If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
"Wilba" wrote in message ... Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the possible exception of: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending on what was in the sky area. Perhaps there's some blue sky there, but it looks more like white cloud to me. It would have been useful to show it a stop less exposed, but with the gamma increased to restore the grass and trees. Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you. Cheers, David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
David J Taylor wrote:
"Wilba" wrote in message ... Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the possible exception of: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending on what was in the sky area. Perhaps there's some blue sky there, but it looks more like white cloud to me. It would have been useful to show it a stop less exposed, but with the gamma increased to restore the grass and trees. I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar results. I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the FG, otoh as an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black) and to get detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have been very noisy and muddy looking. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those shots of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to white and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very artificial look to it. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about another stop more than the the ones outside). BTW, I didn't bother much with the histo's on those shots. I simply metered for some white concrete and opened up. Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you. That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple exposures needs to be done if possible. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
David J Taylor wrote:
Wilba wrote: Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the possible exception of: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending on what was in the sky area. English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's possible that the words come out subtly different to what he intended. Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you. Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... [] I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar results. I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the FG, otoh as an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black) and to get detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have been very noisy and muddy looking. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those shots of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to white and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very artificial look to it. Thanks for pointing to those, Alan. These shots look a little "artificial" and "processed" to me. The blacks should be just a little blacker. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about another stop more than the the ones outside). But if I saw blue sky there, I would think it quite strange. Having blue sky clipped to white is correct and natural to me, for such a shot. [] That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple exposures needs to be done if possible. No, not "needs", but "is an option you might consider". I have a video/slide-film background, so I may have a different view of what's the best on-screen representation of an image. I rarely do prints. Cheers, David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
"Wilba" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Wilba wrote: Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the possible exception of: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending on what was in the sky area. English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's possible that the words come out subtly different to what he intended. Agreed. Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you. Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions. ... otherwise it's just the composition you can check. If in doubt, the histogram provides valuable extra information. David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
David J Taylor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... [] I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar results. I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the FG, otoh as an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black) and to get detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have been very noisy and muddy looking. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those shots of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to white and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very artificial look to it. Thanks for pointing to those, Alan. These shots look a little "artificial" and "processed" to me. The blacks should be just a little blacker. Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are grey looking, not black. eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near silver-grey looking. Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black to grey ... that's what the camera recorded. [additional note: when I was there it was every bit as over run with tourists as you see in the photo by John Flint above ... however I worked extra hard to eliminate other people (other than the engineer), wires, modern cars, etc.] http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about another stop more than the the ones outside). But if I saw blue sky there, I would think it quite strange. Having blue sky clipped to white is correct and natural to me, for such a shot. [] That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple exposures needs to be done if possible. No, not "needs", but "is an option you might consider". I have a video/slide-film background, so I may have a different view of what's the best on-screen representation of an image. I rarely do prints. Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you can then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is passable on a print - dead white skies really kill an image. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... [] Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are grey looking, not black. OK, different to what I might expect from UK trains. eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near silver-grey looking. Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black to grey ... that's what the camera recorded. OK. [] Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you can then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is passable on a print - dead white skies really kill an image. Interesting. Is the effect of a white sky any less if the print is borderless? Cheers, David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
David J Taylor wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... [] Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are grey looking, not black. OK, different to what I might expect from UK trains. Good point. Are train engines (of that era) painted black or do they get that way with age? (soot). eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near silver-grey looking. Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black to grey ... that's what the camera recorded. OK. [] Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you can then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is passable on a print - dead white skies really kill an image. Interesting. Is the effect of a white sky any less if the print is borderless? IMO yes although careful cropping and (in the case of a framed photo) matting can lessen it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
... [] Good point. Are train engines (of that era) painted black or do they get that way with age? (soot). I think both, but you would need to ask a railway buff, which I'm not. Cheers, David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | October 18th 09 12:28 AM |
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? | jls[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 15th 09 06:36 PM |
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? | John Sheehy | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | October 10th 09 03:45 PM |
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? | taylor aldler | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | October 5th 09 04:06 AM |