Switched to raw and stuff happened
Jan 5, 2013 23:11:02 #
Jan 5, 2013 23:29:40 #
Loudbri wrote:
I've posed this question to a few pros....would you agree that it is saker to error on the side of under exposed knowing you may be able to recover detail because of shooting in raw???
Ideally,we want to expose as far to the right as we can WITHOUT blowing the highlights. The reason is technical, but the short explanation is that there is more data in the brighter pixels than in the darker ones.
I have seen many responses here saying to underexpose, but that is not correct. The trick though, to have that histogram as far to the right as possible without that spike on the far right. Even that might be alright if it is a specular reflection from something like chrome on a car, or a reflection of some jewelry. Never good if it is on a face!
Jan 6, 2013 08:36:53 #
Loudbri, the problem is not RAW. I am guessing that you shot available light and not flash. Hence, the color balance probably changed with every shot and may have been a mix of different color temperatures.
These cameras can go really high in ISO. However, that creates an illusion of proper exposure and color balance. For grab shots like these, I always go with flash. I set color balance using an Expodisc; forget about white and gray cards. For really close shots, I add a flash diffuser and tilt the flash head up. Further away, I tilt the head forward. And even further away, I remove the diffuser.
In post-processing, I check the color balance of the Expodisc shot with the white balance tool/color picker. For some reason, it is usually about 50 degrees higher and 2 more for the tint. However, the pictures look very true to the original and need no adjusting.
Hope this helps.
These cameras can go really high in ISO. However, that creates an illusion of proper exposure and color balance. For grab shots like these, I always go with flash. I set color balance using an Expodisc; forget about white and gray cards. For really close shots, I add a flash diffuser and tilt the flash head up. Further away, I tilt the head forward. And even further away, I remove the diffuser.
In post-processing, I check the color balance of the Expodisc shot with the white balance tool/color picker. For some reason, it is usually about 50 degrees higher and 2 more for the tint. However, the pictures look very true to the original and need no adjusting.
Hope this helps.
Check out Drone Video and Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 6, 2013 09:55:59 #
CaptainC wrote:
br br Ideally,we want to expose as far to the ri... (show quote)
I agree wholeheartedly with CaptainC.
Just to expand a little; 50% of the data in a digital image resides in the range of the highest stop; 25% in the next stop down; 12.5% in the next, which is the one which straddles the middle tones; and only about three per cent in the one which covers the printable shadows.
GHK
Jan 6, 2013 10:27:33 #
CaptainC wrote:
I have seen many responses here saying to underexpose, but that is not correct. The trick though, to have that histogram as far to the right as possible without that spike on the far right. Even that might be alright if it is a specular reflection from something like chrome on a car, or a reflection of some jewelry. Never good if it is on a face!
I have seen many responses here saying to underexpose, but that is not correct. The trick though, to have that histogram as far to the right as possible without that spike on the far right. Even that might be alright if it is a specular reflection from something like chrome on a car, or a reflection of some jewelry. Never good if it is on a face!
One of things I was taught by some professionals (but admittidly rarely use) is to set the exposure in manual by spot metering on the brightest thing in the photo and adjusting the settings to get your meter in the viewfinder at EV+2. That ensures you will retain the information even in the brightest location.
I suppose they would have excluded something like a spot reflection you don't mind blowing out but don't recall them saying that explicitly. Outdoors they mostly recommended doing it on the brightest location in the blue sky.
Jan 6, 2013 11:00:15 #
It might work as a safe rule of thumb but I would think it would depend on the characteristics of the individual camera sensor.
MtnMan wrote:
quote=CaptainC br br I have seen many respon... (show quote)
Jan 6, 2013 11:06:35 #
Something else to think about. If you run a fast enough shutter speed and take several shoots of the same thing, you can find differences because of the lighting. Normal light bulbs flicker 60 times a second. It took me awhile to catch on to this so on some of my shots I take multiple. In something like a gymnasium, you may even find a shadow on the subject if the timing is right.
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 6, 2013 11:08:23 #
Jan 6, 2013 11:34:48 #
MtnMan wrote:
br One of things I was taught by some profession... (show quote)
MtnMn, your supposition is quite correct. The term 'brightest highlight' should really say 'brightest reflective highlight', to distinguish it from reflections from such things as polished surfaces and water, which produce specular highlights which just have to be left washed out. If there is too great an area of specular highlight you are more or less doomed to failure.
GHK
Jan 6, 2013 11:42:04 #
GrahamS wrote:
Why would you want to shoot a kiddies birthday party in RAW?
Because everybody shoots everything in raw (small letters).
Jpeg only becomes meaningful at the saving stage, as does RAW (capitals).
The original raw image (nb. not raw file) is not much use to anybody until it has been formatted.
GHK
Jan 6, 2013 11:53:33 #
GHK wrote:
MtnMn, your supposition is quite correct. The term 'brightest highlight' should really say 'brightest reflective highlight', to distinguish it from reflections from such things as polished surfaces and water, which produce specular highlights which just have to be left washed out. If there is too great an area of specular highlight you are more or less doomed to failure.
GHK
MtnMn, your supposition is quite correct. The term 'brightest highlight' should really say 'brightest reflective highlight', to distinguish it from reflections from such things as polished surfaces and water, which produce specular highlights which just have to be left washed out. If there is too great an area of specular highlight you are more or less doomed to failure.
GHK
That makes sense to me.
Check out Bridge Camera Show Case section of our forum.
Jan 6, 2013 12:00:52 #
jdventer wrote:
It might work as a safe rule of thumb but I would ... (show quote)
You can think as you wish. Here is a better explanation - it applies top ANY sensor.
http://davidduchemin.com/2009/08/exposure-and-metering/
Jan 6, 2013 12:11:41 #
CaptainC wrote:
You can think as you wish. Here is a better explanation - it applies top ANY sensor.
http://davidduchemin.com/2009/08/exposure-and-metering/
You can think as you wish. Here is a better explanation - it applies top ANY sensor.
http://davidduchemin.com/2009/08/exposure-and-metering/
Thanks for the link.
He takes a different approach but the same reasoning applies. I believe my instructors started by assuming that all sensors are good for at least a range of 5EV. Thus if you set the spot meter on the brightest area at +2EV you'll be sure not to blow them out and you'll get most of the good stuff. They didn't stress the histogram but you can understand that what they were doing is getting pretty far to the right on the histogram, without blowout, as you can. It does not depend on the sensor.
Jan 6, 2013 12:24:00 #
MtnMan wrote:
quote=CaptainC br br You can think as you wish.... (show quote)
Yes, two roads to the same destination. I find it so amusing that all these folks have such religious fervor about shooting raw and going on and on about how they want the "most information" but then will intentionally underexpose - thereby not even capturing the parts of the image that contain all that information they say they covet.
Jan 6, 2013 13:04:06 #
CaptainC wrote:
quote=jdventer It might work as a safe rule of th... (show quote)
Thanks for the great link CaptainC. It's (did I get it's right this time*) exactly what I was thinking. Now I need not reply.
Oops, I did reply.
*just being humorous.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.