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

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 31 Jan 2016 (Sunday) 13:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I Need Help--Please.

 
Bogino
Senior Member
Avatar
536 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 337
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
Jan 31, 2016 13:26 |  #1

I took this/these pictures last night in our hotel room. This was Not intended to be a "professional" photo-shoot but merely wanting to get some "quality" pictures for our own enjoyment.

I used a Canon 7D Mark II and a Tamron 24-70 lens. My settings were as follows: AV Mode; f.8 and ISO of 800. I know I'm doing something wrong. Can someone please shed some light on how to improve upon these.

Also--in such a setting, hotel room at night am I better off using the flash or not? The only flash I have is the built in flash.

The 1st image is unedited except for re-sizing.

I also have a Canon 60D with me. For editing I use LR 5 but also have Elements 10.

Thank You for your comments.


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


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


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,532 posts
Gallery: 1879 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11561
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 4 years ago by MalVeauX.
     
Jan 31, 2016 13:40 |  #2

Heya,

1. Why shoot at F8 in natural light? F2.8 would have had the subject completely in focus at that distance. There was no benefit to going to F8. All it did was forced you to use higher ISO (which appears are noise since you under-exposed the images) and forced you to use a painfully slow shutter speed (way too slow for this) which resulted in some softness. Under-exposure + low shutter + high ISO showing up as a noisy soft image. Had you shot at F2.8, you could have used a faster shutter speed, and gotten a sharper image in general. Really though, for natural light, I would have pushed ISO to 1600, shutter to 1/60s at F2.8 based on your exposure, shooting in RAW. I would purposefully expose to the right, or gently over-expose without blowing highlights. This will help with noise control in post.

2. White balance. You're better off with a custom white balance in these settings.

Really though, if you want to do this more, use lighting. The light is bad, it's not friendly to your subject either. And it's so dark in these locations with bad tungsten light, it's hard for even a modern camera and lens to focus really nicely. I'm sure if you look at 100% on her eyelashes, they're fuzzy and indiscernible. In good light, you would have been able to count them with a sharp image with the equipment you're using. Considering you're using a $2.2k camera setup, I'd think a $50 flash would work wonders for you.

Pick up a Yongnuo TX-560 and a Yongnuo 560 IV (or III) [alt: just get a decent wired strobe with an umbrella mount, these can be $50~150 for good cheap ones], a Godox s-bracket [only for speedlite; not needed if you used a strobe], a boom capable light stand [not just any stand, get one with a boom arm, and get a decently heavy duty one, about $80 will do it], and a 31" or 47" umbrella (I would suggest a brolly box, umbrella style softbox) [these are great, $20 and $30, cheap and great]. If you use a speedlite, you can use a gel to match it to warmer ambient lights like that in the room. (Disclaimer: Don't buy anything though until you spend more time learning exposure and depth of field, there's no point in moving past what you have until you have a very firm understanding of those two things so that you can use your tool to get what you want from it and then you'll know what you actually need equipment wise to get the results you want)

Then you could have controlled ambient light and dimmed it down, and exposed your subject with soft light, and gotten tack sharp images.

If you want to stick to ambient/natural light, use window day light and warm it up. Don't just use a lamp. You'll get the results you did again, even with a 1DX.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 31, 2016 13:41 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

Both of these shots are underexposed, and your shutter speed is WAY too slow. My guess is WB is off, too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
atsilverstein
Goldmember
Avatar
1,254 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 1727
Joined Mar 2015
Location: NYC Metro
     
Jan 31, 2016 13:49 |  #4

I happened to watch this the other night. Maybe it will help. I don't know if it goes over the camera settings but it does the lighting setup.

https://m.youtube.com/​watch?v=Ph5j8i9iTp4 (external link)


It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll. I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
- William Ernest Henley

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmaher
Senior Member
571 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 242
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL
     
Jan 31, 2016 14:10 |  #5

Single largest problem is your white balance. Custom would be a good choice but it is correctable in Lightroom. As other have stated you needed a higher shutter speed. I would probably have tried f4. 2.8 might work but may not have enough depth of field. If you need to go up from ISO 1600 to 3200 try that.

All in all an off camera strobe or a least on camera and bounced would make all the difference.

I hope you don't mind but I took a screen shot of your photo and edited it very quickly. Adjusted white balance, added a little exposure compensation and sharpened it in LR.. A few seconds work. It's not fantastic even adjusted but much better.

Minor changes and you will do great.



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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,671 posts
Gallery: 119 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4317
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 31, 2016 14:15 |  #6

Yes, master the white balance. Then fix the exposure. As the edit above shows getting those 2 things right going forward makes a huge difference. Ultimately if you want to improve you need to work on making your own light, or at least finding interesting light. What makes the above shot work is a stunning model, but a stunning model in good light takes it to another level.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bogino
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
536 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 337
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Southern California
     
Jan 31, 2016 14:26 |  #7

I had the camera set on AWB for White Balance. Which if the WB settings would you suggest? Thank You.


Canon 7D Mark II; Canon 70-300mm "L"; Canon 100mm Macro; Tamron 24-70mm; Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TerryMiller
Senior Member
323 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 85
Joined Sep 2013
     
Jan 31, 2016 14:29 |  #8

Tungsten would get you closer. A gray card used to create a custom white balance gets you there. Using the eye dropper tool in Lightroom to make the bed linens white will also get you there, especially if you shoot in raw.


my gear: T4i - EF-s 17-55, Ef-s 55-250 is stm, EF-S 10-22 usm, ef 100mm 2.8 macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,671 posts
Gallery: 119 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4317
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 31, 2016 14:32 |  #9

Bogino wrote in post #17880563 (external link)
I had the camera set on AWB for White Balance. Which if the WB settings would you suggest? Thank You.

Canon's worst fail is auto WB indoors. Pick the one closest to your light source, tungsten for the above, but whichever matches your lighting. But custom WB is always best.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 31, 2016 15:03 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

Bogino wrote in post #17880563 (external link)
I had the camera set on AWB for White Balance. Which if the WB settings would you suggest? Thank You.

AWB is very good in broad daylight. Not so good in everything else. I carry a sheet of 92-brightness printer paper, and an 18% grey card in my bag. If I'm not shooting in daylight (or using flash), I do a custom WB. The printer paper is so good that I don't even bother with the grey card anymore. Custom WB takes only a few seconds to set, and it is next in importance after proper exposure in getting good results in-camera.

If I'm not shooting in daylight (or flash), I am shooting raw. You have more to work with that way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jmaher
Senior Member
571 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 242
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL
     
Jan 31, 2016 15:59 |  #11

As stated by others custom white balance is best but if you don't do that it's easy to fix in Lightroom. Its always better to use a white balance that is close to start with so that you can fix a number of shots with the same adjustments. Learn the basics in Lightroom and everything will quickly improve.




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

1,482 views & 1 like for this thread
I Need Help--Please.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Yrrah
1252 guests, 254 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.