Help
Jul 21, 2012 18:15:54 #
I couldn't get my flash set correctly. One or two shots would look okay and then this is what happened, couldn't get rid of the heavy shadows and the picture is still too dark and yellow tinged. What must I do?
muddy images, why isn't the picture bright, crisp and clear?
How do I get rid of the heavy shadow?
The church walls are white but you can't tell by this photo
Jul 21, 2012 20:22:11 #
Photo#1 isn't bad, you need to bounce the light, maybe a little over exposed because of the white suit. Photo #2, you have flash on camera and its turned to the left so it makes the shadow go to the right, if you turn it to the right the shadow goes to the left.So take all your photos horizontal, bounce it and crop later. Shot loose and crop tight. Photo #3, you used up all the light on the main subject, by the time it got to the ceiling its too weak to light it proper... hope this helps...Very fine looking crew...
Jul 21, 2012 20:41:13 #
snails_pace
Loc: Utah
Is the question more one of what can you do now with post processing to remove color cast, lighten shadows etc?
Is so, what software do you have (Elements for example)? There are a number of ways to remove color cast. Were the original photos in RAW format?
I'm also flash-challenged since nearly all of my photography is wildlife and a little landscape. Looks like really tough shooting conidtions - low lighting and the white dress and suit make it really difficult to get correct exposure. Both the dress and suit are overexposed - which limits to some extent what can be done now unless RAW format was used. But the color cast can be removed and the pictures sharpened.
Is so, what software do you have (Elements for example)? There are a number of ways to remove color cast. Were the original photos in RAW format?
I'm also flash-challenged since nearly all of my photography is wildlife and a little landscape. Looks like really tough shooting conidtions - low lighting and the white dress and suit make it really difficult to get correct exposure. Both the dress and suit are overexposed - which limits to some extent what can be done now unless RAW format was used. But the color cast can be removed and the pictures sharpened.
Jul 21, 2012 23:11:10 #
Thank you so much. Yes that helps especially, "shot lose, crop tight". My shooting tight also caused trouble with the printing, part of the image was cut off on some phontos.
Jul 21, 2012 23:12:42 #
What can I do in the future and also what can be done now to produce a better print? What software do you use or would you recommend to post editing.
Jul 22, 2012 07:48:22 #
#1 - you are back a ways and the white balance is off slightly, but it isn't that bad. Post processing may help a bit especially if you shot in RAW, but may I suggest you also crop it in just a tad. Clip the space from the man on the left and loose some of the floor in the process. It won't make a lot of difference, but may bring the group a little more in to view. You may want to also level it a little as it seems you have a strong right finger...
#2 - I think the shadow is what it is, but the whites are blown out. Post processing may be able to save them a little. A tighter crop may bring the bride more to focus too. You will loose the arch, but she is more important in this shot.
#3 - The whites are blown out and again I would crop it a little. It may break the rules cutting of the flower, but the chandelier draws your eye too much so I would loose it. Great timing with the expression!
Thank you for posting!
#2 - I think the shadow is what it is, but the whites are blown out. Post processing may be able to save them a little. A tighter crop may bring the bride more to focus too. You will loose the arch, but she is more important in this shot.
#3 - The whites are blown out and again I would crop it a little. It may break the rules cutting of the flower, but the chandelier draws your eye too much so I would loose it. Great timing with the expression!
Thank you for posting!
Jul 22, 2012 08:09:31 #
The obvious answer is the best software you can afford, but that does not help much. If you are new to post processing try a few free photo editors. Here's a list of what I like:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows7/products/features/photo-gallery
You need Windows 7 or Vista on your PC.
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/download.php/
A little different from many editors but clever. Any Windows system.
http://www.getpaint.net/ A regular style photo editor. Any Windows system.
Plenty of tutorials online for all these programs. There is also GIMP which is a free Photoshop style program. A steep learning curve with this one. Good luck!
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows7/products/features/photo-gallery
You need Windows 7 or Vista on your PC.
http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/download.php/
A little different from many editors but clever. Any Windows system.
http://www.getpaint.net/ A regular style photo editor. Any Windows system.
Plenty of tutorials online for all these programs. There is also GIMP which is a free Photoshop style program. A steep learning curve with this one. Good luck!
Jul 22, 2012 13:15:08 #
You said some would be good, and then all of sudden there would be some that were too dark. One possible reason.....you didn't allow enough time between some shots for the flash to charge up to full strength again.
In photo #2, one reason you see to shadows so much is your low point of view, which will cast the shadows upwards. If you have a swivel LCD, hold the camera overhead and adjust the LCD so you can see, and shoot that way. Or if you can, get on a chair for a higher point of view...probably not practical in this situation. Anyway, shooting up with flash casts shadows up and makes them more visible. And as someone said, bounce your flash.
There are also settings on some cameras to adjust how much ambient light gets in before the flash....check your owner's manual.
In photo #2, one reason you see to shadows so much is your low point of view, which will cast the shadows upwards. If you have a swivel LCD, hold the camera overhead and adjust the LCD so you can see, and shoot that way. Or if you can, get on a chair for a higher point of view...probably not practical in this situation. Anyway, shooting up with flash casts shadows up and makes them more visible. And as someone said, bounce your flash.
There are also settings on some cameras to adjust how much ambient light gets in before the flash....check your owner's manual.
Jul 22, 2012 13:54:13 #
snails_pace wrote:
Is the question more one of what can you do now wi... (show quote)
Even if the original wasn't shot in RAW, you can open it as a RAW shot by going to Open AS and changing the format from JPEG to Camera RAW. You won't have as much info to work with as you would with a true RAW file, but you can do a lot of PP easily.
Al
Jul 22, 2012 14:33:00 #
What camera and flash did you use?
What post processing software do you use?
and what format do you shoot in? jpg or raw
This will help with some more accurate help. Also, it helps to check the (store original) box when uploading images. Some people will help you, with your permission, to make post processing corrections.
What post processing software do you use?
and what format do you shoot in? jpg or raw
This will help with some more accurate help. Also, it helps to check the (store original) box when uploading images. Some people will help you, with your permission, to make post processing corrections.
Jul 22, 2012 18:28:11 #
Photopatt wrote:
I couldn't get my flash set correctly. One or two shots would look okay and then this is what happened, couldn't get rid of the heavy shadows and the picture is still too dark and yellow tinged. What must I do?
Picture #1 might be the easiest to improve to the way you want it by a simple increase in contrast. Other tweaks might also help it, but that might be a good place to start, using whatever program you'd like.
Jul 22, 2012 20:21:20 #
snails_pace
Loc: Utah
Since everyone has a different way of working with photos, it's difficult to say what someone else should spend money on.
But ... Amazon has a great price on Elements 10 ... $70 I think. It will let you do a lot of editing.
I hope this is OK, but I worked on the photos so see if I could improve white balance, lighten shadows, sharpen (couldn't do much since I used the low res versions).
When opened in Camera RAW, it's evident that the white dress and tux are over-exposed. In the second one, I was able to reduce the exposure on the photo. Note that more detail is visible on the skirt and boquet.
It's also a bit difficult to do white balance when someone wasn't there to see what the room looked like.
oh ... editing was done using Elements 9 and Camera RAW that comes with it.
But ... Amazon has a great price on Elements 10 ... $70 I think. It will let you do a lot of editing.
I hope this is OK, but I worked on the photos so see if I could improve white balance, lighten shadows, sharpen (couldn't do much since I used the low res versions).
When opened in Camera RAW, it's evident that the white dress and tux are over-exposed. In the second one, I was able to reduce the exposure on the photo. Note that more detail is visible on the skirt and boquet.
It's also a bit difficult to do white balance when someone wasn't there to see what the room looked like.
oh ... editing was done using Elements 9 and Camera RAW that comes with it.
photo #1
photo #2
photo #3
Jul 23, 2012 00:23:11 #
Hi Photopatt.
My take on the first shot is that it is underexposed. From the lack of strong shadows, I suspect the flash did not fire or was not strong enough so most of the exposure was with the room lighting. The first thing you have to do is to get the right flash exposure and then your colors and contrast will be much more to your liking.
The harsh shadows in the two other pictures is from direct flash. You need to soften that by putting a diffuser over the flash head. You can aim the flash head directly at the subject or, better, tilt it up to 45 degrees. In any case, you need a separate flash with sufficient power. The camera's built-in flash is not very strong but you can buy diffusers for it.
You have quite a challenge with these pictures due to the wide range in tones from the groom's white suit to his dark skin. You did a good job on the second two photos in taming that range but you may not do so in all shots. This is where the histogram helps but you do not have time to fiddle with that for the grab shots. However, do check it for the set ups. The indirect flash mentioned about should help to get that wide range under control.
I hope this helps. Good luck on your next wedding. They are a lot of work and stress.
My take on the first shot is that it is underexposed. From the lack of strong shadows, I suspect the flash did not fire or was not strong enough so most of the exposure was with the room lighting. The first thing you have to do is to get the right flash exposure and then your colors and contrast will be much more to your liking.
The harsh shadows in the two other pictures is from direct flash. You need to soften that by putting a diffuser over the flash head. You can aim the flash head directly at the subject or, better, tilt it up to 45 degrees. In any case, you need a separate flash with sufficient power. The camera's built-in flash is not very strong but you can buy diffusers for it.
You have quite a challenge with these pictures due to the wide range in tones from the groom's white suit to his dark skin. You did a good job on the second two photos in taming that range but you may not do so in all shots. This is where the histogram helps but you do not have time to fiddle with that for the grab shots. However, do check it for the set ups. The indirect flash mentioned about should help to get that wide range under control.
I hope this helps. Good luck on your next wedding. They are a lot of work and stress.
Jul 23, 2012 05:21:46 #
glojo
Loc: South Devon, England
QUESTIONS
With group photographs especially number 1, would we be better off with a slighter wider angle lens to get closer to that group?
Would these types of images be better taken outside to take advantage of natural light
If took inside should we use better lighting\flash\fill flash and as has been said bounce the flash?
WHITE CLOTHING
Should alarm bells ring whenever we take pictures of anything that is predominantly white in colour? I always treat white with the utmost of respect because when it is burnt out..... Is it burnt out?
What is the range of your average off the shelf type flash equipment because to me looking at those images the flash might not be doing anyone any favours.
My thoughts are that with this type of photography we only get one chance at it and that is why we should always consider hiring the services of a professional.
Hopefully these are just personal snaps which will be a great memento of what looks like a very nice wedding.
Good luck with the advice and hopefully we can all learn from the very good replies that are coming in.
I have NEVER been successful in recovering anything that is 'burnt out!'
Over exposed, yes... Burnt out in my language is burnt out... There is no information to recover and are there parts of those images that are burnt out?
Is this the ideal situation where a quick glance at the histogram after the first picture will paint a thousand words?
Please note these are all questions which I am hoping will help cross some t's and dot some i's.
If folks have images of white suits or wedding dresses then would that also be helpful, ESPECIALLY if the 'store original' is ticked.. That way the OP can see how it should\could be done?
With group photographs especially number 1, would we be better off with a slighter wider angle lens to get closer to that group?
Would these types of images be better taken outside to take advantage of natural light
If took inside should we use better lighting\flash\fill flash and as has been said bounce the flash?
WHITE CLOTHING
Should alarm bells ring whenever we take pictures of anything that is predominantly white in colour? I always treat white with the utmost of respect because when it is burnt out..... Is it burnt out?
What is the range of your average off the shelf type flash equipment because to me looking at those images the flash might not be doing anyone any favours.
My thoughts are that with this type of photography we only get one chance at it and that is why we should always consider hiring the services of a professional.
Hopefully these are just personal snaps which will be a great memento of what looks like a very nice wedding.
Good luck with the advice and hopefully we can all learn from the very good replies that are coming in.
I have NEVER been successful in recovering anything that is 'burnt out!'
Over exposed, yes... Burnt out in my language is burnt out... There is no information to recover and are there parts of those images that are burnt out?
Is this the ideal situation where a quick glance at the histogram after the first picture will paint a thousand words?
Please note these are all questions which I am hoping will help cross some t's and dot some i's.
If folks have images of white suits or wedding dresses then would that also be helpful, ESPECIALLY if the 'store original' is ticked.. That way the OP can see how it should\could be done?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.