| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2004 09:05:26 PM · #1 |
please help! |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:09:13 PM · #2 |
I would increase brightness and contrast in PS
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:13:15 PM · #3 |
white balance? they both look underexposed 1 stop maybe less, and are low on contrast. try more light perhaps. I have tried similar shots (mostly for ebay) and more light helps the most.
sharpness should be soft in the camera and the USM (un sharp mask) in photoshop (or your editor of choice) to bring the sharpness back.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:14:41 PM · #4 |
You can take two paths...
1.) Just increase your exposure compensation above +1. Any remaining compensation can in fact be done in PS, but you should try to get as close as possible in-camera. careful not to blow out the highlights.
2.) Switch to full manual mode and keep increasing exposure until it's right. Again, careful not to blow the highlights.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:16:16 PM · #5 |
Help us out some here. I assume the background on these was white or neutral gray is this right?
The lighting on your tech details says that a flash was used, is this also right?
I am a bit confused because the white balance was set for tungsten and if you shot with a flash the photos should look bluer.
Could you tell us more about the background and the lighting that you used?
Is it the brightness of the white or the color of them that is bothering you?
In any case all can be fixed in PhotoShop very easily.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:17:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
white balance? they both look underexposed 1 stop maybe less, and are low on contrast. try more light perhaps. I have tried similar shots (mostly for ebay) and more light helps the most.
sharpness should be soft in the camera and the USM (un sharp mask) in photoshop (or your editor of choice) to bring the sharpness back. |
the white balance is tungsten which is what i used (2 lamps @ 750watts each) |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:20:24 PM · #7 |
first photo
Shutter Speed Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/5
Av( Aperture Value )
20
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
+2/3
ISO Speed
100
Lens
50.0 mm
Focal Length
50.0 mm
Image Size
2048x3072
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Tungsten
AF Mode
AI Focus AF
Parameters
Contrast +1
Sharpness +1
Color saturation +1
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
second photo
Shutter Speed Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/125
Av( Aperture Value )
3.5
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
+2/3
ISO Speed
100
Lens
50.0 mm
Focal Length
50.0 mm
Image Size
2048x3072
Image Quality
Fine
Flash
Off
White Balance
Tungsten
AF Mode
AI Focus AF
Parameters
Contrast +1
Sharpness +1
Color saturation +1
Color tone Normal
Color Space
sRGB
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:22:22 PM · #8 |
Shoot in RAW so you'll have more control.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:23:17 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Help us out some here. I assume the background on these was white or neutral gray is this right?
The lighting on your tech details says that a flash was used, is this also right?
I am a bit confused because the white balance was set for tungsten and if you shot with a flash the photos should look bluer.
Could you tell us more about the background and the lighting that you used?
Is it the brightness of the white or the color of them that is bothering you?
In any case all can be fixed in PhotoShop very easily. |
white background, no flash, 2 750 watt tungsten lamps with umbrellas |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:26:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
You can take two paths...
1.) Just increase your exposure compensation above +1. Any remaining compensation can in fact be done in PS, but you should try to get as close as possible in-camera. careful not to blow out the highlights.
2.) Switch to full manual mode and keep increasing exposure until it's right. Again, careful not to blow the highlights. |
this is the exposure compensation i used Exposure Compensation
+2/3, yes i really would like to as close as possible in-camera. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:32:52 PM · #11 |
You'er just underexposed yet. You need to boost the exposure compensation some more. It's a relatively low-contrast scene and the metering wants to average everything to mid-gray.
Your white balance looks pretty close, just increase the exposure compensation to +1 or even more until you are closer to the corrrect exposure.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:43:18 PM · #12 |
| Shooting with tungsten is hard for a lot of cameras, there is a range of color temperatures that you have to deal with. What I will do if I really want to get the whites right is to use the white balance mode where it is set by shooting a white target, I think this is call preset in most cameras. This works very well and under a lot of lighting conditions is the only way to get a good white balance. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:51:30 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
What I will do if I really want to get the whites right is to use the white balance mode where it is set by shooting a white target, I think this is call preset in most cameras. This works very well and under a lot of lighting conditions is the only way to get a good white balance. |
i think its custom WB on my cam. i dont know how to do this but ill check out the manual for instructions,
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:54:25 PM · #14 |
| are Florissant lamps best? i tend to get lots of underexposed photos when using the tungsten. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:56:56 PM · #15 |
| i second the custom white balance advice. in my expreriences it produces the most consistant results. however, you must remember to change it depending on the scene. you could be drastically off the next time you shoot. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 09:58:40 PM · #16 |
| oops! i ment fluorescent lamps, ok now you all know i cant spell LOL. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 10:04:57 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by lelani:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
What I will do if I really want to get the whites right is to use the white balance mode where it is set by shooting a white target, I think this is call preset in most cameras. This works very well and under a lot of lighting conditions is the only way to get a good white balance. |
i think its custom WB on my cam. i dont know how to do this but ill check out the manual for instructions, |
The custom white bal is probably like my 10D. Take a pic of a gray card in the setting you'll be taking pics so it fills the field of view. I use a piece of printer paper in a pinch & get "satisfactory" results. Then go into the Menu & scroll to "custom WB" & hit the enter button in the middle of the back wheel. It will pop up the last pic taken but you can scroll through all the pics if you wanted...just select the gray card pic & hit the enter button again. VUALA! It's set.
Message edited by author 2004-04-14 22:08:05.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 10:11:30 PM · #18 |
nancy, printer paper?
print the color gray from my printer, is this what you mean? |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 10:16:51 PM · #19 |
no, just a blank sheet.
I've heard of people using gray T-shirts also...lol
Message edited by author 2004-04-14 22:18:43.
|
|
|
|
04/14/2004 10:17:08 PM · #20 |
| There is a range of colors for florescent lamps as well, they seem to go more towards the red as they age. It also hard to position them with the same ease that you can position tungsten. Do look into the custom WB, one of the joys of using a digital camera is that we can almost always get the white balance right. Rborton made a good point about remembering to take it out of this mode when you are done. It is amazing the kind of light you can shoot in when you do the custom WB setting. |
|
|
|
04/14/2004 11:07:09 PM · #21 |
| You should all maybe reference this old thread. Unfortunately, the link to Gordon's custom WB card no longer works, but you might talk him into re-posting it if you ask nicely .... |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 12:03:54 AM · #22 |
thank you all so very much for your time and help,
lelani |
|
|
|
04/15/2004 12:18:38 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
You'er just underexposed yet. You need to boost the exposure compensation some more. It's a relatively low-contrast scene and the metering wants to average everything to mid-gray.
Your white balance looks pretty close, just increase the exposure compensation to +1 or even more until you are closer to the corrrect exposure. |
Yup. I'd just keep bracketing up the exposure until you see what you want - probably somewhere around +1.5 EV or so or more, for the Banana shot.
It is mostly a white/ light scene so you want your camera to expose more. The tendency is for it to pull it all back to a mid tonal, greyish value, which is what you are seeing here.
You've started on the right direction with the +2/3rds - just go a bit further and you should see the difference.
If you end up with a bright, clear image with a slightly orangy hue, then that is a white balance issue - but in this case you have a mostly underexposed shot, with just a slight white balance mismatch.
Go with more exposure first - get that right, then see what you need to fix next.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 12:34:03 AM · #24 |
I just read in a photography book that you should have the background 2 stops brighter then the forground to get a good white background. If you don't then the background will be muddy.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2004 08:29:30 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I just read in a photography book that you should have the background 2 stops brighter then the forground to get a good white background. If you don't then the background will be muddy. |
Yup - for a mid toned subject, that's what you'd want.
A better lighting ratio will certainly help a lot. These subjects though are mostly lighter toned - if the exposure is done with a matrix mode, it is simply underexposed from the samples.
Message edited by author 2004-04-15 08:30:03.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 09:22:05 AM EDT.
