Is this too much?

[caroleigh]

I didn't notice exactly how dull my photos were (from my other thread) until someone on another thread mentioned she wished they were more vibrant.

So I added a little color. I don't like to add a whole lot of color to photos with more then one person in them, I tend to kill skin tones.

Which do you prefer?

Original:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz39/caroltrentlerphotography/11-13-8-16-1451-web.jpg

Color:
http://i811.photobucket.com/albums/zz39/caroltrentlerphotography/11-13-8-16-1451-webcopy.jpg

[carshop]

looks good to me

[clarence]

Or you could reduce the +1 Exposure Compensation that you're using and just lift the shadows without washing out the colors in the first place.

I think the black uniforms are throwing off your exposure, then you're magnifying the problem with the EC.

[canonnoob]

^^you are correct sir...


OP- you are over exposed... if you bring down your exposure then you will be a little better.. bring down that and add a smidge of contrast and youll be happy.

[clarence]

Plus, by not wasting that extra stop on +1 EC over-exposure, she'll pick up a stop and can get the shutter speed twice as fast.

Or, on a harsh day like that, add a CPL and really watch your colors pop. :cool:

[caroleigh]

If I brought my exposure down they were under exposed and I lost too much under the helmet. The sun was the same the day before and I shot at 2/3 and faces were too dark. When I tried to lighten them with a curves adjustment I got nothing but noise under the helmets and they were horrible.

When I attempted to shoot 2/3 this day my histogram showed underexposed. Isn't it better to over expose a little then to under expose?

I took the suggestion of another here on the forum that said before in harsh sun I should turn the contrast down, was this wrong?

Thank you for the help, I need all I can get. I'm just not sure I am understanding. I seem to be having problems getting a proper exposure. I don't know how to fix the problem if 2/3 says I am underexposed and +1 you say says I am over? Could it be from my post processing?




^^you are correct sir...


OP- you are over exposed... if you bring down your exposure then you will be a little better.. bring down that and add a smidge of contrast and youll be happy.

[caroleigh]

So please tell me, if I didn't overexpose by +1, how would I have gotten facial detail under the helmet? Everything I have tried has been wrong?


Plus, by not wasting that extra stop on +1 EC over-exposure, she'll pick up a stop and can get the shutter speed twice as fast.

Or, on a harsh day like that, add a CPL and really watch your colors pop. :cool:

[canonnoob]

If I brought my exposure down they were under exposed and I lost too much under the helmet. The sun was the same the day before and I shot at 2/3 and faces were too dark. When I tried to lighten them with a curves adjustment I got nothing but noise under the helmets and they were horrible.

When I attempted to shoot 2/3 this day my histogram showed underexposed. Isn't it better to over expose a little then to under expose?

I took the suggestion of another here on the forum that said before in harsh sun I should turn the contrast down, was this wrong?

Thank you for the help, I need all I can get. I'm just not sure I am understanding. I seem to be having problems getting a proper exposure. I don't know how to fix the problem if 2/3 says I am underexposed and +1 you say says I am over? Could it be from my post processing?


What does your PP work flow look like? you have to remember what you are metering off of.. what was your metering here?

[clarence]

Post processing is not going to help as much as getting the exposure as correct as possible in-camera in the first place. EC and contrast settings are also going to effect exposure.

Beyond +1 EC, what 40D in-camera Contrast settings are you using? Did you customize Contrast in a Picture Style?

What PP are you using?

Do you shoot RAW+JPEG?

Do you have a quality CPL?

[caroleigh]

Post processing is not going to help as much as getting the exposure as correct as possible in-camera in the first place. EC and contrast settings are also going to effect exposure.

Beyond +1 EC, what 40D in-camera Contrast settings are you using? Did you customize Contrast in a Picture Style? Picture style, standard I set it to -1

What PP are you using? Just a curves adjustment (in the one that says Original) The color version I used a color pop action

Do you shoot RAW+JPEG? No raw

Do you have a quality CPL? No, I don't have one, is there one you recommend?

[clarence]

Stay away from the cheap ebay CPLs. I learned that lesson the hard way... ruined an entire day of lacrosse shots.

I have good ones from Hoya, Heliopan, and Marumi (various sizes).

[namasste]

I've said this a thousand times here but here goes again....low opacity soft light layer. Boosting saturation is not the way to gain vibrance imo. It can help if used sparingly but you need contrast as well. The soft light layer does both. Before that, I'd open the image in PS using the Open As, then select Camera Raw from the drop down. In ACR, use the sliders to add fill, bring down exposure, deepen blacks and add some vibrance (which is really a mid tone contrast adjustment). Then open the image in PS, tweak as desired, add the soft light layer at whatever opacity suits you and I think you'll see a lot more zing. If that doesn't do it, then the image is probably not a keeper. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have questions.

Scott

[AdamLewis]

One thing thats definitely too much here is the sharpening. You need to ease up on that.

[caroleigh]

This is sharpened for web...the printable version is not sharpened like this. I'll tone down the web sharpening in the future...thanks.

[namasste]

This is sharpened for web...the printable version is not sharpened like this. I'll tone down the web sharpening in the future...thanks.
I think you might have it backwards then.

[AdamLewis]

This is sharpened for web...the printable version is not sharpened like this. I'll tone down the web sharpening in the future...thanks.

I think you might have it backwards then.


Yeah..

An image for print would normally get more sharpening than an image for web..

Either way, toning it down a little in the future wouldnt be a bad idea. When the grass starts to look like a block of jagged lines, its a pretty good indicator to dial it back a little ;)

[caroleigh]

What do you mean?
I do a Scott Kelby sharpening for my prints, but I also do a sharpening for web on my web sized photos?

I think you might have it backwards then.

[caroleigh]

Gotcha.
I use 2 different methods of sharpening... I use a resize/sharpen for web action for my web sized photos.

Yeah..

An image for print would normally get more sharpening than an image for web..

Either way, toning it down a little in the future wouldnt be a bad idea. When the grass starts to look like a block of jagged lines, its a pretty good indicator to dial it back a little ;)