Help my daughter/s-i-l out

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Tony Cooper, Feb 7, 2014.

  1. Tony Cooper

    Savageduck Guest

    Yup! If the histogram is shifted to the right and the over exposure
    "blinkies" or blown highlight warning is flashing, then you want to
    compensate downwards. i.e. a -AC.
     
    Savageduck, Feb 8, 2014
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I didn't see the in-camera histo, but - knowing my daughter - she's
    adjusted this image in post by using Levels. She generally does.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 8, 2014
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tony Cooper

    Alan Browne Guest

    Then even less use for the histo. from the JPG you posted v. shoot time
    conditions in figuring the issue.

    I'd say in closing: in the presence of a lot of foam that he might
    consider underexposing shots by 1 - 1.5 stops and boosting them in raw
    import at the expense of some noise at the dark end. This will yield
    far more detail in the foam splash. I'd bet the increase in noise
    wouldn't even be noticeable in an 8x10.

    I see the photos was processed in CS6 - do I don't think they'd have
    much issue with the raw import. At worse they might need a larger
    memory card.
     
    Alan Browne, Feb 8, 2014
    #63
  4. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I agree, accept and understand. That's why I said 'Even' the JPG.

    Unfortunately I have nothing other than the JPG to base my comments
    on.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 8, 2014
    #64
  5. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I actually said "the exposure is almost exactly spot on". Going by the
    JPG (which is all I have) the image is over exposed by a small amount.
    The histogram is a little piled up to the right and has a very small
    gap at the left. The exposure doesn't exactly match the limits of the
    histogram scale but is very close. Reducing exposure will help with
    the top end but then it will overflow the bottom. That's why I said
    that what is really needed is mor dynamic range.
    That's a trick question, isnt it? As far as I know the in-camera
    histogram is based on the JPG.
    It's only absurd if you are as happy with overfilled blacks as you are
    unhappy with burned out whites. Ideally the exposure should be clear
    at both ends of the histogram.
    I don't know about 'most' but certainly this is correct for many.
    You are jumping to conclusions. The original question was how to avoid
    blown out white caps and your (immediately obvious) answer is to
    expose for the right. Fair enough, but my comment was based on the
    histogram which showed that the camera almost coped with the dynamic
    range of the exposure and what was needed for them to find a camera
    with a wider dynamic range. This isn't that hard to do if you are
    starting from a D2SX.
    Do you really think that 'dark' is the only suitable light? Have a
    look at these http://tinyurl.com/l2bsqaa
    The bottom end will still be OK. Whether or not the highlights will be
    OK depends on a number of things.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 9, 2014
    #65
  6. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Who said no clouds?

    Further, the objects you are photographing are changing shape and
    alignment all the time.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 9, 2014
    #66
  7. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    There is a reason for the "F" in RTFM.
     
    PeterN, Feb 9, 2014
    #67
  8. Tony Cooper

    PeterN Guest

    Yup! Golden Retriever. Much to our surprise, she made the finals. We
    left early because we didn't think she did, so we are watching on TV.
     
    PeterN, Feb 9, 2014
    #68
  9. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    She doesn't have CS6. I do. She uses Elements 9.0. She sent it to
    me to re-size in OnOne's Perfect Resize program The new size was a
    different ratio and needed to be cropped and I did so in CS6.

    When doing this, I noticed the blow-out and thought I'd ask about it
    here. I'm not sure it was a good idea.

    She's just starting on Lightroom, and not that comfortable with it
    yet. Between work, her other projects, and gardening, she really
    hasn't put enough time in to learning the program. I'm hoping that
    she will start using LR routinely and that will allow her to use RAW
    easier and she'll start shooting RAW.

    Your suggestions are the most realistic, and that's appreciated.
    Neither my daughter nor my s-i-l is going to buy a new camera at this
    point.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 9, 2014
    #69
  10. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    There's a lighting aspect in shooting surfers that is different from
    just clouds. What the surfer wants is to be recognizable in the
    photo. The surfer is generally surfing with the sun at his/her back on
    the east coast, and in many of the photos the face is dark when the
    water looks right. Even the surfer's body position affects this.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 9, 2014
    #70
  11. Tony Cooper

    RichA Guest

    Except the FF (unless he opts for a D800) won't give him as much reach as a D7100/7000 and the increase in DR compared to what he has now would be more than sufficient. Also, the price leap going to even as D610 is jarring.
     
    RichA, Feb 9, 2014
    #71
  12. Not sure about the last statement- at least I think there are some
    circumstances where a poor photographer can benefit more from better
    equipment than a good one can. Some shots, some equipment.
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 9, 2014
    #72
  13. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You are assuming particular circumstances. You should come over here
    and try different circumstances. Here is a well known surf beach on
    the west coast. http://tinyurl.com/luos3nb
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 9, 2014
    #73
  14. All the wrong answers. He's *selling* pictures. Using
    the worst equipment isn't the best policy. He probably
    should opt for the D800, as it is the best. And maybe
    te price is "jarring" to you, but he is making money at
    it! He can use a D7100 and sell 8x10's for $5-8 bucks
    each. Wonderful, but it takes a lot of them to pay for
    a family night out, much less anything else. On the
    other hand, if he invests in appropriate equipment the
    8x10's are just a lead in to selling 16x20's for $200 a
    pop. Or maybe 20x30's for a lot more than that!

    Pretty soon the D800 is paid for and it's all gravy.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 9, 2014
    #74
  15. Tony Cooper

    J. Clarke Guest

    Yeah. Generally speaking, while there are shots that simply can't be
    obtained without some particular level of equipment (think "Pillars of
    Creation" and "Hubble Space Telescope" for an extreme example of such a
    shot), for most shots better equipment makes the shot _easier_.

    Can you get a macro shot with a 55mm lens hand-held using some
    construction paper and electrical tape as a makeshift bellows? Sure you
    can. Is it a _Hell_ of a lot easier with a set of extension tubes or a
    macro lens? You bet it is. Is the resulting shot "better"? Not
    necessarily.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 9, 2014
    #75
  16. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I'm not assuming anything, but perhaps I should have specified that
    I'm referring to the surfer that my son-in-law is photographing. I
    would think that would be clear from the thread.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 9, 2014
    #76
  17. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Evidently, there's not a lot of surfing around Ukpeagvik.

    The average surfer in a Florida beach town is in his/her teens, and
    dependent on their allowance or paycheck from McDonald's for pocket
    money. They aren't in the market for a $200 photograph.

    They'll buy 4x6s to put up on their locker at school, or give to their
    girlfriend or boyfriend to pin on the wall next to their Justin Bieber
    poster, but that's about it. The most frequently sold product is a
    download for use on the phones.

    While jumping to a D7100 for over $1,000 bucks (body only) would be
    nice, the return on investment would take decades. Let me reiterate:
    these kids (usually) are most interested in seeing themselves, not
    seeing a good photograph. They are part of the selfie generation.

    Since I don't know any of the subjects, I look at those photos and
    think how they can be improved. Hence my posting here.

    Thanks for the comments, though.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 9, 2014
    #77
  18. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Yes. That point dawned me just after I hit send. We are both guilty of
    taking mental sets which conflict. Yours was set by your S-I-L and
    mine by discussion with Floyd.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 9, 2014
    #78
  19. Tony Cooper

    Tony Cooper Guest

    S'OK. A discussion with Floyd could leave anyone reeling.
     
    Tony Cooper, Feb 10, 2014
    #79
  20. Tony Cooper

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Floyd's OK but he does seem a little more grumpy than usual. Nothing
    personal Floyd: for what it is worth I do respect your knowledge.
     
    Eric Stevens, Feb 10, 2014
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.