Does FF make your photos pop?

[Kernuak]

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Learning to get as many things as possible right in camera will help there, as it will save time on PP. You can then concentrate on enhancing what you have already, instead of correcting errors. The two examples I posted above had nothing more than a curves adjustment (actually, that's not quite true for the first one, as I applied a gradient to the sky in Lightroom), they aren't even cropped, as I don't often have the patience (or time) to spend hours on playing around with a photo. I know of people who spend days cloning out background elements from a single photo, but that isn't for me, I'd rather just try to position the subject (or rather me) against an uncluttered background to start with. Sometimes you don't have a choice of course, then you can decide to shoot anyway and either live with the results or find the time to doctor the end result (my conscience, not to mention the time factor, usually leads me to the first option in those cases.

 

[elflord]

I really appreciate the feedback.

Some of the advice miss my problem.
I am really concerned about that "sticking out of the frame" and not so much about the composition etc.
I didn't spend too much time in the selection of the pics because I was hoping that it would be a known issue.
It's probably best to get my hands on a 5D from somewhere and do some comparisons myself.

Full frame has the effect of making your lenses faster -- which creates options for shallow dof and low light photography. It won't solve lighting or composition problems. The intangible "sticking out of the frame" issue is very much related to composition (but also to lighting). A good book on composition will go much further than a 5D.

There is nothing about the "good" pictures you've selected that screams "full frame".

The "popping" in the most recent example is a result of shallow depth of field (200mm at f/4.5 will give you shallow dof, but nothing you couldn't do with a crop though you will need a fast lens -- you need 135mm at f/2.8 to get the same effect on APS-C), but also careful composition. There is a reason that the subject "pops" -- it's because the background is far enough back to be out of focus. There are no distracting elements in the foreground. The "looking through a window" effect is a combination of using a long lens, and again, lining up the background carefully so that it doesn't interfere (and making sure there is nothing in front of the subject).

It's true that you don't always need complex composition. Perhaps a point you've missed is that good composition isn't always complex. In fact on the contrary, for portrait shots like the one you just posted, it's desirable to eliminate distracting elements.
Again, completely attainable on APS-C but requires careful attention to composition.

(edit)
re this:
"I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds."

Portrait and landscape photographers like the 5D (high mpx, shallow dof). The high end APS-C cameras (e.g. 7D) is popular among those who need long lenses and/or fast AF. So I think it's more that the photographers who inspire you tend to like the 5D.

 

[pwp]

You can make a photo pop just as effectively with an iPhone, a compact, an APS-C or FF.

It's all about the so called "decisive moment", that perfect confluence of composition, light and particularly with people, that magic moment.

A bit of feedback I often give when people ask me how to take better people pictures is to "look for the glow, and shoot that!"
Simple and effective. Remember, content is king.

You can definitely enhance a well shot image further in post-pro, but generally no amount of post-pro will retrieve and elevate a poorly shot file to brilliance.

Paul Wright

 

[ghosh9691]

To the OP: There is a lot of good advice on this thread that, if I were you, I would try to follow to the letter. IMHO, what makes a photograph pop is composition & lighting. What camera you use is secondary in the modern world - an APS-C camera today has excellent performance. Probably what matters more is lens used. One suggestion I have: try with just one lens, preferrably a fast prime, and do not use any other lens till you master the composition aspect of photography and light. That may help - I know it helped me significantly while using a 50mm lens exclusively!

I have taken one of your samples and cropped it to make the photo more pleasing (no other changes):

 

[JT13]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

 

[elflord]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

PM sent with some of my humble efforts...

 

[dr croubie]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

Not sure quite what you mean by the '3-dimensional-feel', but i'll have a crack. Normally I crop this shot a bit, but this is the entire frame as taken.
7D, <edit: it was the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 actually> at f/2.0 probably, 430EX flash on HSS and a $10 softbox from china via ebay. ISO100, Av, 1/1000s (so the flash probably wasn't doing much anyway).
DPP-processed from raw in Faithful, -1/8 EV, +3 contrast, -2 highlight, -1 shadow, +2 saturation, 3 sharpness, 1/1 NR. (i've found Faithful and Neutral do better for skin tones, you can add more saturation than using 'Portrait' and 'Standard' without the skin looking weird).

(i'm sure others do better at portraits, it's not really my thing)

 

[arioch82]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

my tries with a 500D and a "crappy" EF-S 55-250


_MG_0518.jpg di ocangelo, su Flickr


_MG_1975.jpg di ocangelo, su Flickr

 

[ghosh9691]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

I think your needs might be best served by a full-frame camera - maybe the 1DX, D800, D4, or if time permits and you can wait, the 5DIII whenever it gets released...

Alternately, the Leica M9 coupled with the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux will give you fabulous photos as well...

 

[Drizzt321]

Could someone post a picture taken with an APS-C similar to the portrait in my last post?
The reindeers look good but don't have that "pop out of the frame" feel.
For me the cropped girl's head doesn't come close to it.

I am affraid I might have become too pedantic about the three-dimensional feel.
I will sleep on it for a night.

I think your needs might be best served by a full-frame camera - maybe the 1DX, D800, D4, or if time permits and you can wait, the 5DIII whenever it gets released...

Alternately, the Leica M9 coupled with the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux will give you fabulous photos as well...

Actually, I don't know why he would bother with those cheap bodies. He needs to go right for Medium Format! There's no substitute for a truly giant sensor!

 

[DarStone]

I have both the 7D and 5D MkII to be honest I prefer my 7D in almost all shooting situations, but I always shoot raw but even Jpeg's can be tweaked. The shots you used as examples are all edited, while yours are straight out of camera, your shots are very good and would be even better with just a little editing. Here is an example using your own shots.

 

[tt]

JT13 - looking at another thread, gave a simple demo of how a change in aperture (a 70-200mm 2.8 at 2.8 vs a 85mm at 1.2) can help this. Yes lighting would enhance the pop - looking at the photos it also shows how compression of the background via focal length, positioning of a darker/less busy background, and lighting can all help.

.. Bokeh wise, someone mentioned the 85 1.2 and 70-200 @200 2.8 would give the same look.. NO. it's not. n I took couple shots to see how much differences (for my own references at well)
all shot handheld, lowlight, straight out from camera, used 1d2 (FF would give a better look, isnt it?)
85L @1.2

70-200 @ 85mm 2.8

70-200 @200 2.8

BONUS: 200mm F2.0 IS

 

[Viggo]

If you use 1,2's and 1,4 lenses on FF It can't be beat, it just makes the images look SO much better. I wil never consider a crop cam again, ever.... This image is shot a full stop down on the 50 L , and what sets the L's apart is the quality of the bokeh when stopping down, it stays supersmooth...

Cereals with Mickey on the box, oh, happiness ;D

 

[HTCahHTC]

If you Google 'bokeh difference FF and crop sensor' you'll generate a few links which show the differences of bokeh effects on ff and crop sensors. The difference is what you're looking for. So, yes, ff do actually make a difference. I know what you're trying to say cos I am thinking exactly like you. My pictures from my 450D doesn't 'pop' as much but using the same setups but with a 5Dii, things turned out different.

 

[hoousi]

Thanks for the info!
There are so many steps I can improve on - especially PP.

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Regarding the "poping" ;D I don't think it is so much about aperture and DOF.
In the portrait galary there is a great pic by JR:
5D mkII, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, taken at 200mm, f4.5, ISO 320

The sharp face contour gives the image a great three-dimensionality.
It is almost like looking through a window.

To the last comments:
I don't claim that I mastered APS-C and now need a FF to push the technical boundaries.
I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds.
The reason is not clear to me. It might be PP that most 5D owners use.
Many of the pictures I admire don't look like they took hours of waiting for the right light and it is also not about the largest aperture.
You also don't need a complex composition, as you can see in the picture above.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it sounds stupid but after changing to FF I prefer my photos, though I certainly did not improve my photographing skills from one day to the other, and my D90 and X100 certainly were/are great cameras, but there just is something to these FF pictures, the tonality of the x100 plus the DOF control plus some L-magic. I get way more compliments now than before just shooting the same... Everybody says it's more important to take courses and read books on getting a better photographer, which is absolutely true, but if you have the funds for FF and other goodies it makes your photos better in an instant and you still can go on improving your skills...

 

[Viggo]

Thanks for the info!
There are so many steps I can improve on - especially PP.

I take photos mostly while traveling.
When I am back home I am too busy with work to do PP.
So, I've just shot in jpg but I want to change that.

Regarding the "poping" ;D I don't think it is so much about aperture and DOF.
In the portrait galary there is a great pic by JR:
5D mkII, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, taken at 200mm, f4.5, ISO 320

The sharp face contour gives the image a great three-dimensionality.
It is almost like looking through a window.

To the last comments:
I don't claim that I mastered APS-C and now need a FF to push the technical boundaries.
I have just noticed that some photos have a great three-dimensional impression and they were all taken by 5Ds.
The reason is not clear to me. It might be PP that most 5D owners use.
Many of the pictures I admire don't look like they took hours of waiting for the right light and it is also not about the largest aperture.
You also don't need a complex composition, as you can see in the picture above.

I think I understand what you are getting at, it sounds stupid but after changing to FF I prefer my photos, though I certainly did not improve my photographing skills from one day to the other, and my D90 and X100 certainly were/are great cameras, but there just is something to these FF pictures, the tonality of the x100 plus the DOF control plus some L-magic. I get way more compliments now than before just shooting the same... Everybody says it's more important to take courses and read books on getting a better photographer, which is absolutely true, but if you have the funds for FF and other goodies it makes your photos better in an instant and you still can go on improving your skills...

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

 

[mws]

I've been watching this form, as I feel the same way about my photos from my 50D (I have good glass, 50 f1.4, 24-70L f 2.8, 70-200L 2.8 IS II). Although I do realize most of the poor results are just due to me not having anywhere enough time (One kid under two and another due in 3 weeks will do that to you...) to practice shooting to get it down to the level I want.

I've already decided my next cam will be FF, most likely be what ever the 5D mk III ends up to be. I've noticed that a lot of people talked about the effect that PP has on the photo. Anyone care to share some tips/pointers/links to some good PP resources? I feel that I know my way around Lightroom pretty well, but always struggle to get the results I want from it. Even starting PP with photos that I feel are pretty good, I tend to spend far time much time screwing around in LR with sub par results.

I'll put it this way, it usually takes me so much time to do PP that I'm several months behind in uploading pictures to my website.

I assume it all comes down to get it right in the camera, and then less is more in PP?

 

[dmills]

Sure, full frame will look better. But, that doesn't mean that you can't get images that pop from an aps-c either. I'm no pro photographer, but I feel like any of these images pop pretty well in their own right. All shot on a 60D.

- 10-22

100-400

85 1.2

 

[ghosh9691]

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

Bokeh is the quality of the background blur. It depends on the lens and the way a lens "draws". The amount of background blur is controlled by Depth of Field (DOF) and this is driven by subject distance, sensor size and lens aperture. You can get the same bokeh (amount and quality) with APS-C and FF if you use the same lens. The only thing different will be subject distance and framing that will account for the size difference between the two formats.

 

[Viggo]

I fully agree, now you can expect some rants from others for saying what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that you are right indeed.

Light is extremely important, but even with the same light, same lens same everything, one shot on a 450d at 100 iso and the 5d2 shot 100 iso, the 5d WILL look much more pleasing and it makes color-gradients, depth of color, punch of color, dynamic range, light to dark gradients, bokeh, everything is better.

Bokeh is the quality of the background blur. It depends on the lens and the way a lens "draws". The amount of background blur is controlled by Depth of Field (DOF) and this is driven by subject distance, sensor size and lens aperture. You can get the same bokeh (amount and quality) with APS-C and FF if you use the same lens. The only thing different will be subject distance and framing that will account for the size difference between the two formats.

All theory and what might not be, doesn't change the fact that my 24 LII, 50 L and 85 LII looks fantastically much better on the 5d than they did on my mk4. Muchmuch cleaner iso's below 800 also helps the 5d over the 7d and the mk4, and as the iso get's cleaner the dynamic range is also better. Simply saying the dof is the same with different framing doesn't make sense. It's the whole package of the fullframe 5d2 over the mk4 and the 7d/60d/550d that is the key here. And the fact it being full frame and improves every aspect of the image is waay different from depth of field alone. And all those things combined gives you at much better image overall.