First Post - need help with these set of pics....are they washed out?

[lputtbach]

Taken on the beach right before sunset with a Nikon 40x. My beach shots are hit or miss depending on the light (although mostly hit ;)). Any feedback would be appreciated.

[Tumeg]

The first one is a bit blown out, the boy's face is washed out...

The second one is AMAZING... I don't know his natural skin tone, but this picture is still amazing (even if compared to his actual skin, is washed out)
His eyes are amazing!

[jbkalla]

Hope you don't mind! I upped the exposure, contrast and shadows/highlights a bit. Of course, this was easier because I didn't have to worry about the sky.

[jbkalla]

PS... I love the boy's eyes in the second photo!

[lputtbach]

Tumeg - thanks for the feedback......yes his eyes are amazing!

John - I don't mind the edit at all, looks great. The white sky from behind is what had me worried about the photo in the first place. A lot of times this happens to me at the beach........the sky was not that white, but that's how it comes out at certain angles......Unfortunately, I have not figured out the 'problem situation' enough yet to try and avoid it.

[jbkalla]

Oh, well a Circular Polarizing (CP) filter would help a bit with the sky. Just turn it til your sky looks darker. I think a fill flash might have helped, also. 'Course, I'm no expert...

[tonydee]

The white sky from behind is what had me worried about the photo in the first place. A lot of times this happens to me at the beach........the sky was not that white, but that's how it comes out at certain angles......Unfortunately, I have not figured out the 'problem situation' enough yet to try and avoid it.

It's simply that the camera is trying to take in a scene with two much contrast, so the bright areas have ended up as completely white. This limited "dynamic range" is a fundamental limitation of the current technology. You can try reviewing the photo and histogram after taking each shot (even my Kiss X aka Rebel XTi aka 400D can make overexposed pixels flash between black and white so I know straight away I've screwed up). If your histogram has a "spike" at the right end, you're overexposed:

229360

This is the histogram from your first picture above, displayed by The Gimp (www.gimp.org) rather than the in-camera histogram, but never-the-less you can see the right hand side goes up to meet the top of the graph. Summarily, the left end of the graph represents how much of the picture is completely and absolute black, then as you move right through the histogram, how much of the area of the picture is at successively brighter overall values. The far right of the graph represents the area of the picture that is completely and "detaillessly" white. Note that your graph is higher at this right end than anywhere else in the graph. This graph is logarithmic, which makes it easier to compare the level throughout the graph despite there being dramatic spikes. A linear graph looks like this:

229362

This graph gives a more accurate indication of how common completely white pixels are compared to other intensity levels.

So, if you can recognise over-exposure, how can you fix it?

One way is to set the Ev value down to -1 or -2 and reshoot. This tells the camera not to make the picture so bright. The problem is that you may find a spike on the left of your histogram: that the darker parts of the picture are now featureless black. If this does happen, you can only avoid it by:

- taking a combination of over and under exposed pictures and combining them using High Dynamic Range (HDR) techniques (you'll find these discussed in many threads in these forums, with some people have suggested or written tutorials)

- increasing the brightness of the dark parts of the picture by using your own lighting, or reflecting light onto these parts

- recomposing the picture so more available light falls on the parts of the picture that are darker (i.e. having the sun fall more directly on the camera-side of a subject, rather than being behind the subject), or simply framing without the sky or light sources causing the problem

- use a hard line or graduated ND filter (basically, grey glass) to cover the part of the picture that's two bright (main problem with this is that there's not always a clear linear divide between the bright and dark parts of the picture, but it's particularly useful for landscapes with a clear-cut horizon)

- use a polarising filter to remove/reduce polarised light, such as sunlight reflected sideways from particles in the air, and reflections on water

- try to shoot in RAW instead of JPEG, as it can often capture a little more dynamic range, and certainly preserves more fine detail about intensity levels throughout the dynamic range, making it easy to post-process without further degrading the image quality

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Tony

[Meaty0]

Hi Lisa and welcome to the forum. You need to change to a Canon camera to post in these forums (just kidding...but we are Canon peoples mostly :-D).

Your first shot is one of the hardest shots I have found to do correctly. I'm still grappling with it and yet wedding photographers do it with ease.

You can try a technique called "dragging the shutter" to get the exposure right for both subject and background. To do this, you'll need to set up your camera on a tripod and use a flash.

Set your camera to M mode for manual and metre the sunset (don't include the sun in the viewfinder)..use a widish aperture if you can...f/5.6 or f/8. With these settings in the camera, turn on the flash and press the FEC button and the flash will work out what it needs to do to expose your subjects. Then press the shutter button.

The camera will expose the background and the flash will expose the foreground. That's the theory anyway. Make sure your subjects stand very still.

[lputtbach]

Tony - Wow, thanks for that comprehensive lesson about the histogram! I have a lot more learning to do about that, but this gives me the info I need to try and understand it. I will be reading your post over & over for a few days! ;) I need to check that on my camera and see what it is all about. What I got after reading all of the things I could try & do to get a good shot, it seemed clear to me.........just take the darn picture at the right time of day! I have had fabulous beach pictures turn out if I can just get the timing right. Literally right before the sun goes down. Thx for taking the time....

Meaty0 - Funny that you mention getting a Canon - I 'upgraded' to a Nikon in May and have tried everything I can to return it and get my Canon back! I think my pictures came out a lot better with the Canon and I was much more comfortable with that camera. I had a xti. But no such luck.....i actually had to send my Nikon back to the manufac. this week because of the 'burning' smell coming from the flash. I'm no expert, but burning smells can only equal bad news! :rolleyes:

Thanks for the suggestion on the dragging the shutter technique. My first thought was, well I can use this with adults........my children clients won't sit still for 10 seconds!

p.s. i am very impressed at the people in this fourm and the support. I have been a member forever, but was intimidated to post anything. You guys have been great.... ~Lisa

[Benji]

I believe histograms about as much as I believe politicians. In the histogram above the spike at the extreme right hand side is simply the bright background. When a significant portion of the image is brightly lit this is what the histogram will look like. Had it been dark outside, the left side would have had this spike.

I remember several years ago (before I went digital) I was collaborating with another photographer. We were outdoors and I posed the young lady, metered the highlight side of her face and told the other photographer what the meter reading was. He set the readings into the camera, made the capture and then he looked at the histogram and announced that the image was overexposed because there was a large spike at the right hand side. I remetered and he checked his settings and found everything matched. Later on we loaded the image into Photoshop and the image was perfectly exposed.

I've been digital for almost three years now. I think out of the last 10,000 captures that I've made I have looked at exactly two histograms. A hand held meter will never lie to you.

Benji

[Meaty0]

I believe histograms about as much as I believe politicians. In the histogram above the spike at the extreme right hand side is simply the bright background.

Oooo...I'm sooooooooo glad to read that someone else thinks this. I thought it was only me. I found that many of my images looked overexposed when the histogram "looked right". I only use it as a rough guide now...a very rough guide.

[Meaty0]

Meaty0 - Funny that you mention getting a Canon - I 'upgraded' to a Nikon in May and have tried everything I can to return it and get my Canon back! I think my pictures came out a lot better with the Canon and I was much more comfortable with that camera. I had a xti. But no such luck.....i actually had to send my Nikon back to the manufac. this week because of the 'burning' smell coming from the flash. I'm no expert, but burning smells can only equal bad news! :rolleyes:


Well don't feel too bad. If Canon doesn't come out with a replacement for the 5D soon, I'll be getting a Nikon 3D instead. <thinks: Ooooo don't be swayed by the dark side Luke>:D

[|)\/8]

The exif data on your first image is still intact and it shows that you shot this using auto exposure, and this is a perfect example of why you do not want to use auto exposure. Using manual you could have exposed for the sky and filled in your subject with fill flash.

[Pete-eos]

Your camera is exposing correctly for the subjects but there is to much light coming from the sky and its being blown out.

Try and meter the camera for the sky, setting it up in manual getting settings closer to that of the sky, say f/11 1/200 ISO 200 at a guess then let the flash fill in the subjects.

That's how I think it'd work anyway...

[joove]

Did you sharpen these photos at all ? My first impression was that they were a bit soft. Since nothing appears to be sharp, I am guessing you did not. A judicious application of usm at a low radius should also help. I don't know what software comes with the nikons, but gimp should do the job if you don't have a photoshop/elements equivalent.

If you are far from the photographee or have a very narrow dof, the focus then recompose technique will ensure that the focus plane is before/behind your original focus place. That could also lead to an oof look.

my 2c.

-vamsi

[lputtbach]

Well don't feel too bad. If Canon doesn't come out with a replacement for the 5D soon, I'll be getting a Nikon 3D instead.

And what's wrong with the Canon 5D again??

[lputtbach]

The exif data on your first image is still intact and it shows that you shot this using auto exposure, and this is a perfect example of why you do not want to use auto exposure. Using manual you could have exposed for the sky and filled in your subject with fill flash.

A lot of times I shoot in auto mode b/c working with children a lot, there is no time to set up each shot, etc, etc. But thanks for the info, I will certainly take that in to consideration next time.

[lputtbach]

Your camera is exposing correctly for the subjects but there is to much light coming from the sky and its being blown out.

Try and meter the camera for the sky, setting it up in manual getting settings closer to that of the sky, say f/11 1/200 ISO 200 at a guess then let the flash fill in the subjects.

That's how I think it'd work anyway...

There is a lot of talk on metering.........anybody know of a good tutorail or such that can explain this a bit more?

[lputtbach]

Did you sharpen these photos at all ? My first impression was that they were a bit soft. Since nothing appears to be sharp, I am guessing you did not. A judicious application of usm at a low radius should also help. I don't know what software comes with the nikons, but gimp should do the job if you don't have a photoshop/elements equivalent.

I did not sharpen. I do have photoshop elements. And can you please explain about the ;application of usm at a low radius'.......you lost me

[Meaty0]

And what's wrong with the Canon 5D again??

Nothing is wrong with the current 5D other than a replacement is due soon and I want the "next version". It's due out in February I think....and should be VERY good for portrait photographers...hint..hint;)

[Meaty0]

There is a lot of talk on metering.........anybody know of a good tutorail or such that can explain this a bit more?
Cambridge in Colour is a good website for lots of stuff. There's a good info page HERE (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm)

[dev0]

You can try a technique called "dragging the shutter" to get the exposure right for both subject and background. To do this, you'll need to set up your camera on a tripod and use a flash.

[...]

The camera will expose the background and the flash will expose the foreground. That's the theory anyway. Make sure your subjects stand very still.


This is not entirely accurate. Dragging the shutter is a technique used in
low ambient light. This situation is the opposite. Your recommendation
to meter for the background and have the flash take care of the subject is
100% correct, but in this case it won't be necessary for the subjects to
stand still since you're setting the exposure for a very bright background.


--
Bernard
http://bertold.zenfolio.com

[Meaty0]

This is not entirely accurate. Dragging the shutter is a technique used in
low ambient light. This situation is the opposite. Your recommendation
to meter for the background and have the flash take care of the subject is
100% correct, but in this case it won't be necessary for the subjects to
stand still since you're setting the exposure for a very bright background.


--
Bernard
http://bertold.zenfolio.com

Sorry to disagree. If you read the first post carefully, you will see the image was taken "right before sunset", and in any photographers book, that's an ideal time to "drag the shutter" EDIT: I really mean "slow synch speed photography". The camera has overexposed the sky, making it look like a bright day though.

My assertion that the subjects should stand still is not always required but wise, since neither of us know exactly what shutter speed is needed in this particular shot. Usually though, it's quite slow...and you can get a little blur if the subject moves...and I have the shots to prove it!:) If there's no ambient light much at all around the subject then it doesn't matter.

[dev0]

Sorry to disagree. If you read the first post carefully, you will see the image was taken "right before sunset", and in any photographers book, that's an ideal time to "drag the shutter" EDIT: I really mean "slow synch speed photography". The camera has overexposed the sky, making it look like a bright day though.



OK, the camera overexposed the sky. We both agree on that. I'm sure you'll
also agree, then, that in order for the sky to be properly exposed in this case
you'd have to use a faster shutter speed so it gets less exposed than
it is, right? But "dragging the shutter" means setting a slower shutter
speed, not a faster one. So this is not a case when the OP needs to drag the
shutter.

[Meaty0]

Good point. Fill flash required if you can keep the shutter speed within the synch speed range of the camera (1/200th?). My bad.

[tonydee]

I believe histograms about as much as I believe politicians. In the histogram above the spike at the extreme right hand side is simply the bright background. When a significant portion of the image is brightly lit this is what the histogram will look like. Had it been dark outside, the left side would have had this spike.

I remember several years ago (before I went digital) I was collaborating with another photographer. We were outdoors and I posed the young lady, metered the highlight side of her face and told the other photographer what the meter reading was. He set the readings into the camera, made the capture and then he looked at the histogram and announced that the image was overexposed because there was a large spike at the right hand side. I remetered and he checked his settings and found everything matched. Later on we loaded the image into Photoshop and the image was perfectly exposed.

I've been digital for almost three years now. I think out of the last 10,000 captures that I've made I have looked at exactly two histograms. A hand held meter will never lie to you.

Benji

Hi Benji,

I think you're being a bit short-sighted here. By using the histogram, you're deliberately over- or under-exposing the picture in an effort to capture the scene's entire dynamic range, and if it's smaller than the camera's dynamic range, then pack it "to the right" (over-expose) so you get better signal-to-noise ratio in your picture. You then have the freedom - during post-processing in your favourite software - to correct the exposure while adjusting the intensity of the areas that would have been over or underexposed in some visually pleasing way.

If you don't do this, then you don't have the raw data to work with to get as good a final result. So, while you get better "out-of-camera" results for your main subject using your hand-held meter (when the blown or underexposed areas don't look particularly offensive or dominant), you remove the ability to get an even better result during post-processing.

Regards,

Tony

[lawmans3]

I took a shot at the first pic. Hope you don't mind. Nothing drastic, just a few minor enhancements (at least in IMO:D). These low res pics for the web are hard to get any detail in..:D

229731