I truly think I suck

[obnoxiousmom]

I took my daughter out today and tried to do a park shoot with her and failed miserably. It was broad daylight which I know is huge no no but I tried to do everything in the shade. All my pictures came out like crap! Then I realized that I suck even more with PP. I had a really bad day today. Some one tell me what I did wrong

I use AWB on all my shots and try to correct it in photoshop
1. SOC
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/IMG001soc1.jpg
1. PP
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/IMG0011.jpg
2. SOC
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img002soc1.jpg
2.PP
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img0021.jpg
3. SOC
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img003soc1.jpg
3. PP
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img0031.jpg
4. SOC
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img004soc1.jpg
4.PP
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/lifeuntome/img0041.jpg

[HappySnapper90]

Which 50mm lens are you using? The f1.8 or f1.4? The focus doesn't look that good on some are you selecting your AF point and using only the center point?

Yes you were out in harsh sunlight, so it's advisable if you do that to not have your subject wear bright white as you see how easily that white clothing gets completely blown out.

[obnoxiousmom]

Im using the 1.4 and moving my focus point to where I want my focal point to be. But none of my pics came out in good focus and all of them the colors are so off I struggled fixing them.

No bright colors in sunlight noted :)

[Maureen Souza]

Your photos are way too big. Please re-size them down the max allowed of 1024 pixels. Thanks.

[breathless]

Images should be downsized for posting.

Although some are shot in full sun, I like the original pictures more than the processed ones.

For the next time when shooting outdoors, try to keep the subject in shadow and the background in shadow. Practice doing that. When you feel comfortable in photographing subjects in shadow, move on to finding directional light in shadow(e.g., open sky, additive/subtractive elements, reflectors, etc.) It takes quite some time learning to recognize qualities of light. Much luck!

[obnoxiousmom]

Thank you

[ryant35]

When shooting in bright sun I like to under expose a little and use fill flash to make up for the under exposure. In the first shot you could have filled her face in with flash instead of over exposing the background in Photoshop. Fill flash especially bright sunlight & hats, they always cause shadows on faces.

The second shot is just too under exposed, ever too much for fill flash.

As for focusing, sometimes shooting at f/1.4 is too shallow, there are depth of field calculators online. I've been meaning to put in some typical values in one so I can have an idea if my aperture values give enough depth of focus for my situation. I suggest you do the same.

Also I find I only use One Shot focusing for 2 situations, low light with flash so my 580EXii or ST-E2 will use the focus assist of with my 50mm f/1.8 (at 1.8 or similar) to really be sure the focus is locked on, especially when your subject is really close.

[tonylong]

Te fourth shot is very nice, it shows some very good natural contrast between light and shadow.

The sixth through the eighth just need some boost -- contrast, saturation, to get it up to speed.

The first through the third are overexposed -- they could possibly be rescued, but mostly if you shot in Raw.

[Karl Johnston]

Look better than my people shots :lol:

[gcflora]

I notice that in #2 you spot metered and had -2/3 Exposure Compensation. What point did you spot meter off? If you spot metered off the hat it should probably have been at _least_ +1 EC, possibly more. If you spot meter off the hat which appears to be the brightest object in the scene then there is the risk of losing shadow details of course.

The noise in shot 2 is because of the underexposure, but I don't think it's beyond rescuing.

And, like Karl, these photos are probably better than my people shots as well :)

Edit, clarification: _If_ you spot metered off the hat, the camera would set the exposure to make the hat middle grey which would turn the rest of the scene underexposed as well. The -2/3 EC would amplify the underexposure even further... So, should have gone the other way to (positive exposure compensation) to make the hat white

[400dabuser]

The first rule of photography is.....be critical about yourself, if you truly suck, then I don't know how to describe myself:)

[egordon99]

Sometimes you'll just get crummy shots because of the crummy light....Try again on a slightly overcast day, or about an hour before sundown.

Also, don't use spot-metering (especially with negative exposure compensation) unless you REALLY know what you're doing....

[SkipD]

Some one tell me what I did wrongYour metering technique is the first thing that I suggest you work on. For shots like you displayed in the first post, I would strongly suggest using either a handheld light meter (in incident mode) or a standard gray card along with the meter in the camera to measure the light falling on the subject. This is FAR superior in many cases to using a reflected-light meter which responds only to light reflected from the subject.

There are many problems with using a reflected-light meter in the scenes you posted. There are reflections in the water and, of course, the white hat, which affect the readings badly. The high contrast between the brightest and darkest portions of the scenes play havoc with the camera's meter.

I recommend the Sekonic L-358 meter. I use mine all the time, both for studio work (using flash sources) and for outdoor work and everything in between.

My suggestion would be to use manual exposure settings on the camera and - however you make the light measurements - choose and apply the settings manually. With some practise (while paying attention to details), you will learn how to use your meter(s) effectively and get the best exposure settings up front.

Getting the exposure correct in the camera is FAR better than trying to correct exposure errors in post-processing.

I would also suggest that you completely avoid using automatic white balance. Instead, choose the closest match to the source of light. Also, if you shoot in RAW mode you can easily tweak the white balance in the RAW conversion process. This is MUCH simpler and less destructive to the image than trying to tweak .JPG images from the camera.

[Scottes]

I also think a lot of this is being aware of the setting - the subject, the background, and the light that's falling on the both.

A bright white hat on a sunny day is going to cause problems (like in shot 1) unless you're very aware of the light falling on the subject. Shade or overcast is better, like when she's hugging the tree. The hat is beautifully exposed, as is she. But then you have to be aware of the background - that shot has too many bright spots in the background, and balancing that out washes out the shot.

As you shoot more, you will become more aware of this. All of us have taken what we thought to be great photos, only to get home and find a branch sticking out of someone's ear, or a spot in the background that's far too bright.

[Jethro790]

It looks like this was a planned shoot. You dressed your daughter up and took her to a location with the intent of a photoshoot. Although it may sound odd, bright sun, portrait shooting is a prefect time to use a flash. You would have had an easier time getting the colors and sharpness with some flash, hopefully off camera if possible.

Your shots also look they have far too shallow of a depth of field. Stop it down a bit, up the ISO if necessary and your entire subject should be in focus.

Also, like Skip said, if you shoot in jpg, you need to either set a custom white balance or choose the best setting. AWB will not nail the WB all the time, maybe not even half the time. And adjusting WB in photoshop later with a jpg is going to result in some data and quality loss. You are much better off shooting in RAW and adjusting the WB afterwards (also allowing you to adjust exposure comp. without quality loss if needed). I say this because I don't think the shots you posted above have the correct WB still, unless her hat is actually a little pinkish.

[rral22]

You were shooting in very "difficult" conditions, including, as others have pointed out, even the outfit she was wearing.

I would dress her in less contrasty outfit; pick less contrasty light; stop down the lens; focus on eyes (I use a back button focus); spot meter and lock on the face; shoot Raw for final adjustment flexibility. Most of these things have been mentioned already.

I think the worst "mistakes" you have made are the ultra high contrast problems you created for yourself, and the narrow DOF your aperture choices imposed on you. I would be very concerned if I found myself trying to photograph such a scene, because it is not easy. I would have been using fill flash to help out as well, because I use fill in almost all my outdoor portraits as standard practice.

[form]

On a day like that, try a reflector or keep to the shade. Or, shoot early morning or late evening. Light, subject framing, body position/posture and other colors and light/dark that are in the frame affect your composition. Bright areas and colors will draw the eye, and you don't want to have competition with your main subject. If she's in the shade, the background should also be in the shade unless you want a big bright spot in the background that distracts.

[lungdoc]

In case she's not aware you can't easily use fill flash without an external flash in high speed sync mode in bright conditions (if shutter speed is to be above max sync speed usu. 1/250 or faster). Can stop down lens sometimes to lower the shutter speed but obviously changes depth of field.

[ebann]

#2 is clearly underexposed. The PP version with corrected exposure brought many noise and banding into it. You have to improve your exposure. As stated before, meter an 18% gray card with the same light hitting your subject; use fill-flash if shooting against bright backgrounds. Check your histogram and make sure you don't lose highlight details (you can ignore specular reflections, i.e. water reflections which is not important) e.g. child's white hat. Don't shoot with the sun behind you (your subject will squint and is not pretty). Start with sunny-16 rule... ISO 100, f/16, and shutter speed 1/100s. Enjoy.

[obnoxiousmom]

I used my gray card today. I own one but my pictures never look right to me when I do use it

I shoot only in RAW

I also do not understand metering. What its purpose it etc.

I own the book understanding exposure and have read it several times but Im more of a hands on learner verses a book learner. Just dont have anyone in my area to teach me.

I went out and tried again today with my gray card, no white hat, although she did have a partial white shirt :confused: and attemped to adjust my setting in manual mode. TONS of work lol Uploading my pics now to look at them

[obnoxiousmom]

Oh! And I pulled out my flash to use it as well for fill and realized my batteries were dead lol

[ebann]

First quick lesson on metering:

1) Camera "sees" the scene as shades of gray from white to black.

2) Camera tries to meter the entire scene (or a small area of the scene using SPOT) so that it averages out as 18% grey.

3) If you are metering a scene with lots of snow... the end result will be 18% grey snow because the camera wants to average the entire scene to 18% grey.

4) To fix that, you point the camera towards that grey card and meter the exposure off it so that when you take the picture of the snow scene, the camera "knows" what 18% grey looks like and will render the snow as it should be, white.

5) Metering means: Put your camera in Manual mode. Pick an ISO, let's say 100. Pick an aperture, let's say f/16. Point the camera to the grey card and fool around with shutter speed such that the metering "needle" (look it up in your camera's manual) is centered. You have just "programmed" your camera to expose 18% grey as 18% grey. Now whatever you shoot (under the same lighting conditions) will have the right tonality. White is white and grey is grey.

I hope this was clear.

[Scottes]

Second Lesson

1) Grab one of your daughter's stuffed animals, a white one. Place it on a dark chair or bedspread. Take a shot.

2) Now get another stuffed animal - a black one. Place it on the same dark background, and shoot.

3) Try the same thing, but on a bright background.

4) Try the dark animal on the bright background, and try each of the metering modes on your camera (evaluative, center-weighted, etc).

5) Go check out the pictures on your computer, and keep ebann's Lesson 1 in mind.

[lungdoc]

Oh! And I pulled out my flash to use it as well for fill and realized my batteries were dead lol

Now here I can help you: ENELOOP batteries (Costco and others sell). Rechargeable but don't lose charge like most rechargeables when sitting around in bag or flash. Best thing ever for occasional flash users.

[ebann]

Now here I can help you: ENELOOP batteries (Costco and others sell). Rechargeable but don't lose charge like most rechargeables when sitting around in bag or flash. Best thing ever for occasional flash users.

And take batteries out if stored for a long time... they leak and to fix it can be costly.

[SOK]

I truly think I suck

I also do not understand metering. What its purpose it etc.

Your first statement can only truly be addressed by addressing the second statement.

Understanding exposure counts for little if you don't know how your camera's meter interprets a scene (which dictates what an exposure should be!).

I own the book understanding exposure and have read it several times but Im more of a hands on learner verses a book learner. Just dont have anyone in my area to teach me.

I appreciate that some people aren't 'book learners'...but for the layperson, metering is essentially a theoretical concept. Without a suitably equipped electronics lab to see and measure the physics in action, all we can do is learn the concept. Of course, we can then go and practice with a camera, but no amount of spinning dials and pressing buttons is going to make you 'get' it...until you've done the reading. If 'Understanding Exposure' isn't doing it for you, do some Googling, and find a resource that makes sense.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm might be a good starting place.

As an aside, you're found the right place to get great help, but anything offered here on POTN is going to be no more 'hands on' than a book or website. It's going to take some work on your part, and some persistance with the 'book learning'. If all of this was easy, everyone would be a pro!

Happy reading!

[Jannie]

Just keep going, it'll happen slowly and one day you'll have a system that works most of the time. Your daughter is an absolute doll and the photos in spite of any technique challenges are quite lovely, keep them, print them and put them in the family album. The very first shot where the sun lighting up her bonnet which in turn lights up her face, try cropping it down and see what you get, play with it until you get the best you can get, you'll take that knowledge with you the next time you go to photograph her.

[obnoxiousmom]

Thank you very much for that.

[Rudeofus]

I used my gray card today. I own one but my pictures never look right to me when I do use it

Of course not. Many people religiously preach manual metering, grey cards and expensive gadgetery (like the Seconic), and all these items do not provide a fix for harsh shadows and high contrast situations. Your shots all have high contrast because you shot in harsh sunlight, the girl wore a bright white hat etc. The correct way to address high contrast is proper clothing (no bright colors), fill flash and reflectors, or even better: picking a proper location.

Please also note that shooting in manual exposure mode will not help you at all. If you dial in your aperture and shutter speed, you always compare your settings to the light measurement of your camera. If bright colors throw off the exposure meter of your cam, it will also be off in manual mode. If you know you need EC, you can dial it in in any mode, even P.

I shoot only in RAW

In this case you should be able to fix white balance easily and with good results. What you can not fix with RAW is harsh shadows, which have a blue cast (the color of the sky).

I own the book understanding exposure and have read it several times but Im more of a hands on learner verses a book learner. Just dont have anyone in my area to teach me.

There are lighting situations for which no exposure setting will yield satisfying results, so regardless of what you dial in you still have overexposed sections, deep shades and whatnot. And no exposure meter and no gray card are going to fix that for you.

While fill flash can be used to brighten up shadows, it doesn't get rid of them completely, you just turn nasty black regions into ugly gray regions. Most likely your flash won't have the power to overpower direct sunlight anyway, so grey shadow regions is what you will end up with. Been there, done that.

My recommendation is you use P or Av mode and shoot in RAW, so you can fix possible WB problems and small exposure errors on your computer. Instead of wasting time with gray cards and light meters think about picking more suitable weather/locations for these kinds of shots and consider using reflectors to brighten shadow regions. Unlike flashes, reflectors output more light the brighter the sun shines. Avoid mixing shadow and sunlit regions in your image, because the shadow regions will always have a blue cast and no WB adjustment is going to help. If you are unsure whether a situation has too much contrast, use the spot meter function of your camera and scan the desired image frame for bright and dark spots.

[obnoxiousmom]

Thanks for the tips.

[ebann]

[snip]

Please also note that shooting in manual exposure mode will not help you at all. If you dial in your aperture and shutter speed, you always compare your settings to the light measurement of your camera. If bright colors throw off the exposure meter of your cam, it will also be off in manual mode. If you know you need EC, you can dial it in in any mode, even P.

[snip]

You missed the point of manually metering a grey card. After metering the grey card, the exposure meter in your camera will obviously change as you point to different thing. You simply ignore it. The result is that the camera knows how what 18% grey looks like and in knowing so, the camera will expose the scene correctly. This means you won't end up with underexposed or overexposed images because the metering is getting confused with backlight, strange clothing colors, etc. that you get when shooting Av/Tv/P.

The sun is virtually a light source at infinite distance, that means the light hitting you is the same light hitting your subject. Even if your subject is in shade, you can use flash for fill and your background will not be overexposed (because you already metered for it).

You don't need to mess around with EC (as you must when using Av/Tv/P) in M, just need to compensate FEC when needed.

Note: No need for a lightmeter and a grey card is cheap enough. There is nothing wrong with using M mode and manually metering. You actually get to know proper exposure more intimately. Av/Tv/P the camera is doing the job for you, and sometimes pretty wrongly.

[oaktree]

Just keep going, it'll happen slowly and one day you'll have a system that works most of the time. Your daughter is an absolute doll and the photos in spite of any technique challenges are quite lovely, keep them, print them and put them in the family album. The very first shot where the sun lighting up her bonnet which in turn lights up her face, try cropping it down and see what you get, play with it until you get the best you can get, you'll take that knowledge with you the next time you go to photograph her.

+1 and keep on learning and shooting!

[obnoxiousmom]

Thanks. This thread has left me feeling pretty over whelmed. But I hope I can keep reading over it and things will click.

[Rudeofus]

You missed the point of manually metering a grey card. After metering the grey card, the exposure meter in your camera will obviously change as you point to different thing. You simply ignore it. The result is that the camera knows how what 18% grey looks like and in knowing so, the camera will expose the scene correctly. This means you won't end up with underexposed or overexposed images because the metering is getting confused with backlight, strange clothing colors, etc. that you get when shooting Av/Tv/P.

None of the shots shown by obnoxiousmom are poorly exposed (at least not to a degree which could be fixed easily and without loss of quality in PP). The problem with the original shots are not overexposure or underexposure per se, it's the excessive contrast and a mix of color casts in the scenery. No gray card will fix that. Except for a few special back lit situations I have found matrix metering to work extremely well, at least for my analog camera. DSLRs may be a bit more finicky about exact exposure, I keep reading comments about 1/3 stop underexposure and whatnot, but that's precisely why DSLR shooters use RAW.

There is no exposure setting which will make the girl's hat not overexposed (while keeping her face properly exposed) and no meaningful exposure setting can make the shadows disappear or avoid the different color casts in the scene.

The sun is virtually a light source at infinite distance, that means the light hitting you is the same light hitting your subject. Even if your subject is in shade, you can use flash for fill and your background will not be overexposed (because you already metered for it).

The reason cameras expose for 18% grey is because that's what nature and caucasian skin tones are like. I doubt that trees, grass and a face would throw off your camera's light meter in any significant way.

Unless the sun is directly in front of the subject there will be shades across her face and body, and as I pointed out, neither special exposure settings nor fill flash can really avoid them. Placing the subject in the shade avoids the shadows, but leaves the foreground scenery with a really bad blue color cast. Fill flash may brighten up and fix the color cast for the subject's face but the area around and behind the subject will still look underexposed and bluish. And god help you if the fill flash does automatic FEC (E-TTL does this), then even the face will look blue.

Here are some comments specific for the images obnoxiousmom posted (which btw aren't all that bad imho):
1. image: The white hat is semitransparent so it provides a moderately bright and evenly lit face. Still there remains the blue cast in her face, right arm and legs and also in the shaded region behind the girl across the river.
2. image: Now the girl creates the shadow in her face and front, so it's really dark. Fill flash could turn this into gray and would probably cause her hat to be too bright. If you look at the PP'd version, you again recognize the blue color cast in her face.
3. image: Now the girl is completely in the shade, hence the blue cast compared to the back ground. If PP took care of the the result would look great! Fill flash would have completely destroyed the nice directionality of the light on the girl.
4. image: The girl's face has a green color cast, most likely from the surrounding plants. If this is fixed, the image would be great.

[obnoxiousmom]

Thank you for the specific breakdown of each photo :)

[S.Horton]

Take it easy on yourself.

And Understanding Exposure is a conceptual book, not a practical guide to getting it right in the camera.

If I may be so bold, your screen name on POTN is nothing like your posts -- You seem kind.

Relax, the photos are not THAT bad anyway.

[obnoxiousmom]

Thank you :) Im always hard on myself.....

And I can be quite obnoxious lol.... no one has given me reason to do so yet :P

[egordon99]

Your pictures truely suck, give it up now!!!!

Thank you :) Im always hard on myself.....

And I can be quite obnoxious lol.... no one has given me reason to do so yet :P

Did that work? ;)

Just kidding (of course)....Over the last year or so I've begun to recognize good light vs. bad light. I've gotten all the technical stuff down but now it's just getting the subject in the right light. Sometimes (especially in the middle of the day), it can be really hard to get good light.

But when I grab my camera at the end of the day when the sun is all but set, but it's still light enough out to shoot at f/2 and ISO100 and go out in our front yard, the pictures pretty much take themselves...Av mode works fine, no grey card needed, just point and shoot!

Keep on shooting, and don't be afraid to ask questions here!

[ebann]

None of the shots shown by obnoxiousmom are poorly exposed (at least not to a degree which could be fixed easily and without loss of quality in PP).

Firstly I'd like to reinforce that these are simply positive constructive discussion hoping to help the OP improve her images. It is not Manual versus Automatic, grey card versus automatic metering, etc. Perhaps just another way of seeing things which can or cannot help you improve. This said, let's get back to some more information:

To my eyes, images 1, 2, and 4 are overexposed because the "whites are clipped", that is, the detail in the child's hat is lost. The camera, trying to average the entire scene, metered more favorable towards the background and in doing so sacrificed the "whites". It is a common thing to clip the whites of the sky (i.e. clouds) but *not* of your MAIN subject.

Either Manual or Av/Tv/P, a good thing to watch out then is this:

1. Take your shot
2. Check the HISTOGRAM and HIGHLIGHT ALERT.
3. If your WHITES are blown past the rightmost side of the histogram, lower EC a few steps and retake the picture until the "hills and valleys" of the histogram are nearly touching the rightmost side (about 1/3 from the side of the last quadrant)

Hint: your background does not need to be perfectly exposed *BUT* your subject does!

The problem with the original shots are not overexposure or underexposure per se, it's the excessive contrast and a mix of color casts in the scenery. No gray card will fix that. Except for a few special back lit situations I have found matrix metering to work extremely well, at least for my analog camera. DSLRs may be a bit more finicky about exact exposure, I keep reading comments about 1/3 stop underexposure and whatnot, but that's precisely why DSLR shooters use RAW.

I agree. Shoot RAW so that you can tweak with better success later on in Photoshop.

Secondly, WHITE BALANCE is another tricky subject! (EXPOSURE and FLASH are the two other). I have yet to master this. I generally shoot AWB and fix it later in Photoshop. Quite a simple process. Color cast can be a pain. I usually solve this by purposefully underexposing my entire scene by 1 or 2 stops and lighting my subject with flash so that the flash light dominates the scene. This helps a lot.

Sometimes when taking candid pictures, you cannot ask people to change clothes. You just have to adapt. Focus on your main subject and don't lose their details.

P.S. Another way of thinking as to why I suggested metering a grey card is that you wouldn't suffer with overexposed hats! White is white and grey is grey in the images.

P.P.S. Your image 3 is the best exposed! You can process it later in photoshop and your white detail is still there! Number 2 is underexposed and your white detail is there, but you lost too much detail in the darks... check the histogram... it can move a few notches up to the right side!

[Rudeofus]

To my eyes, images 1, 2, and 4 are overexposed because the "whites are clipped", that is, the detail in the child's hat is lost. The camera, trying to average the entire scene, metered more favorable towards the background and in doing so sacrificed the "whites".

and

P.P.S. Your image 3 is the best exposed! You can process it later in photoshop and your white detail is still there! Number 2 is underexposed and your white detail is there, but you lost too much detail in the darks...

Well, if you claim the same image (image #2) to be overexposed and underexposed at the same time, I may have a point saying that the contrast of the scenery was to high for any decent exposure ... can you see my point now?

If obnoxiousmom would have used the gray card, the hat of the girl in image #1 would be ok but her face would be black, as a matter of fact and given the circumstances I prefer the exposure the camera picked. If you have a combination of white sunlit areas together with shadowy areas, there IS NO PROPER EXPOSURE for this, regardless of what you do with gray cards and the zone system.

There are some sceneries where a gray card is really helpful: brides in white dresses, grooms in black suits, people in front of white buildings. Any situation where the majority of the scenery has a very different tone from middle gray. Fortunately, this is not the case in nature, that's why even P&S cameras take decent holiday shots most of the time.

1. Take your shot
2. Check the HISTOGRAM and HIGHLIGHT ALERT.
3. If your WHITES are blown past the rightmost side of the histogram, lower EC a few steps and retake the picture until the "hills and valleys" of the histogram are nearly touching the rightmost side (about 1/3 from the side of the last quadrant)

Again, this would have created dark gray shadows in the face of the girl, effectively ruining the shot. Try it out yourself and darken the image by one stop. The only way this would have helped is if you were already determined to fix the image in PP: in this case you would have saved the high lights and could have tried to recoup the shadow area in PP. As the PP in image #2 shows, you introduce a lot of noise if you do this, so this may still not be such a great option. The only substitute for good light is better light imho.

Secondly, WHITE BALANCE is another tricky subject! (EXPOSURE and FLASH are the two other). I have yet to master this. I generally shoot AWB and fix it later in Photoshop. Quite a simple process. Color cast can be a pain. I usually solve this by purposefully underexposing my entire scene by 1 or 2 stops and lighting my subject with flash so that the flash light dominates the scene. This helps a lot.

This works great in twilight but would require seriously big flash power to overpower midday sun light by 2 stops. Last time Strobist tried this he needed several SB800 at close range. Doesn't seem like a viable option if you are after candid shots in the middle of the day.

The problems obnixiousmom has with white balance come from mixed lighting, not from poor camera settings. Areas in the shade have a different color cast than those in direct sun light. Check out this link (http://hanagumi.tistory.com/entry/3-Natural-light) for details, it gives a very good and practical explanation what's going on.

[ebann]

Meant to say that 1, 2, and 4 were either under or over exposed (not exposed correctly).

I agree that the scene has a wide range which cannot be captured in its entirety. I did suggest to capture the details of the subject and sacrifice the details of the background.

You're that I did assume to process the image when shooting to the right (of the histogram) to preserve the highlights. Image #2 was already too underexpose to correct it without introducing noise. Shooting a little more to the 'right' would have made it better.

[obnoxiousmom]

I have an entire photography lesson in this thread alone lol

Thanks for all the advice. Im still working on these shots in post processing as thats another alien subject to me but hopefully I can make them where I am happy

[S.Horton]

That's an obnoxious post.

LOL

Enjoy!

[obnoxiousmom]

Oh no! really? I didnt mean for it to be...

[S.Horton]

Geeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz --- No, absolutely not.

LOL = Laughing out loud

I think YOU are winding me up now.

[Rudeofus]

I agree that the scene has a wide range which cannot be captured in its entirety. I did suggest to capture the details of the subject and sacrifice the details of the background.

I guess we took a different approach to the whole thing and both have their justification. If you absolutely have to get these shots taken (pro assignment), your approach is certainly the most promising strategy to produce the best possible raw material for PP. My (amateur-/parent-) approach was don't bother with the given lighting situation there'll be better light some time later or some other day, over time you get more decent pictures of your kids than anyone cares to see anyway.

You're that I did assume to process the image when shooting to the right (of the histogram) to preserve the highlights. Image #2 was already too underexpose to correct it without introducing noise. Shooting a little more to the 'right' would have made it better.
Shooting more to the right would have blown out the hat in image #2 like in image #1. It's really a devious setup (photographically speaking) where you almost have no chance to do it right, obviously the camera sensor lacks dynamic range to cover it in its entirety, RAW or not. It took me many frustrating years to fully appreciate the fact that human eyes have huge dynamic range which has never been reached by film or digital sensor, and how to look at a scene in order to avoid excessive contrasts, and I'm still far away from being perfect.