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