I´m just starting.
- Thread starter Vincent
- Start date
Snail and frog, testing out the Osawa, not as good as the 70-200mm, but a lot more handy to take along in the pocket.
Had to crop since the animal was a lot smaller then the spider of yesterday.
Strangely this one was almost too fast for me, every time I was set-up it was out of frame. (full picture here)
Had to crop since the animal was a lot smaller then the spider of yesterday. Strangely this one was almost too fast for me, every time I was set-up it was out of frame. (full picture here)
I have the impression that on my PC everything does look a lot brighter then elsewhere, for example on the work laptop.
This is the histogram:
It clearly shows underexposed. Maybe even if I wanted a dark effect, seems way to low here. I was learning histograms today.
Could not choose between these 2 versions:
Strangely the B&W has more reflections in the back window, did not understand that yet.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
This is a common misunderstanding with histograms. That histogram does *not* indicate under exposure; it indicates a lot of shadow (to the point of clipping your shadows), some mid-tones and few or no highlights. Your photo is composed of a lot of shadow, some mid-tones and very little to no highlights but it is not drastically underexposed. I'd say maybe a half-stop and that's not going to drastically alter your histogram. The histogram displays the degree of shadows, mid-tones and highlights in your photo, it is not always an indicator of proper exposure. You have to look at scene, look at the histogram and see if the results on the histogram accurately reflect the scene that was/is before you when you took the shot.
......
Advertisement: Apple party for the end of apple harvest
Yesterday I saw this scene and saw the potential. The first picture gave this:
I remembered my lightpainting experiments and transformed it in a next picture to this:
Here the histogram shows a lot of shades, but you clearly see a lot of elements in the high ranges, so this one is not underexposed, unlike the previous that only had shades.
Yesterday I saw this scene and saw the potential. The first picture gave this:
I remembered my lightpainting experiments and transformed it in a next picture to this:
Here the histogram shows a lot of shades, but you clearly see a lot of elements in the high ranges, so this one is not underexposed, unlike the previous that only had shades.
Attachments
Last edited:
I like the composition of the apple counter photo, but the colour temperature and post processing could really help that picture. I know that you're just beginning, but I just wanted to show you how 30 seconds of post processing could do to your image. I hope you don't mind my example.
From this
I made this in 30 seconds before posting: 
I personally think your´s is too clear, now I´ll agree that mine looks dark and dull.
Looking at the histogram:
without the RAW file I wonder what you did?So trying another version, clearly your 30 seconds will take me over 30 minutes at this moment:
This is the first time I really played with the white balance and I have the impression that the histogram is not helping me at all on this.
