07-08-2019 10:15 AM
They look fine to me.
Can you you show a detail of the part you think is "grainy"
Since the 75-300 does not have IS, you might be seeing some camera shake.
07-08-2019 10:28 AM - edited 07-08-2019 10:34 AM
You know what might be helpful... if you could provide the EXIF data for the photos. We need to know ISO, shutter speed and aperature.
The afters's look a little over lightened to me, but maybe thats my monitors.
The graininess on the pics shot at F22 are probably due to high ISO. When you stop the lens down that far, the camera will try to increase ISO and decrease shutter to get enough light. You get improved DOF in foreground and background, but at the expense of graininess.
Give us your EXIF data and we can tell you more.
07-09-2019 12:51 AM - edited 07-09-2019 01:14 AM
I understand you posted JPEGS, but you said, "I do by default take all pictures in RAW format" so you should have the EXIF data available. We don't need the full size images, just the premise and corresponding data would be helpful.
Sounds like you've already done some reading and have come to your own conclusions. Best thing to do next is take more pictures.
Yes indeed many lenses have a sweet spot or range.
A journal with basic notes, image #, can help. Then you go home, download the RAW photos and can see for yourself what worked, what didn't and what you might have done differently or better.
The custom menus can also help with this. I sometimes set one for indoor, another for outdoor, etc. Also helpful for subjects that are here one minutes and gone the next. Birds, race cars, sports activities and the like.
I am no expert. More of an ethusiast with 40yrs of casual experience (always Canon). Its a hobby I'm serious about and truly enjoy.
07-09-2019 02:38 AM
"I spent hours reducing noise, touching up my face, despeckling, and doing all sorts to get the colours that looked the most appealing to me."
This might be your issue. In post editing less is more. Be very careful how much you slide the sliders in your editor. Second you might be at the limit of what your gear can produce. Certainly f22 isn't helping since you probably entered some diffraction issues to the shots.
It is always best to get the shot right in the camera instead of trying to recover it in post. However, it is the single best reason to always shoot Raw. I think f22 and a high ISO caused your problems and was exacerbated by excessive recovery efforts in post.
07-09-2019 03:40 AM
"I don't have lightroom but I do have adobe photoshop. How would you/others edit this picture?"
You do not need LR if you already own and KNOW Photoshop. LR can do nothing PS can't in fact LR does less than PS does.
ISO 2500, 4000, 6400 is a problem, so is f22. For this type of shooting none of these settings are your friend. M is not necessarily the answer either. Auto ISO is not a good idea for this type of shots. So we know most or all the settings were wrong, let's learn and move on.
I would have used P mode or Av mode. Set the ISO to a firm value, like ISO 200 or perhaps 400 and leave it there! If you want good DOF try f11 or f16 at max. But your exif data did not indicate FL so DOF is impossible to calculate. However, DOF decrease as the aperture gets larger (lower f number). It increases as distance from subject increases, too. You have chosen a poor lens for this type work. Did you not get the 18-55mm zoom with your camera? Use it instead.
Sorry to be harsh but this is how you learn. Don't try to run before you can walk. It might be a good idea to stick with P mode until you get more familiar with photography. When through shooting look at the settings the camera chose and remember what works and what doesn't.
"I've read somewhere the if i replace the f for a 1 and convert to fractions then 1/22 would technically be lower then 1/5."
I have no idea what you are talking about? f22 is f22 all day long.
"I only used Tv for rolling road shots. "
Stick with P mode for now.
"My other question is should I set maximum ISO limit?"
Yes, fix it to a exact value. Do not use Auto ISO for this type work.
"it's currently on 1600 with the option to up it to 3200 but my insinct tells me I should I limit this to 800?"
ISO 200 to 400 is good. 1600 and even 800 is a little too high.
"The goal I am trying to achieve is minimal editing time..."
Yeah don't everybody?
...and lasty..........."I won't be afraid to gut and see how it all works lol."
Another very bad idea. Leave this to the techs at Canon.
07-09-2019 09:45 AM