all of the pointers - I will look into them. I have a rough understanding of histograms and I will look at your links and improve. 

did you see the picture link I posted to the Port scene - under clear blue skies? The colours were OK but the sharpness is still lacking.

I can see there is much to learn still!


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 1, 2017)

You are asking the camera to understand everything - and it can't do that.
The histogram shows that the majority of the scene is below center, thus slightly underexposed.  That's because the bright overcast is affecting the meter in the camera.
   Expose for your target.
With this nondirectional light, everyhting looks a bit flat and toneless thus looks un sharp.
You've included a lot of foliage that really adds nothing and you have this OOF branch right across the center thus confusing the viewers' brains. 






If you get rid of some of the excess foliage, increase contrast, raise the midtones a bit, along a bit of saturation and a bit of warm and things start to look better to me - except fot the branch, obviously

You must be in control, don't leave it to the engineers back at the factory.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 1, 2017)

What are you looking at the images on?  I'm guessing either a laptop computer or a tablet.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

The_Traveler said:


> You are asking the camera to understand everything - and it can't do that.
> The histogram shows that the majority of the scene is below center, thus slightly underexposed.  That's because the bright overcast is affecting the meter in the camera.
> Expose for your target.
> With this nondirectional light, everyhting looks a bit flat and toneless thus looks un sharp.
> ...



Heh - thanks for that. Really interesting to me - I will try and learn from that and see if it makes a difference


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

SCraig said:


> What are you looking at the images on?  I'm guessing either a laptop computer or a tablet.



I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

So from the replies, starting to be convinced it is my poor technique rather than my camera.

I am submitting two more photos to check if that is the case.

The first is taken with the long lens mentioned at the beginning of this thread. It is much sharper and colours are richer:

DSC_0070.JPG

The next is the every day 18 - 55 lens where again there is less sharpness or richness

DSC_0047.JPG

The info for the photos is attached


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 1, 2017)

The 2nd one is a really nice concept.
But f/5 is too shallow for 4 subjects I think from that distance.  I would throw it into a DOF calculator .. I used to use a DOF calculator and static subjects testing DOF at various distances so that I now know looking at something what I need to be at.

and 1/80th Shutter is *way* too slow for 4 subjects that to you aren't moving, but to a sensor which picks puts the image on super tiny image buckets ... they're moving.

Though I see you were at ISO 1600 which may be a good max for the camera. It's all a give and take but if it's fuzzy it's hard.

I go back to my recommendation of put yourself into a static, totally repeatable environment in order for you to test your camera body, lens and technique.

Taking various picture of other various things is not repeatability and you'll be chasing different problem for each different shot.  In a static environment you can set aperture for one thing, shutter and ISO .. and repeat until you can figure out if it's your technique, etc *first*.  Then move on to changing a setting or the setup.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 1, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> The 2nd one is a really nice concept.
> But f/5 is too shallow for 4 subjects I think from that distance.  I would throw it into a DOF calculator .. I used to use a DOF calculator and static subjects testing DOF at various distances so that I now know looking at something what I need to be at.
> 
> and 1/80th Shutter is *way* too slow for 4 subjects that to you aren't moving, but to a sensor which picks puts the image on super tiny image buckets ... they're moving.
> ...



Thanks. Yes I liked the concept and I was really disappointed when I transferred it to my computer - but I am somewhat relieved now that it might not be the camera - that it actually is my technique which needs a lot of refining. And you really seem to be talking about going back to basics and learning some photographic discipline. I shall do so. Your advice is much appreciated.


----------



## Designer (Jun 1, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> The info for the photos is attached


Unfortunately, the focus point is not attached.  I attempted to get the focus point from the second photo (0047) but the EXIF has been stripped. 

So then I zoomed in to 400% and tried to find the focus point by eye, which is not reliable, and was unable to find the sharpest point for sure.  Your camera will show you which focus point was active at this capture, so you can do it in your camera (or use your editing software if it will do that). 

To me, it seems as if the sign is quite a bit sharper than your human subjects, so maybe that's the point of focus in this shot. 

Could be your technique, could be the lens, and could be wrong focus point.  Unfortunately, your camera will not allow you to fine tune the focus for a particular lens, but with proper testing, you should be able to find the problem.

1. Obtain a focus target.  Purchase one or if you have a LASER PRINTER, you can print one that is available online.  Do not use an ink jet printer because they are not sharp enough.

2. Borrow someone's 18-55 lens to try on your camera.

3. Take test photos using the two 18-55 lenses and your 55-300mm lens as well.  Switch off the VR, and use a tripod.  Use a middle aperture setting and the same shutter speed for all three shots.

4. Compare all three shots at high magnification on the best computer display you can use.  

5. If your existing lens is the issue, sell it and buy another copy.  (They're not expensive.)


----------



## goodguy (Jun 1, 2017)

The problem isn't your camera, its your skills.
Pic seems to be sharp and ok, it does look underexposed.
If you really want to get the most out of your camera then learn how to use it right, also shoot in RAW and process it your software of choice.
I have the camera that replaced it the D3300, I use it as a second body in weddings and it produces amazing results.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 1, 2017)

> I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -


Unless the 17" screen is a desktop screen you can't believe what you see.  Laptops are extremely difficult to use for critiquing photographs unless an external monitor is used.  Tilt the screen forward or back, change the position of the computer relative to the ambient lighting, anything can change the view from high contrast to low contrast or under-saturated to over-saturated or overexposed to underexposed.  Your photographs honestly do not look that bad.  I'd suggest looking at them on a desktop with a good (as opposed to cheap and crappy) desktop monitor and you may see a significant difference.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 2, 2017)

goodguy said:


> The problem isn't your camera, its your skills.
> Pic seems to be sharp and ok, it does look underexposed.
> If you really want to get the most out of your camera then learn how to use it right, also shoot in RAW and process it your software of choice.
> I have the camera that replaced it the D3300, I use it as a second body in weddings and it produces amazing results.



Thanks for the advice. Taken on board!


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 2, 2017)

SCraig said:


> > I am using a laptop - a 17 Inch Screen -
> 
> 
> Unless the 17" screen is a desktop screen you can't believe what you see.  Laptops are extremely difficult to use for critiquing photographs unless an external monitor is used.  Tilt the screen forward or back, change the position of the computer relative to the ambient lighting, anything can change the view from high contrast to low contrast or under-saturated to over-saturated or overexposed to underexposed.  Your photographs honestly do not look that bad.  I'd suggest looking at them on a desktop with a good (as opposed to cheap and crappy) desktop monitor and you may see a significant difference.



That makes sense - I had wondered about that. thanks


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 2, 2017)

There are one medium and two steep learning curves in photography.
First, learn how to use your camera and how every variable on the camera affects the picture.  That's the medium learning obstacle.
Second, learn to pose, compose and expose for a good image; that's a toughie
Third, learn to be objective about your image and understand how to edit it to its greatest potential. Toughie #3.


----------



## PaulWog (Jun 2, 2017)

Everything that you want to get out of the photo can be done in Lightroom. A flatter image often means less processing / more data captured. Kind-of depends on what you mean by "flat".

Sharpness can be a combination of things, likely the lens. Lighting always beats out sharpness, as a duller image with amazing lighting may not appear "not sharp".

The first thing I do in Lightroom to a photo like the one you posted is:

- reduce the highlights
- play with shadows & blacks a bit, depending
- for your photo, bump the exposure up by 0.25 or around that
- play around with a bit of the saturation & vibrace, but only slightly
- sharpen the image slightly, perhaps denoise it very slightly
- do a bit of dodge-and-burning, primarily lighting up the walkway just by a titch
- selectively sharpen any specific parts that might need a bit of extra selective sharpening (sometimes just the edges of the subject if needed)

These are just some generic things I do. There's lots more you can do. But, the 'dull' look is often just the original capture.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 3, 2017)

PaulWog said:


> Everything that you want to get out of the photo can be done in Lightroom. A flatter image often means less processing / more data captured. Kind-of depends on what you mean by "flat".
> 
> Sharpness can be a combination of things, likely the lens. Lighting always beats out sharpness, as a duller image with amazing lighting may not appear "not sharp".
> 
> ...



Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.


----------



## PaulWog (Jun 3, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.



I highly recommend Lightroom. The alternatives to Lightroom can be alright, but it's still the best thing out there right now. If you subscribe to the monthly cloud deals they have, I think you can get certain software bundles (but I can't afford that -- I just have a standalone download).

Photoshop is for a different purpose. I use both Lightroom and Photoshop, but I use Lightroom 99% of the time... and photoshop 1% of the time. Photoshop is more complicated, and isn't necessary for most people. It isn't better either, it's just a different tool with certain overlapping features.

You'll need to shoot in RAW to get full control in Lightroom. RAW stores the most data.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2017)

PaulWog said:


> stevenlanephotos said:
> 
> 
> > Heh thanks - that is really helpful to hear. I was wondering which post processing software to buy. Most people had pointed me to Photoshop as opposed to Lightroom. I haven't tried either. I was pointed to a new software called Affinity Photo which I have trialed and been quite impressed by. I will try your specific suggestions.
> ...



Got to this thread late, but I second Paul's suggestion: Adobe's Lightroom software is easy to use, works well, and is the way I now edit most images, after having used Photoshop since version 2.5, beginning back in the late mid-1990's. I prefer Lightroom's non-destructive, *parametric *image editing approach. 

MOST regular images can be handled by a Lightroom workflow, with basic adjustments, and perhaps some more-sophisticated adjustments, like Iris Enhance, or Tooth Whitening, or the Dodge tool or the Burn tool. There are LOADS of presets available for Lightroom, which allow for fast and repeatable one-click changes/edits, which are of course, in themselves, adjustable/save-able/re-usable.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2017)

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Adobe-Photoshop-and-Adobe-Lightroom
What is the difference between Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom?
The Difference Between Photoshop and Lightroom Explained


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 4, 2017)

Thanks for the pointers - I will download Lightroom as a trial.


----------



## stevenlanephotos (Jun 4, 2017)

Thanks to everyone who has helped me this. Immensely grateful to have so many knowledgeable people pointing the way.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 4, 2017)

There is a difference between LR and PS that hasn't been mentioned. 
PS is infinitely better at organized editing at the bit-level. By using layers and selections you can much more easily control and adjust changes you have made. 
A major weakness in LR is that one just doesn't have the control of a complex edit and can't easily visualize steps and minor adjustments.

An example comes quickly to hand:
Here is the original:






After editing to remove the guy in the yellow shirt and lowering the brightness on other areas.
Easily done in PS, imo, much more difficult in LR.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jun 6, 2017)

When I had my Nikon 5100 I felt like I was always bumping the contrast and the colors in post.  I started setting it to "vivid" and that was more to my liking.  It's a personal preference as far as liking the colors richer or more muted.  I think the 3100 has similar options...


----------



## Braineack (Jun 6, 2017)

stevenlanephotos said:


> Another photo which again is typical of the flat, unsharp look:
> 
> DSC_0001.JPG
> 
> Photo data attachedView attachment 140805



I did very _minor_ edits to this (30secs of time) and now it looks less flat, while still looking very "real"




the sharpness may have something to do with a crummy worthless UV filter... i haven't through yet.


----------



## benhasajeep (Jun 11, 2017)

Have you tried a focus test with your lens?  You could have a front or back focus problem with that lens if your getting sharp shots with the telephoto but not the normal zoom.  Even though they are inexpensive, they are normally good performers.  There are many free links on the internet to printing a focus test page.  But it can be done simply with a ruler proped up about 30-45 degrees (around a foot or little more).  Using your tripod and center focus point take a picture of a certain spot on the ruler (camera lens center should be same height as your aim point).  If using a 3' ruler focus on the 18" line exactly with the center focus point (again with the camera level).  Using several different f-stops take a series of pictures.  If you don't have a Ml-l3 remote release, use self timer function!  Take away any and all outside vibration sources (including wind).  After the series of pictures.  Check the pictures on a large screen.  Your focus range should be centered on the 18 (or your chosen aim point)!  Using the hashmarks on the ruler determine where the lens / camera is actually focusing.  For instance if 15 3/4 is the start of sharp focus and then its sharp focus until 19 3/4.  You are front focusing with that lens (based on 18" exactly as the aim point).  If your getting 16 1/4 to 20 1/4 your back focusing (again 18" exactly as the aim point).  These are just examples.  Your aperture  will determine your focus range.  This is also a good aperture teaching tool!

Unfortunately the D3200 does not have fine focus adjustment.  The higher end Nikon bodies have the option of fine tuning each specific lens.  Should always check your lens / body combination.

All is not lost though if you do have front or back focus.  But first check to see if you do indeed have a front or back focus issue with that particular lens.

Also not mentioned.  Check your camera settings.  You might just have a custom function on, or a setting that is causing the camera to make an adjustment.  If you didn't buy it new.  You might want to do a factory reset and start your setting changes from scratch.  But definately check that lens for front / back focusing for your sharpness problem.  Settings for your "vibrance / saturation" problem.

And as a last comment, might want to try a different metering setting as well.  Matrix is not always the best way to go (guessing that's what it's on).


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Jun 19, 2017)

I know this is a little old here and I'm late responding.

Traveller makes some good points here and are worth exploring. Although lenses and camera sensors record an absolute and measurable sharpness this does not always transfer to the image. Sharpness in an image is to a great extent an impression you get when viewing. If we look at the horse photo you will see that when you look at it it is the parts that you expect to look in focus that you see first, around the eye and the buckle. These look sharp so you form the opinion that the image is sharp because you really only glance at images and make assumptions, whereas the actual image has little sharpness apart from this one area. The appearance of sharpness is also largely due to the contrast that's there because the light was behind the camera. Sharpness is linked to contrast in images.
With the photo of the kids you have a lot conspiring against you:

Shooting into the light, this means your subject is in the shadow which reduces contrast and the appearance of sharpness.
Shooting with a high ISO, this also increases noise which decreases the appearance of sharpness.
A low shutter speed which gives a slight blur, though barely perceptible.
Slightly missed focus point which reduces the sharpness of the eyes.
What happens in this image is you look at the subject and see that the eyes appear a little soft so you form an opinion of the image. When you glance you do not see the sharpness where you expect it to be, you expect eyes to look sharp as they do in real life. (When glancing if the eyes are soft then you assume the image is soft, if the eyes are sharply focussed the assumption is that the image is sharp. It does not mater that the background is slightly soft as long as the image is sharp where you expect it to be your impression of the whole is one of sharpness).
The shot is a difficult on as the DR is quite large. Look again at the phone shot and see how much of the clouds are blown out, have no detail. Then look again at the corresponding camera shot that has maintained detail and colour in both the highlight clouds and the distant hills. Your phone could not compete with your camera in the kids shot by a big margin!

With just a few simple slider movements in a RAW editor like Camera RAW with LightRoom, and a resize, (literally two minutes), see if your impression of your camera changes:


----------

