| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2013 09:08:41 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Abra:
Thanks for the lesson Wendy. I've tried to achieve the white on white a few times with birds in flight but can not achieve what you can, and that is starting with a level of exposure I wanted! My camera is always set for shooting raw & jpg even when just taking family snaps. You never know when you might get that special shot but the exposure or white balance isn't exactly right but in raw a lot can be forgiven. |
eta for spelling. |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 09:57:45 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Maybe I can phrase it better.
Here is an example where there was no time to get it right in the camera. It was either take it as it was -- or miss the shot completely. I wanted to show people with a little knowledge of what can be done in RAW with the type of subject you're shooting (white on white), a shot that you may think it trash, may very well have all the information you need without having to do a huge amount of photoshopping to "save it". |
I'm glad you posted this, because I shoot a lot of pictures where there's no time to "get it right in camera" and no opportunity to re-shoot (e.g. from a moving train), and it's also why I never delete pictures in the camera, before I've seen them on a real monitor.
Even without RAW capability, is possible to recover usable images from some bad originals ΓΆ€” even from JPEG originals ΓΆ€” using pretty basic techniques. I almost always use Curves Adjustment Layers with simple masks.
Possibly my own best example is detailed in the River Bend How-To article under the Learn menu; at the end are links to a bunch of other Before/After comparisons I made using similar techniques.Before:  After: 
Message edited by author 2013-05-09 21:59:32. |
|
|
|
05/09/2013 10:13:15 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
Originally posted by Mike:
you should be spending more time getting it right in camera. |
Is that sarcasm?
|
i need to try harder... |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:10:08 AM · #29 |
| I missed lessons 1-44...looking forward to your book, Wendy! ;-) |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:28:56 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
I missed lessons 1-44...looking forward to your book, Wendy! ;-) |
1-44 were your responsibility!!! I was supposed to do 45-53!
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:35:48 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
I missed lessons 1-44...looking forward to your book, Wendy! ;-) |
1-44 were your responsibility!!! I was supposed to do 45-53! |
::squeak of fright::...but I only know TWO things! (On my camera, I finally discovered the ON button and the little "P" on the dial?! That stands for "Princess!"...;-D...)
Seriously, Wendy, I really am looking forward to your book!
Message edited by author 2013-05-10 00:43:24. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:40:19 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
I missed lessons 1-44...looking forward to your book, Wendy! ;-) |
1-44 were your responsibility!!! I was supposed to do 45-53! |
::squeak of fright::...but I only know TWO things! |
Then you really s--t---r--e--t--c--h them out. Two things can take 44 forums -- easily! :)
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:47:27 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Then you really s--t---r--e--t--c--h them out. Two things can take 44 forums -- easily! :) |
In 7 years, I've created 11 threads. Three lifetimes from now...I'll be ready...::beams::
In the meantime...back to your fabulous birds...;-)
Message edited by author 2013-05-10 00:48:15. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 01:52:55 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Can I send you my Free Study for re-editing? |
haha... I'm in my contrasty b&w phase. You should see what I'm doing to my street shot! Jeff thinks I'm way too over the top on my b&ws. :) |
So here's my original FS, and my Wendy version:
 
+2 on the RAW, then added mucho contrast in Silver Efex. Also tried a crop per another suggestion. So... maybe another tenth higher? Or two tenths? In other words, I'd say you got it pretty right in camera first THEN made it better with your processing. Different processing can't save a blah picture but it sure can "make" a good one great! Thanks for the lesson! |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 03:10:54 AM · #35 |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 04:50:40 AM · #36 |
| just out of curiosity, wendy, do you shoot RAW+jpg, or just RAW? if you are shooting RAW+, would you mind processing your jpg file as best you can and posting up the results of that? i'm really curious to see a solid side-by-side, no bs comparison of the end results. while your final edit of the RAW file is extraordinary, i'd love to see how close you could have come working with nothing but jpg image data. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 05:53:08 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I've gone back and forth on this quite a bit. When you get things right in the camera and expose for the bird, you lose the sky. If you want the sky, you must do HDR to get it back. I find that when I do the HDR to bring the slight greys back, it doesn't look natural to me, and I really don't like the shot.
|
Instead of HDR, you could also shoot with flash. Dialing in just enough fill to add some pop to the bird can go a long way towards improving the birds exposure and also being able to control the sky better so that you can avoid a blown out sky, unless you want it of course. It will also preserve the back-lit feathers, which for me really makes the shot. But it gives you the option and the means for control. This can be done more effectively with a cheap add-on such as the Better Beamer. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 06:16:44 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by rcollier:
Hey Wendy, any chance we can see the what the histogram looked like for that shot? |
Here's the histogram:
 |
The photo may be recoverable for web output but I wonder how good a print would look given that the bird takes up such a small quantity of the available pixels and is noisy from underexposure. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 06:34:28 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I've gone back and forth on this quite a bit. When you get things right in the camera and expose for the bird, you lose the sky. If you want the sky, you must do HDR to get it back. I find that when I do the HDR to bring the slight greys back, it doesn't look natural to me, and I really don't like the shot.
|
Instead of HDR, you could also shoot with flash. Dialing in just enough fill to add some pop to the bird can go a long way towards improving the birds exposure and also being able to control the sky better so that you can avoid a blown out sky, unless you want it of course. It will also preserve the back-lit feathers, which for me really makes the shot. But it gives you the option and the means for control. This can be done more effectively with a cheap add-on such as the Better Beamer. |
I've tried working with flash, but I do have the tendency to shoot with the 10 fps at times so that I don't miss things, so I don't usually use the flash because I might miss something not being able to use the high speed advance. But then again, I'm usually shooting faster things -- the bluebirds, seagulls, etc. For these slower birds, flash is a more viable option. But you still have the problem of not being able to do the auto advance with flash. If you then see one in the river going for a strike, you only have one chance to get it right. (You're still timing it with the auto advance -- you just have a better chance to catch it on either side when shooting multiple frames)
But I do have the better beamer -- I got it for Christmas from my husband. I have to figure out what I'm doing wrong, because there was no difference with or without the flash when I was using it. (we ran into a group of photographers that told me about it. There's a backlit great blue heron rookery about an hour from my house, and it could really be helpful. So I really should sit down and figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Sorry -- this was rambling -- just thinking out loud. Extremely valid point, and things I have tried in the past. Just something I haven't tried recently, so I wanted to think it through again.
I guess I'd rather have the freedom to shoot faster and fix later -- but I shoot start bringing my flash so that I have the option! Thanks for reminding me! (and I need to go figure out why I didn't have any luck with the better beamer)
(by the way -- I do like a white sky. When there's no detail in the sky, I really don't think a grey sky adds anymore than a white, and as people have mentioned, I feel that a white sky gives it kind of a Japanese painting type of feel. But I also realize that I'm taking chances with it, and just as many people dislike it as like it. :)
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 06:44:29 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by rcollier:
Hey Wendy, any chance we can see the what the histogram looked like for that shot? |
Here's the histogram:
|
The photo may be recoverable for web output but I wonder how good a print would look given that the bird takes up such a small quantity of the available pixels and is noisy from underexposure. |
Also a very valid point -- it was very noisy -- but I have horrible noise problems on my 7D whether or not things are underexposed, so I can't really speak to that. I thought it actually denoised better than other photos, so I think it would be fine. And the bird was actually pretty large in the shot compared to other things I've printed. But noise is definitely a huge issue in cases like these -- it's pretty much on a case to case basis if it can work or not.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 06:46:57 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Skip:
just out of curiosity, wendy, do you shoot RAW+jpg, or just RAW? if you are shooting RAW+, would you mind processing your jpg file as best you can and posting up the results of that? i'm really curious to see a solid side-by-side, no bs comparison of the end results. while your final edit of the RAW file is extraordinary, i'd love to see how close you could have come working with nothing but jpg image data. |
I don't shoot RAW + jpg -- I just don't have the space. I've already filled up multiple hard drives because of DPC! I kind of wish I had the room, because when I switched to RAW, I shot both for awhile, and there were definitely times that I liked the camera's jpg options better.
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 07:21:27 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I've tried working with flash, but I do have the tendency to shoot with the 10 fps at times so that I don't miss things, so I don't usually use the flash because I might miss something not being able to use the high speed advance. But then again, I'm usually shooting faster things -- the bluebirds, seagulls, etc. For these slower birds, flash is a more viable option. But you still have the problem of not being able to do the auto advance with flash. If you then see one in the river going for a strike, you only have one chance to get it right. (You're still timing it with the auto advance -- you just have a better chance to catch it on either side when shooting multiple frames) |
That's something I didn't consider since CAF is not effective on my camera and the paltry 3 fps it offers is laughable compared to the 7D.
Originally posted by vawendy:
But I do have the better beamer -- I got it for Christmas from my husband. I have to figure out what I'm doing wrong, because there was no difference with or without the flash when I was using it. (we ran into a group of photographers that told me about it. There's a back-lit great blue heron rookery about an hour from my house, and it could really be helpful. So I really should sit down and figure out what I'm doing wrong. |
You may want to up the ISO or open up the shutter a bit to give the flash more oomph.
Originally posted by vawendy:
(by the way -- I do like a white sky. When there's no detail in the sky, I really don't think a grey sky adds anymore than a white, and as people have mentioned, I feel that a white sky gives it kind of a Japanese painting type of feel. But I also realize that I'm taking chances with it, and just as many people dislike it as like it. :) |
I think the white sky, along with the back-lit feathers gives your photos an ethereal feel. My hospital has a series of hanging photos in the lobby done similarly but with leaves (some have lightly toned backgrounds) which are quite beautiful. These photos are very apropos for this environment as they remind one of x-rays of the chest and the veins in the leaves appear as the bronchial tree of the lungs. In addition, the leaves' perfection give hope to patients. Leaves are a lot easier to capture than BIF though :).
Message edited by author 2013-05-10 07:25:24. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 07:31:21 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I've tried working with flash, but I do have the tendency to shoot with the 10 fps at times so that I don't miss things, so I don't usually use the flash because I might miss something not being able to use the high speed advance. But then again, I'm usually shooting faster things -- the bluebirds, seagulls, etc. For these slower birds, flash is a more viable option. But you still have the problem of not being able to do the auto advance with flash. If you then see one in the river going for a strike, you only have one chance to get it right. (You're still timing it with the auto advance -- you just have a better chance to catch it on either side when shooting multiple frames)
Originally posted by olyuzi:
That's something I didn't consider since CAF is not effective on my camera and the paltry 3 fps it offers is laughable compared to the 7D.
|
But I do have the better beamer -- I got it for Christmas from my husband. I have to figure out what I'm doing wrong, because there was no difference with or without the flash when I was using it. (we ran into a group of photographers that told me about it. There's a backlit great blue heron rookery about an hour from my house, and it could really be helpful. So I really should sit down and figure out what I'm doing wrong.
Originally posted by olyuzi:
You may want to up the ISO or open up the shutter a bit to give the flash more oomph.
|
(by the way -- I do like a white sky. When there's no detail in the sky, I really don't think a grey sky adds anymore than a white, and as people have mentioned, I feel that a white sky gives it kind of a Japanese painting type of feel. But I also realize that I'm taking chances with it, and just as many people dislike it as like it. :) |
Originally posted by olyuzi:
I think the white sky, along with the back-lit feathers gives your photos an ethereal feel. My hospital has a series of hanging photos in the lobby done similarly but with leaves (some have lightly toned backgrounds) which are quite beautiful. These photos are very apropos for this environment as they remind one of x-rays of the chest and the veins in the leaves appear as the bronchial tree of the lungs. In addition, the leaves' perfection give hope to patients. Leaves are a lot easier to capture than BIF though :).
|
|
Oooh -- the leaves sound cool!
I love this guys work -- Robert Llewellyn. He does macro work on leaves, seed pods, etc., by doing multiple dof shots and then putting them together in a CAD program.
(re: better beamer -- I usually shoot with my shutter wide open to get a shallow dof and as much light as I can. I just lost the instructions before I ever used them and guessed. So I think I need to actually go read something. :)
|
|
|
|
05/10/2013 09:16:56 AM · #44 |
<---- Not very bright....
What is auto advance, and what is a beamer if not a car? Thanks! |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 10:05:18 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
<---- Not very bright....
What is auto advance, and what is a beamer if not a car? Thanks! |
Better Beamer is a flash accessory for concentrating the beam of light. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 11:04:01 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I love this guys work -- Robert Llewellyn. He does macro work on leaves, seed pods, etc., by doing multiple dof shots and then putting them together in a CAD program.
(re: better beamer -- I usually shoot with my shutter wide open to get a shallow dof and as much light as I can. I just lost the instructions before I ever used them and guessed. So I think I need to actually go read something. :) |
I just went through Llewellyn's web site and I can see why you like him so much. His aerials and historicals are amazing and he certainly doesn't shy away from harsh lighting conditions and flare. It looks as though he pushes his exposures as you did in Freebird!. Lots of noise and grain and allows for blown out areas.
Very distinctive macro style. They look to be still lifes back-lit on white plexiglass and intentionally overexposed. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 11:33:35 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The birds are lovely, but the blown sky makes it look like it was studio even though it clearly wasn't. I'm on the fence about seeing the overcast sky vs blowing it out this way. I'm not sure that underexposing that much and pulling it back isn't degrading the image of bird as well.
I always try to get it right in the camera and mess with it later, but if this works for you, great. |
I think the point is getting lost a little here.
Maybe I can phrase it better.
Here is an example where there was no time to get it right in the camera. It was either take it as it was -- or miss the shot completely. I wanted to show people with a little knowledge of what can be done in RAW with the type of subject you're shooting (white on white), a shot that you may think it trash, may very well have all the information you need without having to do a huge amount of photoshopping to "save it".
This is not how I shoot. If I'm shooting birds in flight -- I adjust for the conditions, and get it as right in camera as I can. This day, I was shooting for birds in trees. Completely different conditions, different settings.
  
When this one flew over, there was no time to adjust for the shot -- and the lighting and the surroundings were so incredibly different -- white bird -- luminous backlit sky.
The whole purpose for this thread was simply a teaching moment for those who aren't as familiar with RAW, white on light, and underexposed shots, and what information the camera stores. I simply wanted to share the information. This is not how I recommend shooting birds in flight. I would much rather get it right. But if I don't have time to adjust -- I'd much rather get the shot than to miss it, simply because I don't have time to get it right in camera.
(I almost didn't start this thread -- because I'm actually embarrassed about the quality of the initial shot. I'm not proud of the fact that I didn't have time to adjust. I am proud of the timing and the fact that I certainly know how to shoot this right in camera to begin with. I'm hoping that the people who have been around long enough realize that I have some knowledge of nature photography and that it's not a fluke. All I was trying to do was to try to help people understand what's possible. ) |
I don't disagree in the least. There's an appeal to removing the birds from the context of their surroundings that might be worth exploring (and doing intentionally) should you wish. I've seen more than a few instances where animals have been photographed in-studio with impressive results and your shot struck me as similar. I didn't mean in any way to suggest that what you did here was "wrong" though I initially thought you'd underexposed intentionally.
Message edited by author 2013-05-10 11:34:38. |
|
|
|
05/10/2013 12:16:31 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Know what you have, and don't believe what you see when reviewing your files.
And shoot RAW!!
Just wanted to show people that sometimes you CAN adjust accordingly. :) |
Beautifully done, Wendy!
Nice of you to take the time to share the way you did.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2013 09:54:10 AM · #49 |
obviously raw is the greatest
before
after
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2013 08:37:27 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Skip:
just out of curiosity, wendy, do you shoot RAW+jpg, or just RAW? if you are shooting RAW+, would you mind processing your jpg file as best you can and posting up the results of that? i'm really curious to see a solid side-by-side, no bs comparison of the end results. while your final edit of the RAW file is extraordinary, i'd love to see how close you could have come working with nothing but jpg image data. |
I don't shoot RAW + jpg -- I just don't have the space. I've already filled up multiple hard drives because of DPC! I kind of wish I had the room, because when I switched to RAW, I shot both for awhile, and there were definitely times that I liked the camera's jpg options better. |
You may have an option to output a JPEG from your RAW in-camera. It would use whatever in-camera processing settings were in place when the shot was taken, and output a "Fine" (or whatever the highest quality is called) JPEG that would be identical to what you would've gotten if you'd shot in JPEG mode. My Nikon does this; not sure if Canons have the option. For me, I go to "color correction," then don't actually mess with it (leave it at the neutral zero-point), and hit OK. It's how I get around the RAW+JPEG on the camera being RAW+"Basic JPEG", so I can have a "Fine"-quality JPEG "original" in case I don't feel like processing later on.
Message edited by author 2013-05-11 20:38:13. |
|
