Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 19 Oct 2016 (Wednesday) 14:52
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Advice on Camera setting to cure problem

 
thefitter
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by thefitter with reason 'no photos'.
Oct 19, 2016 14:52 |  #1

Hi I have attached two photographs ,one as taken the other just adjusted with levels.It was taken on a very dull cloudy morning through a fence so not the best conditions.What i would like to know is this. All i have done to the picture is used levels and finished with a reasonable image.What camera setting could i have changed prior to taking the picture to have made the use of post processing with levels necessary. On other photos taken at the same time i adjusted exposure compensation but didnt solve the problem.
The equipment i used was a Canon 7D with 100 x 400 lens 1/320 sec , iso 400 , 1/3 compensation. I didnt want to go higher than 400 and realised my speed , but thought i would try it .
Looking forward to any advice or ideas.
Thank you

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
thefitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Oct 19, 2016 15:00 |  #2

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Oct 19, 2016 15:28 |  #3

Heya,

Let your camera system reach ambient temperature before shooting. I'm only guessing, but looks like dew had formed on your lens when you were shooting, which made it lose contrast, lose focus accuracy, and killed detail.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
thefitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Oct 19, 2016 15:39 as a reply to MalVeauX's post |  #4

Hi and thank you for your reply .After checking a couple of similar photos of the same item the lens was cleaned and settings checked so i dont think dew could have been responsible . I have had this problem on a couple of occassions in bad light .Many thanks again




LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
john crossley's Avatar
2,022 posts
Joined Nov 2009
It's Grim Up North
Oct 19, 2016 15:46 |  #5

thefitter wrote in post #18161304 (external link)
It was taken on a very dull cloudy morning through a fence so not the best conditions.

The fact that you were shooting through a fence might have something to do with it. (Depending on the type of fence of course)


Some days I'm the dog, other days I'm the lamppost

LOG IN TO REPLY
thefitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Oct 19, 2016 15:52 as a reply to john crossley's post |  #6

I had wondered about that but would the end result have been so easily solved with just levels being tweeked ?
Mick




LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Oct 20, 2016 05:03 |  #7

If you are shooting through something that is reducing contrast it will tend to push the ends of the histogram in towards the middle. When I used to use my 500mm mirror lens this would happen all of the time, since it was a very low contrast, and rather soft, lens. The only solution to this is to pull the ends of the histogram back out until you hit the ends and get a good black/white point. Since the exact amount of movement required will vary on EVERY shot it is not really possible to allow for this correctly my adjusting processing parameters in advance. Personally dealing with these sorts of issues is one of the reasons that I shoot RAW, it means that you are still dealing with all of the 14 bit sensor data, and should get a much better result than using levels on an already 8 bit JPEG.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
tzalman's Avatar
13,366 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Gesher Haziv, Israel
Oct 20, 2016 07:24 |  #8

Looking at the metadata of your second posting (the flat one), I see that it was indeed shot in Raw and opened in PSCS6/ACR7 (_MG_1031.CR2). This being the case, there is no camera setting that will make the initial image contrastier because camera settings do not affect Raw files. Also the contrast, or lack of it, is not caused by ISO, or metered exposure or exposure compensation. It is caused by three factors; the primary one being the flat illumination, second the limited tonal range of the subject, and third the fact that Adobe Camera Raw's default rendering of Raw files is intentionally bland and flat - flatter than any other Raw converter because Adobe believes that a Raw conversion should also be the product of user input and the default render is merely the starting point.

In this case, however, that flatness is furthered by the fact that although ACR 7.0 was the first version of ACR to utilize the new Process Version 2012, you seem to have it set to use the older Process Version 2010, which by it's nature tended to produce flatter defaults.

I would advise to utilize the full editing power of the Raw file that you are already shooting by switching to P.V. 2012 and doing most, if not all, your adjustments in ACR, rather than afterwards with PSCS6's Levels tool.

Oh, one more thing - when you output jpg images for web posting, if they are in Adobe RGB space (as are these two above), anybody who is not viewing them in a properly implemented color-managed browser environment will see them as flatter and darker than you intend. Convert them to sRGB.


Elie / אלי

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,394 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Post has been last edited over 1 year ago by kirkt. 4 edits done in total.
Oct 20, 2016 08:32 |  #9

In addition to what Elie said, the lens you are using (the original 100-400) is notoriously blurry at 400mm. You will probably have to experiment with a well-lit, contrasty target at 400mm to find the optimum aperture to get sharp images. This is critical and even more so when the light is not great. You will be fighting the balance between stopping down and stopping down too much and introducing diffraction artifacts. Diffraction can be rectified somewhat in post by using a deconvolution sharpening technique.

Try shooting a well-lit target at between f/8 and f/11 and see what aperture works best. f/5.6 (the largest aperture at 400mm) may only give you acceptable results when the subject is well lit and the contrast in the image, overall, is wide enough to hide the relatively blurry lens rendering at 400mm. My understanding is that the newer 100-400 is a major upgrade over the original.

You probably could also have exposed another 2/3 to a full stop in your raw image before you started to lose detail information in the bird's bright head feathers. Examination of the raw file (using Raw Digger or a similar application) would help you adjust your exposure settings to minimize noise in this case.

kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
thefitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Oct 21, 2016 10:48 |  #10

First let me say thank you to all who have tried to help me on this matter.I have read and digested everything that you have
pointed out and will try the different things that may be the cause. I do agree that at 400 max a certain amount of image quality can be lost . Unfortunately my wife wont let me have one of the new ones or a prime so i will soldier on . lol. There are many things mentioned that i at present know nothing about , so that seems like subject for the weekend .
I thank you all once again
Mick




LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Oct 21, 2016 11:16 |  #11

kirkt wrote in post #18161946 (external link)
... the lens you are using (the original 100-400) is notoriously blurry at 400mm...

Seems to be a bit of an overstatement. I have plenty of sharp and contrasty shots taken with the original 100-400 at 400mm, and many if not most were at f/5.6.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,394 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Philadelphia, PA USA
Oct 21, 2016 11:34 |  #12

Archibald wrote in post #18162974 (external link)
Seems to be a bit of an overstatement. I have plenty of sharp and contrasty shots taken with the original 100-400 at 400mm, and many if not most were at f/5.6.

Glad to hear it.

Kirk


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
john crossley's Avatar
2,022 posts
Joined Nov 2009
It's Grim Up North
Oct 21, 2016 13:47 |  #13

Archibald wrote in post #18162974 (external link)
Seems to be a bit of an overstatement. I have plenty of sharp and contrasty shots taken with the original 100-400 at 400mm, and many if not most were at f/5.6.

Same here. Cannot fault the lens at 400mm and f5.6.


Some days I'm the dog, other days I'm the lamppost

LOG IN TO REPLY
thefitter
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Joined Oct 2016
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by thefitter.
Oct 21, 2016 14:49 as a reply to tzalman's post |  #14

Hi Elie
Thanks for your imput on my problem.It would appear that i am using Process Version 2012 already . When i do open it in Raw format the information at the bottom of the screen shows it as 8 bit.I can change this by a drop down list to16 bit , but should it already show as 16 bit .Is there somewhere on the 7D to change the Raw from 8 to 16 bit or in CS6 to automatically open it in 16 bit .If i should post this as a new request please let me know as this was the first post i have made on this site
Many thanks
Mick




LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Oct 21, 2016 15:43 |  #15

thefitter wrote in post #18161350 (external link)
Hi and thank you for your reply .After checking a couple of similar photos of the same item the lens was cleaned and settings checked so i dont think dew could have been responsible . I have had this problem on a couple of occassions in bad light .Many thanks again

How do your photos look when you are not shooting through a fence and not shooting in bad light? If they are OK, then the problem is the fence or the bad light.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,428 views & 2 likes for this thread
Advice on Camera setting to cure problem
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00139 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is steveketch
947 guests, 477 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016