 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General MotorcyclesHarleyYamahaSportbikesRacingOff-roadSnowmobilesTechnicalCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupClassic (UK Group)Related Topics CarsBoatsMore Topics ... |
Motorcycle Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / August 2007Paging David Bailey or the Photoisti
What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 Camera is a Fuji s5000. Mark > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose > a lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 Have you made this album public?  SignatureDave ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message > Have you made this album public? Oops! Try this. http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 Given that increasing exposure will blow highlights and lose the good depth of colour in the sky, I'd say your best bet is to take that picture, then (assuming use of a tool like photoshop) select the areas (your choice of lasso, magic wand, Quick Select, followed by a slight feather) you want to lighten and lighten those using your preferred mix of Levels, Hue/Sat or Curves to brighten the darker areas, just not too much. In general, it's true that under-exposing is easier to recover than over exposing, and a scene like that with such a wide gamut will necessarily be a compromise one way or the other, so I think you're better placed to get it looking "good" than you migth otherwise be. SignatureRick NT650V TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139 > "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 That's better. The chopper is underexposed due to the brightness of the sky, similar with the house. You could try a few different options, depending on the capabilities of the camera: - set to "backlit image" - zoom in until the subject fills more of the frame, set "exposure lock" and zoom out again. - bracket the exposure (up/down) and see what works best - depending what you want to achieve. Alternatively you can tweak the image with PSP/Photoshop etc but there's a limit to what these can achieve if there's limited data in the dark areas. SignatureDave ex Motorcycle Maintenance Workshop http://tinyurl.com/4mhaw "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message news:farpd8 > The chopper is underexposed due to the brightness of the sky, similar with > the house. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Alternatively you can tweak the image with PSP/Photoshop etc but there's a > limit to what these can achieve if there's limited data in the dark areas. Thanks to all. The chopper pic was already at full zoom so I guess it's experimenting with a few exposure stops and go from there. Mark > "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 The second one looks like the helicopter represented too small a target and so the camera exposed for the sky. I'd have suggested locking the exposure on the helicopter, but I dunno if you can do that and then zoom out or whatever. So I reckon that your best bet would have been to force the camera to over-expose by half a stop or a stop. In the castle one, you could have angled the camera down a bit at the ground, half-pressed the shutter and then moved the aim back up a bit. But as others have suggested, your only hope now is to photoshop or Gimp them. D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' > "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 Don't you think the shutter speed's a bit too fast for the helicopter shot? SignatureBeav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19 >> "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Don't you think the shutter speed's a bit too fast for the helicopter shot? All this technical stuff is fine but it doesn't matter how good you are if there is a lack of the aesthetic and there are much more photogenic helicopters around than that one. Signaturesteve auvache A Bloo one with built in safety features > All this technical stuff is fine but it doesn't matter how good you are > if there is a lack of the aesthetic and there are much more photogenic > helicopters around than that one. Nah - egg beaters are supposed to be lumpy and ugly. They're only kept aloft by being repulsed by the ground. > "Dave Emerson" <Dave_dot_Emerson@LineOne.net> wrote in message > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/6364935 Where did you take the chopper pic then? I saw that in Cornwall, I recognise the playing card. > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a > lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 That site needs a login. > Camera is a Fuji s5000. I can't be arsed joining that site. You might need 'fill-in flash'..your camera's manual should have something about it. A quick google gioves.. http://photography.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_fillinflash.htm D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' >> What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to >> lose a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://photography.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_fillinflash.htm As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try using AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or you could adjust the levels using Photoshop or similar software, there will still be a lot of detail in the shadows that can be brought out. SignatureAlan ZX10R Green of course. Tiger 955i A pleasant shade of green. > As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try using > AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or you could > adjust the levels using Photoshop or similar software, there will > still be a lot of detail in the shadows that can be brought out. Yes, because fill-in-flash works so well with the outside of large buildings and distant helicopters. >> As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try using >> AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or you could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, because fill-in-flash works so well with the outside of large > buildings and distant helicopters. No, but someone who i) didn't have a login for the photo page, ii) didn't want to create one and iii) therefore could only guess at the subject of the photos, might well suggest fill-in. HTH. D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' >> As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try using >> AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or you could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, because fill-in-flash works so well with the outside of large > buildings and distant helicopters. Well since I couldn't log in to see the originals at first I was talking generically. I also offered two other possibilities which you ignored in your eagerness to rush in with the sarcasm. Was it because I partially agreed with Des? SignatureAlan ZX10R Green of course. Tiger 955i A pleasant shade of green. >>> As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try using >>> AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or you could [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well since I couldn't log in to see the originals at first I was talking > generically. *ding* > I also offered two other possibilities which you ignored in your > eagerness to rush in with the sarcasm. Was it because I partially agreed > with Des? <amazed> Do you _want_ your brake lines cut ??? D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' > > > As Des said a fill in flash should solve that, or you could try > > > using AE lock, the manual for your camera should explain it. Or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ignored in your eagerness to rush in with the sarcasm. Was it because > I partially agreed with Des? It was mostly because your line lengths annoy me, but also because the chances of f-i-f being a useful answer to his problems was fairly remote (and I don't read des' posts); anyone asking that question is a good way off being able to use it effectively (especially with an old sub-pro like a Fuji s5000). AE lock is also rarely a useful answer, because it's often impossible to get the correct exposure from anything (AE lock being much more handy for taking mosaic sets of pictures). If you'd mentioned the 'lighten shadows' feature, then "use some software to fix it" might just have been helpful. What you didn't say was something like: Try and make sure your subjects are lit helpfully in the first place remembering that your camera has a smaller range of contrast than your eyes; the general rule is to have the light source behind your left or right shoulder. Failing that, setting the exposure to the correct level for the objects you want to photo, either by centre weighting, or by bracketing, is a good place to start, as it's always better to have to correct the bits you don't care about so much than those you do. Actually, there's tons of great photo advice on the internet - why not try google, you lazy bastard. > I don't read des' posts Hmm. Is this a _real_ 'I don't read Des's posts', or a sort of 'I claim to killfile Des but slavishly read everything he posts and snipe at him for being cleverer than me', à la Ace ? D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' > > I don't read des' posts > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > D. Well, it's a bit dull, but if you really want to know: Like the few other posters who are both exceptionally tedious and also never have anything useful to say, your posts are marked as read on being downloaded, "advance to next unread" then skips them. The exceptions are when you reply to me, where I do notice, but mostly don't bother to read, them; and when you morph, where I might get a line or two in before giving up, which just affirms my current practice. HTH. >> > I don't read des' posts >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > HTH. It does, and as you're one of those who don't read me but who don't take up five MB a day _telling_ people that you don't read me, I really have no problem with that, except to say that you're somewhat foolish to tar all of my posts with the same stick. H_T_H. D. Signaturedes | 'trop d'la balle, j'kiffe grave!' >> Well since I couldn't log in to see the originals at first I was >> talking generically. I also offered two other possibilities which you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > good way off being able to use it effectively (especially with an old > sub-pro like a Fuji s5000). What's wrong with my line lengths? seriously - I have them set at 72 characters, is that not right? I agree f-i-f is not the answer for distant subjects but as I explained I couldn't see the pictures at first because of the need to log in. > AE lock is also rarely a useful answer, because it's often impossible > to get the correct exposure from anything (AE lock being much more > handy for taking mosaic sets of pictures). I find AE lock quite useful actually - but each to their own. > If you'd mentioned the 'lighten shadows' feature, then "use some > software to fix it" might just have been helpful. I didn't say "use some software to fix it" - I said "adjust the levels in Photoshop or similar", this would have the effect of lightening the shadows. > What you didn't say was something like: Try and make sure your > subjects [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > care > about so much than those you do. Fair enough, I guessed the OP was looking for some simple remedy for the pictures he had already taken rather than a tutorial. SignatureAlan ZX10R Green of course. Tiger 955i A pleasant shade of green. > > It was mostly because your line lengths annoy me, but also because > > What's wrong with my line lengths? seriously - I have them set at 72 > characters, is that not right? I suspect they're MicroSoft style soft-breaks then, because your lines go all the way across the screen. There's probably an option somewhere. >>> It was mostly because your line lengths annoy me, but also because >> What's wrong with my line lengths? seriously - I have them set at 72 >> characters, is that not right? > > I suspect they're MicroSoft style soft-breaks then, because your lines > go all the way across the screen. There's probably an option somewhere. Is it a function of the Flowed format as per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt ? SignatureRick NT650V TWA#11 BREast#6 BOTAFOT#139 > > > > It was mostly because your line lengths annoy me, but also > > > > because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is it a function of the Flowed format as per > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt ? Could be - tbh I lost all interest after the sarcasm, and I'm only still reading the thread because the alternative would appear to be more decorating. > > > It was mostly because your line lengths annoy me, but also because > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > go all the way across the screen. There's probably an option > somewhere. There is - I've dumped OE and am trying Xananews now. OE has been annoying me for ages, even with quotefix it's just horrible. SignatureAlan ZX10R - Green of course Tiger - A pleasant shade of green > <me@home.co.uk> wrote: > > > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > adjust the levels using Photoshop or similar software, there will > still be a lot of detail in the shadows that can be brought out. Fill in flash won't help at all - the subjects are too far away. As posted already, with a digital camera it's easier to recover from underexposure than over. If the camera has a centre meter or spot mode then that would work for the helicopter. The only 'proper' solution for the house pic would be a graduated filter, but photoshop's nearly as good IME. HTH Signature/Simon >What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a >lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > >http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 > >Camera is a Fuji s5000. Before you start You need to sign in or join In order to upload your photos, place an order for prints, design personalised gift creations and to use the Refer a Friend service you need to be signed in. Signature-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: nickmooney@spamcop.net -- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11 -- GSF600n www.bgn.me.uk - Drive until you lose the road >What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a >lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > >http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 Needs a login. f.ck that! SignatureColin Irvine YZF1000R BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mark" <me@home.co.uk> saying something like: >What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a >lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > >http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 > >Camera is a Fuji s5000. You need to take account of the metering seeing the sky and setting the exposure for that, thereby underexposing the main subject. You just get to know what's likely to happen and the LCD on the back gives you an instant result, so you can correct for it. In those two pics you'd probably have needed to open up the aperture by a couple of stops - on the F5000 (assuming it's the same as the 7000) hold down the +/- Exposure Compensation button and turn the Command Dial until you get a +2 reading on the Exp Comp scale in the viewfinder. Remember to cancel it afterwards. For the group in front of the building, the quick and easy way is to sling the camera on manual, meter off the grass in the shade and take your shot. Takes 2 seconds. For the chopper, it's a question of being prepared - if you know you're going to be taking stuff in mid-air against a bright sky, you just set it up to compensate beforehand. Bear in mind you can do some post-processing but it never brings out the same quality as the originals would have had if exposed properly. SignatureDave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the river cleaned out in a day. "Mark" wrote... > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a > lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 > > Camera is a Fuji s5000. Looks like your camera's metering's set to average over the entire frame, see if the Fuji has a "Spot metering" option, if so then (if it's like a proper Chemical Camera[1]) you should be able to part-press the shutter button to lock the focus and exposure re the spot in the centre of the frame, then compose (eg put the 'chopper so it's approaching the centre of the image) and click the rest of the way - it'll white out the the sky though, as it'll be hideously overexposed, but that may be an advantage as you can adjust in Photoshop / equivalent or cut the white / bright areas and drop the remaining image over something else - helicopter rising out of the lav, perhaps? Both subjects in the pics you show are backlit, too, so they're inherently darker than their surroundings, but at the distances involved fill-in flash is going to require a small nuke... 10KT or so should do, airburst of course, as the colour spectrum of a ground-zero detonation will be way off. -- Dave H. (The engineer formerly known as Homeless) "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men" - Douglas Bader [1] at least, that's how the Pentaxes work, since about 1969... > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose a > lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/thumbnails.html?c_album=6364935 Something really simple will help a lot with the example shots - shoot with the sun behind you. > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to > lose a lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mark can you shoot in raw ? other than that bracket the shots and combine in photoshop hth............ Signature1976 Z900, 1980 Z1R, 1973 Beamish suzuki, 1976 GT250, 2000 ZRX1200 > What am I doing wrong when taking pictures outdoors. I always seem to lose > a lot of detail in shadows etc. Here is a link to a couple of examples. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mark Use a polari[sz]ing filter and/or a skylight filter to tone down the sky a bit. If the sky is important in landscape shots, maybe use a grad ND and meter for the foreground. If the sky isn't important, just meter for the foreground and let the sky wash out. A lot of cameras offer a meter lock facility for just this very purpose. SignatureBandit 650 GHPOTHUF #30 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.