Andrew

Sassafrass: <i>I have a great Panasonic LUMIX and while I like the Camera and all it does, plus it is light weight, it does have some noise depending on distance and settings, and I find it annoying and disappointing. Some photos I took with one earlier digital (can't remember if it was a Cannon or Kodak) were superb in that respect. </i>

Not all Lumix cameras are even the same. I got a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 in April and used it in Europe in May, after using my Canon DSLRs for years. I'm just now re-visiting the Lumix pictures. On average, the sharpness and clarity is fantastic. The Lumix has a few other limitations vs. my DSLR setup, but sharpness and noise are not one of the downsides. And there are plenty of upsides.

But, my DMC-FZ1000 has a 1" (big) sensor. The size of your camera's sensor has an impact on how noisy it is especially with lower light. Maybe your Lumix has a smaller sensor?

massimop

pavot,

I agree with Andrew that you will get more relevant answers if you post a link to an example of someone else's photos that you wish yours were like. And post pictures of the pictures you took that disappointed you.

Rereading your post, I think I may have misinterpreted what you want to accomplish or solve. It seems to me now that you don't like your pictures because they look amateurish, not professional. Even professional pictures, like the ones you see in guidebooks, can be "touristy". Ditto the ones people blow up and frame, or post on Flickr etc, that have crispness, sharpness and intense colors but they are touristy all the same. Better equipment might be the answer to getting professional photos instead of amateurish looking ones, regardless of content.

Also say if you want to blow up your pictures to frame or just share them on your cellphone or websites like Flickr.

mnag

you need to take your camera off Auto. I use a Nikon dslr and I'm playing around in S (shutter speed) and A (appeture) mode. I think the pictures are more crisp. I tend to overexpose but its easy to fix once I download the pics. When I compare my pics in manual mode to the same exact shot in auto mode 7 out of 10 times the manual mode works out better.

Nelson

Yes, ditto what Andrew said: if you could post an example with the EXIF data (the camera settings when you took the picture) then that would be useful and interesting.

menachem

"sharpness is a bourgeois concept"

Andrew

"Manual mode" is great if you know how to use it! If not, it can be worse than automatic mode. In fact, I find that automatic mode is more likely to give more sharp pictures, even if they aren't otherwise as good as what I can get manually.

Most cameras have two semi-automatic modes called Aperture Priority and Shutter Speed priority. With Aperture Priority (sometimes notes as Av, what I use most often), you set a fixed aperture (f-stop) and the camera picks the shutter speed automatically; with Shutter Speed priority (sometimes noted as Tv), it's just the opposite.

To use Aperture Priority, you need to understand what aperture is. Light coming into your camera through the lens is controlled in two ways: by the shutter speed (how long the shutter is open to let light in) and how narrow or wide the opening through the lens is (aperture). Think about looking through a pinhole; the bigger the hole, the more light comes through. But the wider the hole also changes the way light is focused. You actually want the aperture to be smaller in many cases, even though it lets less light through (requiring the shutter open longer) because it can provide images that are more sharply focused at different distances from the focal point (called "depth of field" - google "depth of field" for much more explanation, because it is important in photography).

Confusingly for amateurs, aperture is measured with f-stop numbers; the smaller the f-step, bigger the aperture, and the more light comes in; larger f-stop means less light.

Faster shutter speed is almost ALWAYS what you want. (1/100 of a second is SLOWER than 1/250). By reducing the f-stop (increasing the aperture), you let more light in, so you can get away with a faster shutter speed - but you reduce depth of field, which can mean less of your image is in sharp focus.

My Lumix for example has a limited range of aperture - it goes from "open" (f/2.8) to "closed as much as possible" (f/8). I almost always prefer f/8 if I have enough light, because that means I get a greater depth of field, and in my landscape shots, that's what I want: I want most of it to be in focus. If I'm shooting a flower or something, where I want the flower in focus but everything else behind it blurry, then I want to use f/2.8 or the biggest aperture I have, because that will reduce what is in focus. My DSLR lenses have a much great aperture range - some photographers find f/2.8 to f/8 too constricting! But I am aware of the limitation and live with it.

I use Aperture Priority the most. I usual full Manual Mode mostly when taking night pictures on a tripod. I use full Automatic Mode when taking snapshots of my cat.

ISO has been mentioned above too. You ALWAYS want the lowest ISO you can get away with; increasing ISO means you can get away with less light (so the shutter speed can be faster), but as you increase ISO, pictures get more "noisy" and less sharp. My Lumix's default ISO is 125; I find 200 works well enough and 400 is OK in a pinch but starting to get noisier. I use 800 and higher only if I just want to capture an image and don't care if it's great or not.

Nelson

As Andrew indicated there are numerous compromises:

low ISO = sharp picture = slower shutter speed = less sharp picture.

I also use aperture priority a lot but keep my camera in Automatic (or Program) mode when just walking around. What if Nessie pops up for a brief instant and you had the wrong setting in Aperture or Shutter Priority mode?! The camera will usually decide on an acceptable exposure in those fast situations.

Nelson

<i>"sharpness is a bourgeois concept"</i>

Whoever posted this blog can't count, but here are some other good and humorous quotes:

https://www.theinspiredeye.net/photo...rtier-bresson/

Andrew

Nelson: <i>I also use aperture priority a lot but keep my camera in Automatic (or Program) mode when just walking around.</i>

I leave my Canon DSLR in Program mode as well when just walking around. I was surprised that the Program mode on my Lumix was much different - and less useful. It is not "smart" - it merely lets me adjust both aperture and shutter speed in the same mode. (Took me some time to realize this as I got used to the camera.) If I adjust the shutter speed on the Lumix in Program mode, it adjusts aperture and vice versa. It's like being in both aperture priority and shutter priority at the same time.

But it's useless if I'm stuck in the wrong aperture and need to take a quick pic - it won't adjust it automatically. Canon's Program mode is smarter; it adjusts both aperture and shutter speed as needed in each situation but also lets me compensate either one in each picture situation.

I use the Lumix's Automatic mode like I use my Canon's Program mode. But the Lumix's Automatic mode adjusts EVERYTHING including ISO, which I sometimes don't want it to mess with...

menachem

I don't think "flou" is the poster's concern. I believe he's after the over sharpened stock photography look.

Andrew

We really won't know what the OP's real objective is until we see some example photos, right? Or maybe some example photos of what he/she DOES want.

Could be he/she wants something with shallow depth of field where only the subject is in focus and looks "sharp" compared to the rest of the image. But I am only guessing.

Michael

Andrew,

Thanks for you explanations. I vaguely had the information in the back of my mind, but you reminded me that I need to consider various options with my Lumix FZ-300.

pavot

Thank you all for so many thoughtful and detailed replies. I have so many solutions to try and so many issues to think about.

I really appreciate the time you spent answering my question. It would be quite embarrassing to post my photos, but give me a little time, and I'll give it a shot.

Just realize: it won't be art. It will be the holiday snaps of a grateful stranger....

Sassafrass

Andrew, you are spot on and you have a fabulous camera!
My LUMIX is the much older FZ18 and there is a huge difference between image quality in the 18 and the 1000, really like night and day, IMHO. Your 1000 has a large sensor. The sensor in the 18 is only 1/2" plus they upped the pixel numbers too much for the size of the sensor, creating a noise issue that they addressed, but could not actually fix. Honestly, before getting that camera, I had never experienced a noise issue that affected image quality so much. Now I am super sensitive to it. I am pretty artistic and people look at my photos and think they are great, but I know what they should be.

Nelson

<i>> It will be the holiday snaps of a grateful stranger....</i>

In the end most of us can't hope for much more than that, can we?

And if taking unsharp photos has made us see the world differently, perhaps even with more clarity, then we would have without the camera, then that's all that matters in the long run I think. Have fun shooting.

Andrew

pavot, I assure, I've taken more bad pictures than you'll ever take! But they aren't wasted if you can look at them later and learn from them.

Sassafrass, I've been pretty spoiled in that most of my digital cameras have been models with good sensors. My first digital camera was a Canon D30 DSLR, from 2001, 3.3MP, but with a very clean, low-noise sensor. I still print some pictures from that camera - even with the relatively low resolution images by today's standards, they still look pretty nice. I've had a few Canon P&S cameras with cheaper sensors that obviously did poorly in low light, though. A good sensor makes a world of difference.

kerouac

My pictures were <b>too</b> sharp in terms of uploading them, so I have turned my little Lumix down to "only" 5 million pixels.

Andrew

Reducing the number of megapixels doesn't reduce sharpness.

Andrew

You can perhaps change your camera's "sharpness" setting instead, however. It is possible to oversharpen pictures. Most cameras don't oversharpen by default; it's easier to sharpen soft pictures but the opposite is hard.

burta

One of the simplest fixes for you to try is to hold your camera as still as possible as you photograph. Sometimes this will require bracing your elbows against your body or a railing or wall. Even the act of pressing the shutter can cause some movement, so holding still will take some practice.