@Myer, I'm in the photo business. For a while what I sold most were prints from photographs I took using my iPhone. Already a clip on lens helps. Almost no one prints anymore. Pixel size is overrated. More pixels often means more noise.

OK, kids. A link to the kind of photo everyone who goes to Edinburgh takes:

https://thepavot.smugmug.com/Travel-Snap-Woe/


Have at it.

<i>OK, kids. A link to the kind of photo everyone who goes to Edinburgh takes...</i>

Y'know, it looks fine to me. If you had set the camera to save the image both in raw (NEF) and jpeg formats, you could have used the "native" resolution (4572 x 3018) as well as the compressed jpeg resolution. (On my monitor, and I'm assuming this is either you or Smugmug having reduced the image size) it maxes out at 1600 x 1056, so obviously a lot fewer number of pixels.

But what's the point? I have a 22" monitor and the image at maximum resolution on my screen is "tack sharp" as we say in my photo club. If you were to print it on a 16" x 20" sheet of photo paper (the biggest commonly available) and hung it on a wall, nobody would complain that it's not sharp enough, unless they were Mr. Peepers and had their nose resting against the picture frame.

It's like buying a 60" TV. If you're sitting ten feet from it, it's a terrific, sharp image. If you're sitting ten inches from it, there's no image at all, just a bunch of tiny dots changing color.

If you find this image not sharp enough, then we're on different pages.

Yes, I agree with Gardyloo, sharpness is fine.

I think what you are dealing with here is diffused light and a lack of contrast. That kind of light can be great for portraits or flowers, say, but generally not so good for landscapes or cityscapes.

Also the sky above the Dugald Stewart Monument is completely clipped - blown out to white, there is no interest there.

I played with the photo in Lightroom for one minute and came up with this:
http://nelsonchenkin.zenfolio.com/p3...2675#h98612675

There's only so much you can do with a .jpg. You may like it better, or you may not.

But anyway I think sharpness in your original is fine.

I agree as well, perhaps it's the sky and the lack of detail there?

Can you post one that you like and what it is you like about it compared to this one?

The major problem is lighting and and lack of contrast. On my small tablet it looks to me like the background is sharper than the foreground... any idea what the aperture was (I suppose not)?

We had many a discussion back in the day (early 70s) about perceived sharpness of certain objects. It seemed nobody was ever able in photo school to produce sharp tree bark, no matter the lens or technique.

Pavot,

The problem isn't with the photo image it's with the post processing.

What post processing you ask.

These are digital photos. What you do should be determined by what you goals and expectations are.

If you would like better (many things here) results you have to come up with an approach to processing.

I spent about 30 seconds max on it.

I don't want to put it on my web site so if you give me an email address I'll send it to you and you can post it for people to compare with the original.

What I did was sharpen it a little, increase the lows (dark) and decrease the highs (very light).

The lines in the buildings immediately jumped out.

Here the EXIF info from pavot's file:

Camera Nikon NIKON D3100
Lens AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G
ISO 100
Focal Length 22.0 mm (33.0 mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/5.6
Exposure Time 0.008s (1/125)
Name DSC_0650.JPG
Size 4572 x 3018
File Size 3.51 MB
Date Taken 2014-03-16 15:59:42
Date Modified 2014-04-01 22:20:25

Hopefully I used the correct images

Original
http://tinyurl.com/yb349578

Processed
http://tinyurl.com/y8ntxay8

I have now selected the dominant items and brought them out a bit from the shadows.

Those were the pillars on the left and the structure or castle in the back in the middle.

And just for good measure I very slightly increased the contrast.

Not enough to lighten anything too much but to just increase the difference between anything light and anything darker.

Well, it's just my opinion, but I prefer the original....

From the settings I see on your photos:
ISO 100
Shutter Speed 1/125 sec
Aperture f5.6


I don't don't how well your camera handles noise but I would guess it should be pretty good at ISO 200 or 400.

Let's go for ISO400.

That would allow you to use a shutter speed of 1/250 sec
and that would probably gicv you an aperture of f6.3

That alone would give you a sharper image.

thursdaysd,

Processing is a matter of personal preference.

Which part of the original do you prefer?

The soft image or dull colors?

<i>Well, it's just my opinion, but I prefer the original....</i>

It's the vérité style. In the B&W film days, photographers tended to manipulate their pictures in the darkroom. Now we can use Photoshop.

Pavot, it's not a bad photo, but I know what you mean that the photo just doesn't "pop." To me, the problem with this photo is the time you were there. You could tweak the settings a little and improve it marginally...but the lighting just isn't appealing, and the sky isn't interesting. It's not a bad picture; had I been there at that same moment, I don't think I could have done much better. (I might have shot it at ISO 200 or 400 just to make sure I had a faster shutter speed to reduce the chance of camera shake.)

In fact, as I go through pictures from my own trip back in May (Slovenia, Italy, France), I have to deal with a similar problem: some of my pictures would have been a lot better had I had better light, a better day. I visited a few cute towns in Slovenia when it was just about to rain. The light was kind of flat - but I didn't have the luxury to hang out for a day for it to improve. What could I do? I did the best I could; I had to move on to the next town.

In your picture, if I could choose the ideal time, maybe I'd want at least a semi-sunny day, with the sun in a different spot (though I can't quite tell where the sun is relative to where you were standing? I usually don't want to shoot into the sun at all). I'd want some light on the buildings, especially the one in the foreground. "Golden hour" might have been ideal. If the buildings were lit at night, I'd also be interested in trying it at dusk or daybreak, perhaps with an appealing sky, maybe just when the lights come on at night but not too late that they saturate. But you have to deal with the conditions as you find them, and sometimes the best you can do just isn't going to produce an amazing picture.

"Which part of the original do you prefer?

The soft image or dull colors?"

The colors are dull in both - it was obviously a dull day. The "sharper" versions look over-processed and unnatural to me.

I agree with Andrew that it was just not the best time for photography. And in Scotland that is hardly unusual...

I have no idea what any of you are talking about. I like the first picture. The second picture is even nicer IMO.

I’m happy when my finger isn’t in the way. Carry on.

Pavot,

What disappointed you about the picture? That the architectural details that captured your eye aren't captured in the photo, or that the panoramic view, sweeping all the way out to the sea, just has no drama in the photo?

Looking at the original photo, I missed many of the architectural details that other people's processing revealed. Nelson's version has the viture of making the detailing on the monument clear, and also makes the bridge clearer. But it almost made me wish the photo were more tightly focused on the monument rather than trying to include the whole scene.

Myer's version creates more of a feeling of the panorama, and brings out many details, but I found my eye jumping around what was now a more cluttered shot, rather than feeling a sweep.

I agree with Andrew that the overall problem is difficult lighting, time of day, weather conditions. Were I post-processing, I might have tried to create much more drama in the sky (sacrificing a whole lot of detail in the process).

But again: What was it about the scene on Carlton Hill that made you want to take a picture?

Thanks so, so much, everyone -- for opinions, for advice, and for actually working on my photo! I really appreciate the time you've poured into answering my question.

I'm beginning to understand that on dull days -- and others, too -- I'll need to go beyond the auto settings on my camera. I'm going to try to learn a lot about lighting in the coming months.

---

Here's the same view three months later (I just added another pic). It's still a travel snap, nothing more:

https://thepavot.smugmug.com/Travel-Snap-Woe/

---

Really, words fail me. You have been so helpful!