Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 280699" data-attributes="member: 12496">Hmmm.&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess I cannot help, because I would not call that overexposed. It looks pretty good to me.&nbsp; Speaking of the bottom image, there is nothing at 255 (right end of histogram).&nbsp; The background window starts becoming visible at 240 (we can't help windows much).&nbsp; The yellow shirt starts showing about 225. The face not until about 205.&nbsp; (I am holding ALT key while shifting Adobe Levels White Point.&nbsp; Holding Adobe Raw Alt key with Exposure shows this too, but it is calibrated in -EV instead of RGB).&nbsp; My notion is these are fine exposures, very good.&nbsp; But if you want it darker, then add just a bit of -EV Flash Compensation, maybe -1/3 EV.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, my guess is that a factor might be that many LCD monitors are shipped with brightness too high.&nbsp; Mine has been calibrated to be not quite so bright.&nbsp; I would check that first.My other notion (just a preference) is that I see no need of f/1.8, esp not at ISO 800.&nbsp; Maybe it was just to blur the background (again, a preference, yours is as good as mine).&nbsp; You probably are down on the floor with her (so ceiling is that much higher) and if on the floor, I would have used ISO 400 f/4 for bounce with a SB-800 and ten foot ceilings.&nbsp;&nbsp; But the SB-400 has about one stop less power, and ISO 800 might be about right at f/4.&nbsp; That is speaking more of capability than preference.The bounce shows well in the room background, but in close subject, there is quite a bit of direct spill, and to me, the shadows are direct instead of bounce. Another rule of thumb is that proper perspective of human faces means we need to stay back 6 or 8 feet.&nbsp; Zoom in all you want for head and shoulders, but for perspective, standing closer often tends to make closer noses look too large, etc.&nbsp; It does look OK here though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 280699, member: 12496"] Hmmm. I guess I cannot help, because I would not call that overexposed. It looks pretty good to me. Speaking of the bottom image, there is nothing at 255 (right end of histogram). The background window starts becoming visible at 240 (we can't help windows much). The yellow shirt starts showing about 225. The face not until about 205. (I am holding ALT key while shifting Adobe Levels White Point. Holding Adobe Raw Alt key with Exposure shows this too, but it is calibrated in -EV instead of RGB). My notion is these are fine exposures, very good. But if you want it darker, then add just a bit of -EV Flash Compensation, maybe -1/3 EV. However, my guess is that a factor might be that many LCD monitors are shipped with brightness too high. Mine has been calibrated to be not quite so bright. I would check that first. My other notion (just a preference) is that I see no need of f/1.8, esp not at ISO 800. Maybe it was just to blur the background (again, a preference, yours is as good as mine). You probably are down on the floor with her (so ceiling is that much higher) and if on the floor, I would have used ISO 400 f/4 for bounce with a SB-800 and ten foot ceilings. But the SB-400 has about one stop less power, and ISO 800 might be about right at f/4. That is speaking more of capability than preference. The bounce shows well in the room background, but in close subject, there is quite a bit of direct spill, and to me, the shadows are direct instead of bounce. Another rule of thumb is that proper perspective of human faces means we need to stay back 6 or 8 feet. Zoom in all you want for head and shoulders, but for perspective, standing closer often tends to make closer noses look too large, etc. It does look OK here though. [/QUOTE]

Verification