Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Help with White Dog
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Feb 10, 2016 04:09:00   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
WYp8riot wrote:
Thanks for the tip! I may have to try this!


Great! if you have any questions, just PM me.

Reply
Feb 10, 2016 12:19:32   #
WALL
 
Put your camera on manual and use the sunny 16 rule. You will get the dog right.

Reply
Feb 14, 2016 19:55:05   #
bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.
 
If you over expose an image you lose a lot of info. Sometimes Ps can bring out the info and other times its gone forever.

You may be having white balance problems. get an 18% grey card. Take a shot with the card and the dog, then remove the card and take the shots you want. then in PS camera RAW look for the half full eye dropper. Click the dropper hold it and drag to the grey card in the pic, let go and it then adjusts your white balance. Then with it adjusted you can bring in the other pics and edit them as needed and the pgm will adjust the white balance.

I shoot a lot of dogs at agility trials. The black and the white ones are the hardest...Now I shoot in "S" shutter speed and let the camera figure out the rest. Not because im lazy but because I set it for one dog color, then have to reset it for another and by the time your done, the dog is over the jump and Ive missed the shot.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2016 03:04:16   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
The Histogram can tell you what the exposure looks like in objective terms. Make sure the right side of the histogram display of the image does not bunch up to overexpose the highlights. You should be able to get a balanced exposure this way.
xs650greg2 wrote:
Hi, I have a white dog that is giving me fits trying to get the correct exposure/white balance on the RAW (Fujifilm-RAF) files. If I get the exposure for the dog then the background is really dark. If I get the background lighter then I have "burned out" areas of the dog. On a sunny day it's really hard to deal with. I have -- hs50exr camera,ISO100,F8,37mm,Spot metering, Cloudy, 3:30pm. I processed the raw file in Fuji's software (everything set to "normal") and conconverted to Jpg. I can go to PP and adjust it and get it better but I wish I could get the "negative" raw file better. I've seen some really good shots of white foreground/dark background on the site. So what am I missing? Should I just dye my dog a darker color? Is it just a limitation of the camera? Have I got "the stupid" button pressed on my camera? I'm retired now and have plenty of time and really enjoy photography now and it's fun trying to get "the harder" shots.

Any Ideas,,, thanks all,, the sites great!
Hi, I have a white dog that is giving me fits try... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 17, 2016 04:19:33   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
anotherview wrote:
The Histogram can tell you what the exposure looks like in objective terms. Make sure the right side of the histogram display of the image does not bunch up to overexpose the highlights. You should be able to get a balanced exposure this way.


I'm sorry but the histo cannot tell you anything about the exposure being correct or incorrect. It ONLY can tell you what the distribution of tones is in the frame at any given time. The best a histo can do is to say "nothing in this frame is blown out" which is useful to a degree but it cannot say "this is a correctly exposed shot"

Reply
Feb 17, 2016 21:04:59   #
suci Loc: Texas
 
A simple levels adjustment in Elements fixes this.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 00:27:44   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
I suppose I should've used the expression "judicious use of the Histogram for setting correct exposure."

Ken Rockwell presents more what I had in mind for this useful tool:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm
rpavich wrote:
I'm sorry but the histo cannot tell you anything about the exposure being correct or incorrect. It ONLY can tell you what the distribution of tones is in the frame at any given time. The best a histo can do is to say "nothing in this frame is blown out" which is useful to a degree but it cannot say "this is a correctly exposed shot"

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2016 02:05:25   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
anotherview wrote:
I suppose I should've used the expression "judicious use of the Histogram for setting correct exposure."

Ken Rockwell presents more what I had in mind for this useful tool:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/histograms.htm


It doesn't matter how you phrase it, it cannot tell what the correct exposure is.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 07:15:53   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
I disagree with your contrarian view. Your comment only contradicts. It does not explain the role of the Histogram in reaching a correct exposure.

You might explain your view by discussing the purpose of the Histogram and telling how the Histogram does function without any connection to obtaining a correct exposure.

For example, the Histogram can indicate both overexposure and underexposure. It acts as a visual aid in this way for determining a correct exposure.
rpavich wrote:
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, it cannot tell what the correct exposure is.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 07:19:38   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
anotherview wrote:
I disagree with your contrarian view. Your comment only contradicts. It does not explain the role of the Histogram in reaching a correct exposure.


There is no role.

It merely records tones within the field of view. I cannot and does not tell you about proper exposure.

IT CAN tell you if there are tones that your camera cannot record (blown highlights or blocked shadows) but that's independent of "proper exposure" (i.e. if the dog and field are exposed properly)

Quote:
You might explain your view by discussing the purpose of the Histogram and telling how the Histogram does function without any connection to obtaining a correct exposure.


Just did.

Quote:
For example, the Histogram can indicate both overexposure and underexposure. It acts as a visual aid in this way for determining a correct exposure.


Actually not. It cannot indicate under, over, or proper exposure.

IT CAN indicate tones that are beyond the camera's ability to record in a given scene.

That's not the same as " underexposure, overexposure, or proper exposure"

You can USE it in that way and get something that's pretty close or good enough or right on the money, but that's not what we are talking about.

Example:

1.) You frame the shot so that the dog is exactly 50% of the light tones in the field of view, the grass is the other 50%.
The histo shows a lump in the middle.

2.) You reframe to make the dog's light tones 90% of the frame.

The histo is all bunched up at the top end of the scale.

3.) You back up and only the dogs hind leg is in the shot...about 10% of the area of the field of view.

The histo reacts by lumping all of the date to the low end of the histo.


Have you learned anything about what the amount of light falling on the grass and dog are?

You have 3 different histos...is the exposure different in all 3 of them?

Nope.

You've learned nothing about the proper exposure. You've ONLY learned about what the tonal distribution in each field of view is.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 07:25:56   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
You write "IT (the Histogram) CAN indicate tones that are beyond the camera's ability to record in a given scene."

I take your description to mean the Histogram aids in determining correct exposure -- my point all along.
rpavich wrote:
Actually not. It cannot indicate under, over, or proper exposure.

IT CAN indicate tones that are beyond the camera's ability to record in a given scene.

That's not the same as " underexposure, overexposure, or proper exposure"

You can USE it in that way and get something that's pretty close or good enough or right on the money, but that's not what we are talking about.

Example:

1.) You frame the shot so that the dog is exactly 50% of the light tones in the field of view, the grass is the other 50%.
The histo shows a lump in the middle.

2.) You reframe to make the dog's light tones 90% of the frame.

The histo is all bunched up at the top end of the scale.

3.) You back up and only the dogs hind leg is in the shot...about 10% of the area of the field of view.

The histo reacts by lumping all of the date to the low end of the histo.


Have you learned anything about what the amount of light falling on the grass and dog are?

You have 3 different histos...is the exposure different in all 3 of them?

Nope.

You've learned nothing about the proper exposure. You've ONLY learned about what the tonal distribution in each field of view is.
Actually not. It cannot indicate under, over, or p... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2016 07:36:51   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
anotherview wrote:
You write "IT (the Histogram) CAN indicate tones that are beyond the camera's ability to record in a given scene."

I take your description to mean the Histogram aids in determining correct exposure -- my point all along.


I guess if you want to equate "there are some blown highlights" with "this is the correct exposure" then yes...you are good to go.

I'm only pointing out to the OP that getting the proper exposure (measuring the light falling on the scene) does not equate to "there are no blown highlights"

It's a myth that gets perpetuated over and over to the detriment of lots of folks to struggle with this.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 07:51:03   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
I agree that metering for a scene and achieving proper exposure of it differ although related to each other. I say so in regard to your comment: "getting the proper exposure (measuring the light falling on the scene) does not equate to "'there are no blown highlights.'"

I'd give one example of this situation as the Histogram showing blown highlights in a scene, such as lit street lamps at night, yet with the rest of the Histogram tones within an exposure that correctly exposes the remainder of this scene. But the photographer has to know that the Histogram here acts only as a guide for correct exposure.

Whatever, I frequently consult the Histogram when determining exposure. I find it most useful for this purpose. After all, I may have inadvertently left Exposure Compensation set too low or too high, biasing the exposure wrongly for a correct exposure. And so on.
rpavich wrote:
I guess if you want to equate "there are some blown highlights" with "this is the correct exposure" then yes...you are good to go.

I'm only pointing out to the OP that getting the proper exposure (measuring the light falling on the scene) does not equate to "there are no blown highlights"

It's a myth that gets perpetuated over and over to the detriment of lots of folks to struggle with this.

Reply
Feb 18, 2016 08:01:48   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
anotherview wrote:


Whatever, I frequently consult the Histogram when determining exposure. I find it most useful for this purpose. After all, I may have inadvertently left Exposure Compensation set too low or too high, biasing the exposure wrongly for a correct exposure. And so on.


Not "correct" exposure, just "tones except the streetlights fell within the camera's ability to record them"

Since we are talking about this in context of a white dog and green (or brown) grass, that's where my comments are anchored.

You can have no blown highlights or blocked up shadows at all and have severe underexposure, overexposure or anything in between and be no closer to the correct exposure according to the histogram.

If your standard of acceptability is "not blown highlights" then that's great.

See my example in previous post.

all different exposures, no way to tell what's right by the histo. No blown highlights.

Yet...based on the tones distributed...a different histo shape in each shot.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=6198720&t=367561

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Analysis
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.