Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Analysis
Two questions
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 18, 2017 15:54:57   #
NMGal Loc: NE NM
 
I have a recurring problem with some of my photos. When I take pictures of cloud formations, the clouds are OK but the land is always dark. I realize I can fix a lot of this in Photos but really would like to do it right in the camera. I really don't like to do post processing. Also when doing weeds, when I blow them up to see the details of the flower, there is always a funny look about them. Kind of an artificial looking edging. Don't know how to describe it. Any advice would be most welcome. I use an Olympus EM5 II and 3 Zuiko lenses; 60mm macro, 25mm prime and 14-150 zoom. Hopefully settings will come attached to the photos. Thank you.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 16:01:37   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
You could consider a graduated neutral density filter for the underexposed foreground when photographing sky/clouds. You could also address this in post processing.

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 16:15:18   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
On the clouds vs landscape, it is the extreme range of light, expose for one and the other is off. Solution is to bracket the exposures and blend the two or more in post processing. This is High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. You can of course use a compromise setting and then neither will be exposed exactly right. Some cameras have a wider dynamic range than others, I don't know where your camera rates.
Another possible solution that may or may not work depending on the light is called Exposing to the Right. You expose the photo so the highlights are just at the point of being totally washed out (over exposed) and then bring up the shadow detail in PP.
I am afraid that you will need to learn PP work and have a fairly decent PP program if you really want to take images like this and have them look like what your eyes can see. There are PP apps that can do a sort of imitation HDR by splitting a single image, I have used this fairly often, but it does not have the success ratio of real HDR. Some cameras will do HDR in camera, and your's is one of them, in fact the spec sheet says it has 2 versions in its menus. Either read the manual or go to the camera store with the camera and manual and ask for help. The in camera HDR works best when done off a tripod or other good firm brace so the camera doesn't move between frames. I have some done with the one shot being split in PP and will put one up in a little while to show what it does.

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2017 16:32:38   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
OK, this is from 2015, a truck show, bright sunny day. Lots of deep shadows and bright highlights.
#1 Out Of Camera
#2 one shot HDR using Corel Paint Shop Pro (only does it with RAW files) and a lot of tweaking
#3 one shot HDR converted to B&W
6D, 24-105L @ 24, 1/200 @ f/10, ISO 100


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 16:57:04   #
NMGal Loc: NE NM
 
Robertjerl, thank you for the reply. There is no camera store within 100 miles of me. I have an HDR button on the camera but haven't learned it yet. I bought the "Beginner's Photography Guide" and am in process of reading it. HDR is one of the topics. I downloaded the manual but it is a pain to use (I don't have a lot of patience for it). Guess I will have to order a printed copy of the manual. I can see what it does from your pics of the truck. Will study more. Thanks

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 16:59:28   #
NMGal Loc: NE NM
 
TriX, thanks for the reply. I do know about fixing it in PP but thought there should be a way in camera. The damn things do everything but sing.

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 17:14:55   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
NMGal wrote:
TriX, thanks for the reply. I do know about fixing it in PP but thought there should be a way in camera. The damn things do everything but sing.


You are welcome. Robert's replies concerning utilizing HDR is another in-camera solution that could solve your issue of high dynamic range subjects. HDR is a valuable tool - you just need to be careful not to overdo it, or you get that artificial "HDR look".

Good luck,
Chris

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2017 17:26:00   #
SS319
 
On photo #1 - the weed picture; upon download and expansion to full size, you can see several places around the flower head where there are reflections of light. examining these reflections shows that your focus point is slightly behind the flower head (Look at the leaf down at the 4:00 O'clock position). Because of your short depth of field, the head of the flower is slightly out of focus and hence soft.

Similarily, in photo #4, at the 11 o'clock position just above the yellow flower, the leaf behind the flower is in focus and actually shows leaf edge hairs. The bottom part of the stamen in the flower is in or very close to focus.

Use a tripod, and slow your image down so you can go to f/8 or f/11 for these shots. This is a good place for Aperture Priority to control your aperture.

On the cloudscapes, you can try using spot metering and meter on the earth and then holding your metering, rotating up to frame your photo. This may result in losing cloud detail. Another method to try is to bracket your exposure - shooting 3 frames at 0, +1 and -1 exposure values. You should get a photo to your liking.

Finally, on the cloudscapes, shoot RAW and you will be given the chance to adjust exposure at conversion.

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 18:07:49   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
NMGal wrote:
I have a recurring problem with some of my photos. When I take pictures of cloud formations, the clouds are OK but the land is always dark. I realize I can fix a lot of this in Photos but really would like to do it right in the camera. I really don't like to do post processing. Also when doing weeds, when I blow them up to see the details of the flower, there is always a funny look about them. Kind of an artificial looking edging. Don't know how to describe it. Any advice would be most welcome. I use an Olympus EM5 II and 3 Zuiko lenses; 60mm macro, 25mm prime and 14-150 zoom. Hopefully settings will come attached to the photos. Thank you.
I have a recurring problem with some of my photos... (show quote)


Wanting to get the better results without some form of post processing is not going to work for you.

Shooting raw will give you considerably more dynamic range. At ISO 200, you can capture 2 more stops of dynamic range over the in camera jpeg.

In your sky shots, you may be able to add about 1/3-1/2 stop of exposure without losing the cloud details, and the extra exposure will help the darker areas. During raw conversion you can recover both the shadows and highlights.

These tonal adjustments were done in Lightroom, in a matter of less than a couple of minutes for each. In the waterfall image I did some additional work to remove a photographer in the middle left side of the image, and reduce some of the noise in the shadows, and enhance the contrast and color in some of the areas - this took an additional 5 minutes or so.

There is no need to fear post processing.

The first pair of images were made from the same raw file, and it represents a concept referred to as exposing to the right (ETTR), in a high-contrast scene, not unlike your clouds and ground. The original capture looks severely underexposed, but as you can see it wasn't. Had I used a higher exposure, I would have lost the water in the center of the image.

The second pair, is ETTR in a low contrast scene, to create as high a possible capture of detail over the noise level. This image looks overexposed, but it isn't, since no detail was harmed in this demonstration, as you can see in the second image.

As far as the flowers are concerned, the yellow flower is at the edge of overexposure. Again, raw, with proper exposure will help you get better detail without over-saturating the bright yellow. In this case, a bit of underexposure would help a little more.

As you can see, capturing your images as raw gives you considerable latitude for adjustment in post processing. Programs like Photoshop and Lightroom exist because in camera processing is woefully inadequate in situations like these.

Photos is a very inadequate platform for editing images, which is why your results may not look so great.

So you have a choice to make. If you want broader range in your images, shoot raw and get comfortable with post-processing. Or not. Your camera is clearly capable of it, so why not fully exploit it's capabilities. Look at the comparison in dynamic range between the jpeg and raw files. I am not making this stuff up.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-1284458/review/9

exposed to protect bright highlights in center of image
exposed to protect bright highlights in center of ...
(Download)

shadows adjusted in post processing
shadows adjusted in post processing...
(Download)

unedited
unedited...
(Download)

same image, adjusted for tone and contrast
same image, adjusted for tone and contrast...
(Download)

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 19:17:48   #
NMGal Loc: NE NM
 
Gene51, it looks like I will have to get over my fear of RAW. I have only used jpeg. Will Affinity work for pp? I just got a refurbished Mac Pro laptop which should handle it. Don't believe my iPad Mini 2 will do the job. You give a compelling case. Thank you.

Reply
Aug 18, 2017 19:22:03   #
Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.
 
NMGal wrote:
I have a recurring problem with some of my photos. When I take pictures of cloud formations, the clouds are OK but the land is always dark. I realize I can fix a lot of this in Photos but really would like to do it right in the camera. I really don't like to do post processing. Also when doing weeds, when I blow them up to see the details of the flower, there is always a funny look about them. Kind of an artificial looking edging. Don't know how to describe it. Any advice would be most welcome. I use an Olympus EM5 II and 3 Zuiko lenses; 60mm macro, 25mm prime and 14-150 zoom. Hopefully settings will come attached to the photos. Thank you.
I have a recurring problem with some of my photos... (show quote)


Because I have a real soft spot for NM, I downloaded your 1st image to take a better look at it. After just some basic adjustments there is a lot more there than a fast look would leave you to believe. As others here have said look into learning post processing to get the most out of your equipment. And don't be intimidated by those who say it's difficult. It can be if you try to learn it all at once. A journey of a thousand miles..................


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2017 20:56:59   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
NMGal wrote:
Gene51, it looks like I will have to get over my fear of RAW. I have only used jpeg. Will Affinity work for pp? I just got a refurbished Mac Pro laptop which should handle it. Don't believe my iPad Mini 2 will do the job. You give a compelling case. Thank you.


This comparison was from two years ago, so I am not sure if it is valid. Affinity proponents will probably jump in here and say it is, and others will say it isn't. You'll have to decide on your own.

At the moment, the two best raw converters are Capture One (my personal favorite), and Lightroom (the one I use 100% of the time). I am trying to work On1 Raw into my workflow, but while it is fast on single images, and while you can save a preset and apply it to a range of images, Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One allow you to temporarily (without having to name and save a preset) apply a set of adjustments made for one image to a range of images - a functionality I use and need.

From what I have heard, Affinity is better, but I don't know about it's raw converter. I am on a PC, and the early versions of Affinity for PC were incredibly average or less. I would use Corel before Infinity, however.

Once you start using raw, you'll realize that most adjustments are fast and easy, much easier than trying to edit a jpeg, and the results are better. Again, I don't consider any raw converter capable of "finishing" an image, but they will get you further, faster and better than trying to fix a jpeg out of the camera.

Take a look at some of stuff here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

Reply
Aug 19, 2017 06:16:40   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
NMGal wrote:
.....when I blow them up to see the details of the flower, there is always a funny look about them. Kind of an artificial looking edging.......


If you're shooting jpegs that's the sort of thing you can expect when you zoom in on them. As far as the bright clouds/dark landscape goes, in-camera HDR or exposure bracketing are what you need. In-camera HDR saves you from having to do your own processing. All you have to do is do a reasonable job of holding the camera steady. But if you want to get the best from your shots you'll have to learn basic post processing and shoot raw. Exposure bracketing requires special merging software.

Reply
Aug 19, 2017 09:56:24   #
AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!
 
I'm going to ask you about the focusing problem, as I have that problem also. Other people here on UHH get extremely sharp images and I never do. I've blamed it on equipment, yet I know my equipment is just as good. On the first one, it looks like it's just slightly OOF. It looks fine until I zoom in. Then it looks unsharp. Is it cropped? If so, how much? And in the one with the yellow flower, the green section looks sharp but not the yellow, and I suspect you were trying to focus on the yellow? I call it yellow focus! Doesn't do well. I watch my camera search for focus when I'm doing something yellow, and it will choose everything except what's yellow. I have to manually focus on the yellow, and even then it's not perfect.

Reply
Aug 19, 2017 10:07:58   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
NMGal wrote:
......when I blow them up to see the details of the flower, there is always a funny look about them........


Check to see how your images are being saved. If it isn't "Jpeg Fine" or "Best Quality" or "Largest" or some such you should change it. You want the largest files to give you the best quality images.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
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.