Beautifully corrected exposure! From Black SOOC to okay... More work to be done...
May 14, 2019 17:58:19 #
So I was at the grocery store taking pictures with my brand-new Olympus OM-D E-M5 II, and I had the camera in MANUAL! Needless to say, I'm still learning this camera, and I under-exposed some shots, (no, I didn't intend to under-expose them this bad, but I was never worried about Under-Exposure in a DIGITAL camera). So some of the RAW files were pretty black, SOOC. So I imported them into Lightroom, and behold: all of the pictures came to life with a lot of exposure slidebar movement, and some other very easy adjustments, like increasing highlights! With film cameras, over-exposure was recoverable, but with digital camera, under-exposure still has all the details. It was like Christmas! Any comments are appreciated!
Under-exposed SOOC #1
(Download)
Corrected exposure #1
(Download)
Under-exposed SOOC #2
(Download)
Corrected exposure #2
(Download)
Under-exposed SOOC #3
(Download)
Corrected exposure #3 . Enjoy!
(Download)
May 14, 2019 18:13:13 #
May 14, 2019 18:15:19 #
papaluv4gd
Loc: durham,ct
interesting subject matter. Might there not have been a more photogenic subject to do a test run on a new toy?
May 14, 2019 18:19:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
So, why are you underexposing?
I was just experimenting with the camera. I'm trying to use MANUAL all the time now. It was not 100% intentional to under-expose that much. I wanted to verify that the details are still there in under-exposed shots in a DIGITAL camera, as I was taught. Isn't it true that film was the opposite? Details could be recovered in OVER-exposed film?
May 14, 2019 18:23:52 #
papaluv4gd wrote:
interesting subject matter. Might there not have been a more photogenic subject to do a test run on a new toy?
Oh, I get permission from a manager at a grocery store (I go to 2 different chains frequently) and I ask permission to take pictures for NON-commercial use, which is true. I can't see any point trying to sell my photos when there are millions of people trying to sell photos. A waste of time, for me.
I also take tons of pictures in the flower departments, and produce.
May 14, 2019 18:31:12 #
GalaxyCat wrote:
I was just experimenting with the camera. I'm trying to use MANUAL all the time now. It was not 100% intentional to under-expose that much. I wanted to verify that the details are still there in under-exposed shots in a DIGITAL camera, as I was taught. Isn't it true that film was the opposite? Details could be recovered in OVER-exposed film?
I believe you'll find your Olympus is ISO invariant where underexposing does not ruin the image for noise when recovering the exposure. But, as a best practice, that is not a best practice ... When you capture your image, are you using the meter in the view finder to assess your exposure settings relative to the 0-mark? Are you reviewing the histogram and the highlight warnings on the back of the camera. Because also different than film is the immediate feedback from the digital camera on the image just captured.
May 14, 2019 18:43:05 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I believe you'll find your Olympus is ISO invarian... (show quote)
Yes, I was deliberately leaving the meter to the left of the 0-mark. I saw no warnings in my E-M5 II.
I'm not very experienced. I took a course called, "31 Days to be a better photographer" online thru an Australian website. I studied fine art at Kansas City Art Institute one year, and I got a BSEET at Oklahoma State University in my 20's.
May 14, 2019 18:49:13 #
Here's some more...
The flower does look kinda grainy?
The flower does look kinda grainy?
Ball Jars grossly under-exposed 1
(Download)
Ball Jars corrected exp-contrast-highligh
(Download)
Flower -1 grossly under-exposed 1
(Download)
Flower 1 correct exp-contrast-highlight
(Download)
May 14, 2019 18:52:35 #
GalaxyCat wrote:
Yes, I was deliberately leaving the meter to the left of the 0-mark. I saw no warnings in my E-M5 II.
I'm not very experienced. I took a course called, "31 Days to be a better photographer" online thru an Australian website. I studied fine art at Kansas City Art Institute one year, and I got a BSEET at Oklahoma State University in my 20's.
I'm not very experienced. I took a course called, "31 Days to be a better photographer" online thru an Australian website. I studied fine art at Kansas City Art Institute one year, and I got a BSEET at Oklahoma State University in my 20's.
Page 114 of your manual discusses how to display the histogram on image playback as well as to enable highlight and underexposure warnings. Typically, exposing for the highlights is issue in digital photography.
May 14, 2019 18:54:55 #
GalaxyCat wrote:
Here's some more...
The flower does look kinda grainy?
The flower does look kinda grainy?
The flower can be cleaned up more, although the more noise processing applied, the softer the details will become. These are good examples of the limits to recovering a grossly under-exposed image. I can be done, but properly exposing will always create a better final result.
May 14, 2019 18:57:22 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Page 114 of your manual discusses how to display the histogram on image playback as well as to enable highlight and underexposure warnings. Typically, exposing for the highlights is issue in digital photography.
Thank you for this information. Yes, in DIGITAL photo files, there's not much information in highlights? It's better to slightly UNDER-EXPOSE? Is that true?
May 14, 2019 19:02:55 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The flower can be cleaned up more, although the more noise processing applied, the softer the details will become. These are good examples of the limits to recovering a grossly under-exposed image. I can be done, but properly exposing will always create a better final result.
Thank you for this information. I'm going to look up page 114, when my full manual from Olympus arrives in the mail. I also bought 2 different books on this E-M5 II camera. I'm having a blast!
Are the "softer details" = grainy?
Are there any desirable times when grainy photos are wanted?
May 14, 2019 19:05:27 #
GalaxyCat wrote:
Thank you for this information. Yes, in DIGITAL photo files, there's not much information in highlights? It's better to slightly UNDER-EXPOSE? Is that true?
Use the histogram in the viewfinder as a guide to selecting the exposure.
Personally I like to have my exposures correct, I do not deliberately under expose images.
However sometimes there may be a lot of dynamic range in the scene and you may need to make decision on what is important, or controll the light and/or use HDR techniques.
May 14, 2019 19:08:12 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
I believe you'll find your Olympus is ISO invarian... (show quote)
I was looking thru the View-Finder only too much, and just snapping away? Maybe that's the truth. I've seen the Histogram in this LCD display, of the E-M5 II. I have had this camera for 8 days now...
May 14, 2019 19:10:23 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
Use the histogram in the viewfinder as a guide to selecting the exposure.
Personally I like to have my exposures correct, I do not deliberately under expose the images.
However sometimes there may be a lot of dynamic range in the scene and you may need to make decision on what is important, or controll the light and/or use HDR techniques.
Personally I like to have my exposures correct, I do not deliberately under expose the images.
However sometimes there may be a lot of dynamic range in the scene and you may need to make decision on what is important, or controll the light and/or use HDR techniques.
What are HDR techniques? I saw HDR letters on the top of the images somewhere? So much to learn...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.