2 Photos shot the same day - Wildly different results
Mar 24, 2012 21:08:46 #
I shot both of these photos on the 23rd under overcast skies. The first one was shot with a 70-300mm, ISO 1000, 1/640, f/8.0, 300 mm. Also, it was shot in RAW. Sorry about the orientation, I didn't know how to rotate it.
The second was shot with a EFS 18-55mm, ISO 800, 1/60, f/18.0, 33 mm and a CPL filter on the lens. Shot in JPG on automatic.
I would like help with the following:
1. Why are the two so completely different?
2. Why the blue cast to #2?
3. Should I have been using the CPL?
4. Is there any way to adjust the white in #1? it's so bright.
5. What should I have done differently with settings, etc.?
The second was shot with a EFS 18-55mm, ISO 800, 1/60, f/18.0, 33 mm and a CPL filter on the lens. Shot in JPG on automatic.
I would like help with the following:
1. Why are the two so completely different?
2. Why the blue cast to #2?
3. Should I have been using the CPL?
4. Is there any way to adjust the white in #1? it's so bright.
5. What should I have done differently with settings, etc.?
Mar 24, 2012 21:18:39 #
The blue cast appears to be from the wrong white balance setting; possible set for daylight which is a warmer color than shade and overcast.
The CPL would not have fixed this, and could have possibly made the blue more pronounced.
T think the brighter areas of the duck are just blown out/overexposed. You may be able to tone them down with an editor.
The CPL would not have fixed this, and could have possibly made the blue more pronounced.
T think the brighter areas of the duck are just blown out/overexposed. You may be able to tone them down with an editor.
Mar 24, 2012 21:23:44 #
No. 1 doesn't look that bad, just a little under exposed, you did shoot them in cloudy conditions. A slower shutter speed would have taken caer of that. In the second one, the water was able to reflect what little light you had, that's why it came out a little brighter. Both look like pretty good shots.
Mar 24, 2012 21:49:54 #
Mar 24, 2012 22:06:12 #
OK -- I purposely went out on an overcast day to avoid sun glare. Weather was beautiful. Can you elaborate a bit?
Mar 24, 2012 22:14:08 #
Your first picture includes the sky and you get a cold ambiance.
The second you use what is best in lighting: a soft diffuse light that does not burn anything and best of all does not influence the colors.
The first is underexposed and second is not.
Add these two factors and you get the difference between the two.
When you took the picture, I assume you took the picture by looking at the tree. What you did not realize is that you had a hot spot (lighter area in the cloud cover).
The second you use what is best in lighting: a soft diffuse light that does not burn anything and best of all does not influence the colors.
The first is underexposed and second is not.
Add these two factors and you get the difference between the two.
When you took the picture, I assume you took the picture by looking at the tree. What you did not realize is that you had a hot spot (lighter area in the cloud cover).
Mar 24, 2012 22:19:26 #
Mar 25, 2012 08:01:14 #
First of all, you have the wrong order for the pictures.
A polarizer is useless on an overcast day. Do not even put it on. Keep it in the bag.
Post-processing can help with both problems. Bear in mind that raw's give you more latitude to fix than jpg's. A reason to shoot them all the time.
If you checked the histogram when shooting, you may have seen the white problem with the duck and could have fixed it by bracketing. Likewise for the trees. The underexposure would have been obvious.
As for the blue cast, unless you are using another well-established method for white balance, using auto white balance is probably your safest bet.
Finally, the lighting can change even while you are shooting the same scene let alone if you are walking around. The nature of these two scenes, a tree shot against on overcast sky and a duck on water in who knows what kind of light, indicates immediately that the color balances are probably different.
A polarizer is useless on an overcast day. Do not even put it on. Keep it in the bag.
Post-processing can help with both problems. Bear in mind that raw's give you more latitude to fix than jpg's. A reason to shoot them all the time.
If you checked the histogram when shooting, you may have seen the white problem with the duck and could have fixed it by bracketing. Likewise for the trees. The underexposure would have been obvious.
As for the blue cast, unless you are using another well-established method for white balance, using auto white balance is probably your safest bet.
Finally, the lighting can change even while you are shooting the same scene let alone if you are walking around. The nature of these two scenes, a tree shot against on overcast sky and a duck on water in who knows what kind of light, indicates immediately that the color balances are probably different.
Mar 25, 2012 10:21:52 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
English_Wolf wrote:
Cues: time of the day and weather.
second clue: totally different subjects totally different surroundings hence comparing apples to bananas
Mar 25, 2012 12:04:40 #
pinkycat wrote:
I shot both of these photos on the 23rd under over... (show quote)
A good rule of thumb to follow is to minimize, or better yet, completely eliminate the sky on overcast days.
Use your histogram to insure proper exposure on the duck. The white feathers look a bit washed out.
Mar 25, 2012 13:39:53 #
pinkycat wrote:
I shot both of these photos on the 23rd under over... (show quote)
Pinkycat - why are you using such a high ISO?
Is the tree supposed to be lavender / purple?
The duck looks fine to me!
What metering mode(s) did you use? If you used a 'spot meter' mode, you may have 'missed' the spot. I think an 'averaging' mode would have worked a bit better for the tree.
Mar 25, 2012 14:16:38 #
I'm still quite new at this. The tree was shot in Aperture Priority mode. I didn't set the ISO, just the aperture.
The duck was shot in full Auto.
The duck was shot in full Auto.
Mar 25, 2012 14:41:00 #
Maby the apeture wasn't wide enough to let in more light in the first one. The second one, the apeture could have been a little smaller to let in less light so the white on the duck wouldn't be blown out. That's the great thing about photography, take one shot and see how you can better the next one.
Mar 25, 2012 19:56:32 #
tommo13
Loc: Temple, TX
I just can't resist this answer. One is of a tree and the other is of a duck. :thumbup:
Mar 25, 2012 20:00:31 #
pinkycat wrote:
OK -- I purposely went out on an overcast day to avoid sun glare. Weather was beautiful. Can you elaborate a bit?
Now go back on a sunny day and see what happens. Overcast skys are almost alway a bad idea unless you are looking for the results you got. Of course, if the tree is backed by the sun that could be just as bad. EW has it right. You should meter on the tree and when you take your pictures, take more than one. Try different exposures.
The duck is over exposed and your ISO is too high on both. Never use auto settings. You have zero control over auto settings. Your F-stop on the duck should have been f5.6 - f8 and a shutter speed of at least 1/600 if shooting with a 300mm lens. Out of doors on an overcast day I can't see shooting at more that ISO400.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.