Is this my lens??

[KutzlerTrans]

I have a sony slt-a33 w sony SAL1855 lense.
It just seems to me that i should be getting a better clearer picture. This is what i got for a pic today while helping someone with a problem. The paper is better than the picture and it was brighter than what came out. What am i doing wrong? This was 5 tries to get this good.

Inside shot with daylight 4ft from window. Automatic w/no flash

Note, the printing on the paper is not real sharp, but better than the picture. Its like i am missing contrast or something.... The camera takes nice distance shots but is worthless for clear closeups.

What lense would be a better upgrade? Thanks, John

 

[KutzlerTrans]

I will add that i have tried light boxes and a few different light combinations for taking pictures of Receivers to sell and they just look out of focus or dingy. I have never been able to get good shots close up. Manual focus does not help.

 

[timofred]

Unfortunately 'kit' lenses aren't the greatest, cheaply made of mostly plastic elements.
The first image is vignetted, are you using a filter ? that could be adding to the problem.

 

[KutzlerTrans]

No Filter. I wish it was that. Thanks.

 

[HTHMAN]

With the vignetting on the first image, it appears you are shooting at wide open aperture. That is where your lens will be its least sharp. Stopping your lens down to around f/8 will give you about the sharpest image you will get from that lens.

I used to use a Minolta Maxxum 35mm camera and have several lenses that work on my Sony Alpha DSLR. You can find some nice used Minolta Maxxum lenses that will work on your camera. I would suggest the Minolta Maxxum 50mm f/1.7 prime lens for about the sharpest image you will get. Great low light lens.

 

[KutzlerTrans]

Makes sense to me. i will look into the minolta maxxum.

Update: $43 I am the proud new owner of one on ebay , excellent condition. 100% pos feedback, so i expect it to be in nice shape.

Thank You very much for your advice!, John

 

[HTHMAN]

Makes sense to me. i will look into the minolta maxxum.

Update: $43 I am the proud new owner of one on ebay , excellent condition. 100% pos feedback, so i expect it to be in nice shape.

Thank You very much for your advice!, John

Did not take you long and you got that at a good price. I have 2 of them. Be careful if you buy more lenses as the older Minolta mounts do not fit. Here is a great site for Alpha mount fans with lens reviews.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

 

[HTHMAN]

I have a sony slt-a33 w sony SAL1855 lense.
It just seems to me that i should be getting a better clearer picture. This is what i got for a pic today while helping someone with a problem. The paper is better than the picture and it was brighter than what came out. What am i doing wrong? This was 5 tries to get this good.

Inside shot with daylight 4ft from windown

As far as the exposure on the paper, you will probably need to adjust the exposure on something other than the all white paper. You can use a gray photo card to set your white balance and exposure. Lock your exposure from the card and then take the picture. The paper will come out white. Your other option is to Photoshop it. Basically, the camera does not know that paper is white if it is all it sees.

 

[mhainz]

What ISO were you using? To me it looks underexposed (which is what you get when photographing mainly white on an auto setting) and quite noisy so this will all contribute to it looking unsharp.

 

[No Money]

Don't use it wide open and bump your exposure up about two stops. As others have said, it's underexposed. Not the lens, it's the way a camera's light meter works.

 

[KutzlerTrans]

I cannot adjust anything in the auto mode, it does its thing without me having any say. I agree it looks like its set on 1600 iso, but i'm not sure what its doing. As far as f stops, i do not have the pleasure of setting them in auto mode.

I am use to my old canon a1 were i could adjust it, or should i say, HAD to adjust it.
how do i bump up my exposure, or i would guess your talking ISO.

I have a nice setup that holds the camera and i can slide it up and down about 10-25" above the subject and use natural and 20 other different settings and the pictures just do not come out as clear or as bright as they should.

I really appreciate the help and advice!,. When i get the new lens, i will try the light box thing again and post some picture so you guys can give me some advice.

Photoshop is going to be my next learning curve. The pictures on Skibjr's ebay page is what i eventually need to learn how to do. He just uses 2 500w lights and photoshops them, but they are fantastic. The clarity is something i do not think he messes with but he does whiten the yellow. Here is the add,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Marantz-232...674565?hash=item25b1512305:g:HSgAAOSweuxWSTW5

He says he just uses an old sony SLR

 

[chicks]

Way under exposed. Can be fixed in post processing, but the high ISO setting means lots of noise. On a tripod, ISO can be set down to native for the camera, and exposure can be as long as necessary. Probably want an f-stop around 5.6 or so for best sharpness. Kit lens should be sharp enough when stopped down.

Upped the exposure in PP, but can't fix the noise.

 

[jcamero]

You could try changing your white balance.

 

[No Money]

Set your camera to manual, or, if you insist on using auto, (do not use Auto+, it will lock you out of any adjustments from memory) look for the "exposure compensation" dial and start adding exposure. According to what I know about that model you can easily do this. Manual is still the best way of doing it.

Here's a couple of pages from the manual to get you headed in the right direction.
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/157611/Sony-A-Alpha-Slt-A33.html?page=101#manual
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/157611/Sony-A-Alpha-Slt-A33.html?page=102#manual

 

[HTHMAN]

I am use to my old canon a1 were i could adjust it, or should i say, HAD to adjust it.
how do i bump up my exposure, or i would guess your talking ISO.

First, you need to take the camera off Auto. That is fine if you want to use the camera as a point and shoot for snapshots, but kind of a waste of a good camera. Personally, I use Aperture priority most often. With it, you choose the f-stop and the camera pics the shutter speed. There should be an exposure lock button somewhere on your camera. With it you can lock in a proper exposure and it probably lets you dial the EV up/down. The camera probably is set at automatic white balance but you are probably better off setting it for daylight, incandescent or fluorescent lighting in the menu. Just like your Canon with film you will get red or green casts if you do not set the correct white balance. Of course, you can correct it in post processing but better to get it right to start. You new lens will be a great asset but it will not correct errors in ISO, focus, white balance or exposure.

 

[KutzlerTrans]

Thank you Hitman. I am pretty familiar with manual mode and will be using it in the future. i can set the ISO and dial my f stop. It comes in handy for long exposure night shots.

I guess i never thought i would have to use it for a close up, but it makes total sense to do this. I never stop to think this through when i am in a hurry. i just expect it to do what i want it to do, but now i know better

Thanks for everyones comments.. I will be reading your advice and learning from it. As far as white balance, JC, On manual mode, there are a boatload of ways to do it,. (Inside florescent, clouds, shade etc, Is there a common known place i should start from? Another words, should i trust these options, or not. When i did use a light box, none of them gave me the picture i wanted. Everything just appeared dingy or dark, and if i turned up the brightness(any way i could) they just looked blah, for a better word.

Now, I was messing with it and see the "shudder priority " would be what i need to use over just all manual. I never used that one but i will take the same picture and post it.

here are some receiver pics i took a few months ago. look them over and tell me were i am going wrong. Thank You very much for your time, John

 

[danj]

Your most valuable new information isn't that your technique was at fault but that there are lots of experienced users on this forum who are more than happy to pass on their knowledge and experience.

 

[HTHMAN]

That last picture of the Marantz receiver is a perfect example of what happens with incandescent lighting. There is not enough white in the picture for the auto white balance to work properly. Once again, it is something easily cleaned up in post processing.

 

[No Money]

To get good white balance order yourself a white balance card and learn how to use it. This is a good as any, it's the one I use http://michaeltapesdesign.com/whibal.html Never leave home without it as they say.

Also I highly recommend getting a copy of one of Scott Kelby's books on photoshop. Good at simplifying what can sound complicated. Short learning curve. I know I have learn't a couple of very simple "moves" from his books that have saved my arse a few times.

 

[KutzlerTrans]

Excellent help here, i didn't know a white balance card existed. I will get the book also.

I am glad i asked. I will let you folks know how it comes out . John