wud
Senior Member
As I wrote, "when looking at camera screen". You got burned out areas.
Sent from Tapatalk
Post your 'before' and 'after' pictures
- Thread starter Felisek
- Start date
As I wrote, "when looking at camera screen". You got burned out areas.
Sent from Tapatalk
If I'm not mistaken, the last time I answered yours, you changed into a six year old that didn't get his cookie. So please don't act as if you're suddenly filled with man-juice. If you don't like me, great. Go stand in line.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
You were right, J-see. Setting the WB manually made a big difference. These shots were made with the same shutter/aperture, but with ISO four stops apart. In ACR, I upped the exposure on the ASA 100 shot by exactly four stops. These extreme crops are essentially identical.
Note this only works successfully with RAW files, as the camera will create JPEGs that show they amount of under/over exposure, and you will lose data that is still in the RAW file.
By the way, the "native" ISO on D600s is actually 125, but don't know about other Nikons.
ETA: I just realized I didn't have to re-shoot this. Putting my first pics back in ACR and setting the WB to the same number proved the same thing.
Note this only works successfully with RAW files, as the camera will create JPEGs that show they amount of under/over exposure, and you will lose data that is still in the RAW file.
By the way, the "native" ISO on D600s is actually 125, but don't know about other Nikons.
ETA: I just realized I didn't have to re-shoot this. Putting my first pics back in ACR and setting the WB to the same number proved the same thing.
Last edited:
We may not agree with someones methods, but that is no reason to insult them.
Exactly! and this is where that method comes in handy (certain situations). It's the extreme where we must be cautious. I'm now working with more ISO challenged bodies, so this is my go-to technique as well. I'm just saying if you can get a balanced shot, get the most out of the sensor. ISO has become a "easy way out", I too try to avoid cranking it up.
My native ISO is 100. You see the difference much more when there's a wider DR. Each stop of ISO lowers my DR, tonal range and sensitivity by about 0.8EV for the DR, 0.8bit for the other. It becomes more the higher the ISO. So whenever the DR matches the max the cam can grab, ISO forces it to discard information faster. But if the range is wider to begin with, both will clip. The low ISO will clip more in the shadows while the higher ISO loses highlights since ISO prioritizes the shadows. That's what it is used for.
But the initial information in both cases is exactly identical. That's the important part here.
Don't let a forum argument get the best of you. J-see threw down a blanket theory and it's up to us to determine it's merit (if we want to). It has it's place, it's a tool, sometimes J-see is a tool himself.
"I don't know how to explain this since it seems so simple to understand but I apparently can't explain it as simple."
This is how you piss people off. It's that simple. Let's all take a deep breath and move on
."I don't know how to explain this since it seems so simple to understand but I apparently can't explain it as simple."
This is how you piss people off. It's that simple. Let's all take a deep breath and move on
I wouldn't know what's wrong with that comment since I only said I can't explain it in a manner that is understandable.
But anyways, I shoot crazy style and everyone else does what they prefer. All has been said. Just PM if needed.
I know I amDon't let a forum argument get the best of you. J-see threw down a blanket theory and it's up to us to determine it's merit (if we want to). It has it's place, it's a tool, sometimes J-see is a tool himself.
"I don't know how to explain this since it seems so simple to understand but I apparently can't explain it as simple."
This is how you piss people off. It's that simple. Let's all take a deep breath and move on
Um, that quote I was referencing was actually from J-see, yet another mis-understanding.
Playing around with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 I rented for the week, my 2 yr old finally slowed down a minute so I could get some pics of her. Here is one I took. Took into Photoshop to fix the little marks on her face with the healing brush. Then saved it back to LR and adjusted the white balance, Set the white/black levels and lowered highlights slightly. Adjusted the vibrance a little and slight bit of contrast. Added some detail, with just a little masking. Used adjustment brush to bring up the exposure a tad on her face. And then added a little vignette at the end. Then cropped it just a little.
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
Last edited:
This thread reminds me why we could never have a meaningful critique section. So many people are hyper-sensitive, in both directions. We are dealing with personalities and egos from around the world. There is nothing anyone here (or anywhere on the internet) could say to get under my skin. Some people post just to get a rise out of you, why give it to them?
This is for fun (at least for me). I know that I know everything and don't need to prove it to anyone. I just like to share and engage. If someone gets under your skin, ignore them. Forums are great places to learn and share publicly, just remember you are dealing with the public, for better or for worse.
This is for fun (at least for me). I know that I know everything and don't need to prove it to anyone. I just like to share and engage. If someone gets under your skin, ignore them. Forums are great places to learn and share publicly, just remember you are dealing with the public, for better or for worse.
I think we have to stop and consider that this site has a large number of prima donnas on it. I know that I am one. But i am finally old enough to accept my fellow prima donnas for the passionate and dedicated photographers that they are. And I will put up with them as long as they put up with me. Age does not bring wisdom but it does bring patience, at least I hope so.
I clicked on this thread on this page. I had to go back to page 6 to see where all hell broke loose. It's very amusing to read the bickering back and forth. The only thing I can't figure out is when shooting an image so underexposed. How do you pull detail out of the shadows later on? If looking at the histogram it's obviously clipping on the left. Clipping is loosing detail.
As far as the way people shoot. I don't believe there is a right or wrong way of doing it. If in the end you get the result you want, you've accomplished what you set out to do. Would you criticize a painter for what brush he chooses? If an image is taken and it grabs someones attention in a positive way. you've won. When I saw J-see's image of the correctly exposed duck it looked pretty good. Who am I to tell him how he accomplished it was wrong.
It's easier to criticize others work rather than hearing how we should improve our own.
J-see I don't understand the reasoning of how you shot this. I don't really care. Your work speaks for it's self, excellent.
As far as the way people shoot. I don't believe there is a right or wrong way of doing it. If in the end you get the result you want, you've accomplished what you set out to do. Would you criticize a painter for what brush he chooses? If an image is taken and it grabs someones attention in a positive way. you've won. When I saw J-see's image of the correctly exposed duck it looked pretty good. Who am I to tell him how he accomplished it was wrong.
It's easier to criticize others work rather than hearing how we should improve our own.
J-see I don't understand the reasoning of how you shot this. I don't really care. Your work speaks for it's self, excellent.
SkvLTD
Senior Member
Well, egos are only as valuable as the price people are willing to pay for them.
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
That is correct. J-see is not saying it doesn't matter how much light gets to the sensor. So if you can add more light to the sensor through slower shutter or wider aperture, do that. J-see's point is that, shooting RAW in low light, it doesn't matter where your camera's ISO setting is. In low light conditions, use the slowest shutter you can get away with for your shot, and use the widest aperture you can get, and shoot RAW. If you do that, it doesn't matter if your ISO was set to 100 or 6400. You can take the ISO 100 shot and create the exact same pic in post as if you had shot it at 6400.
I didn't believe it when I first read it, but I've done the experiments and now believe it.
This idea is NOT the same as saying "I can shoot any shutter speed or aperture I want, then fix it in post." You still want to get as much light to the sensor as possible without blowing out your highlights.
ETA: I just did the reverse test, and it weakens J-see's theory. I shot a scene at ISO 100 properly exposed, then shot the same scene at ISO 1600, same lighting, same shutter/aperture. In theory, the exact same light reached the sensor, and the exact same RAW file SHOULD have been created, but in reality the ISO 1600 RAW file had highlights blown out that could not be recovered by simply reducing exposure 4 stops in ACR. So... more to think about. My plan is to keep trying to adjust my ISO to my shutter/aperture needs and my existing lighting... as we all do already.
Last edited:
Englischdude
Senior Member
Shooting sober too!
This started out such a great thread. An in depth discussion on the iso issue belongs now either in a separate thread or private. Ive witnessed during the last couple of weeks a number of threads spiralling away from topic, would be a shame for that to happen here.
To get this thread back on track.
A friend of mine, has just got a D3100 with a kit lens, I have given him a few hints and tips, but more or less just said, go out and enjoy it.
I did say, if some pictures are not 100% correct, you can make some adjustments with editing software.
I used this one as a quick example,
A friend of mine, has just got a D3100 with a kit lens, I have given him a few hints and tips, but more or less just said, go out and enjoy it.
I did say, if some pictures are not 100% correct, you can make some adjustments with editing software.
I used this one as a quick example,
Yes, let's get back to the original topic of the thread. Though this might resemble J-see's work, the only reason I underexposed the shot was to keep the bright sky in check.
Edit: I should describe what I did. I use Nik plugins in Photoshop CC. This one was done with Color Effex Pro. I increased contrast and detail level with Tonal Contrast, brightened the ground with Reflector Effex, warmed it up with Skylight filter and added a little Polariser to darken the blue sky. Then, I removed a bird to the left of the trees (a tiny speck), just because it bugged me.
Edit: I should describe what I did. I use Nik plugins in Photoshop CC. This one was done with Color Effex Pro. I increased contrast and detail level with Tonal Contrast, brightened the ground with Reflector Effex, warmed it up with Skylight filter and added a little Polariser to darken the blue sky. Then, I removed a bird to the left of the trees (a tiny speck), just because it bugged me
.
Last edited: