Reading mode: Light Dark

Exposure Opinions - More than basic, less than deep....

Go to last post
Ronak Gandhi said:
Is this what you wanted?



I did a little (some 2-3 mins) pp in Picassa from google. You
should always take underexposed photos, because you can edit them
in pp, but overexposed photos can't be.

Hope this helps.

--
Ronak
Click to expand...
Ronak, although this required PP it is a very good representation of what I was looking at given the conditions. I downloaded Picassa yesterday. Do you recall which of my 3 photos you PP? And, what Picassa PP steps you used? I would like to try and replicate your photo.

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Regards, John....
 
MuumiTroll said:
If you dont want to mesh with PP, then please take right exposure
in first place. Its easy to use your exp compensation button.

John, in these situations, dont count so much for bracketing. You
used -.33, -.66, 0 ? But why not manually -1, -2, or even -3, +1,
+2 ?
Click to expand...
Muumi, good question.....I have learned that the P880 (and P850 as well) has an Exposure Bracketing Interval setting (DSharpie brought this to my attention a while back). I am still learning how to best use the Intervals. In these pics I set EV Compensation to -0.3 and set the Bracketing to three, and set the Interval to .33. This is how I automatically got three pics at -.66, -.33, and 0.0. This same functionality can automatically Bracket up to 5 pictures at EV Compsentaion Intervals of up to 1.0 as you suggest. I have used these and it works. The challenge for me right now is to determine what Bracketing Interval to use on a routine basis that will get me the "best" exposed picture requiring no or minimum PP. Hope this makes sense :--)

THANKS for all of your input on this topic....much appreciated!

Regards, John....
 
john,

I was able to get the same result with Picasa - started with your first (darkest), used the fill slider. Remember to "save" the result.
Picasa does this task beautifully.
Jerry
 
JpFromOH said:
Ronak, although this required PP it is a very good representation
of what I was looking at given the conditions. I downloaded Picassa
yesterday. Do you recall which of my 3 photos you PP? And, what
Picassa PP steps you used? I would like to try and replicate your
photo.

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Regards, John....
Click to expand...
When you open the image in Picasa, three tabs are available at the left side of the window. Go to "Tuning" tab and adjust the horizontal bars to adjust the "Light", "Highlights" and "Shadows".

Adjust the values as per your test.

Picasa is an easy to use free software. You can do quite a lot things with all these three tabs. Yes it is not as sophisticated as a complete photo editor like photoshop.

--
Ronak

 
MuumiTroll said:
AnandaSim said:
4. Reposition yourself, with the sun behind you, come back another
time.
Click to expand...
Yes, thats another very good tip. I didnt sayed it myself, because
I thought this concrete situtation and didnt saw, that you would
have got easy to switch some better angle. But maybe it was
possible ...
Click to expand...
Coming back another time would have been a possibility....repositioning was not feasible due to physical constraints (see below) :--)

John.....
P880





 
There is no "best" bracketing John. That's what you are there for. To be more clever and intuitive than the machine and make a human choice.
--
Ananda
'Ancora Imparo - abbiamo tutti qualcosa da imparare'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/
 
Well, then do .3 intervals and 5 shots. Two sets - with averaged metering pattern and center metering pattern. Then you get back to base and look at 10 photos. Of course, the camera is on the tripod so that the shots are perfectly aligned, thus you could do HDR blending if you were desperate.

Making a decision up front is the easy part.
--
Ananda
'Ancora Imparo - abbiamo tutti qualcosa da imparare'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/
 
AnandaSim said:
Well, then do .3 intervals and 5 shots. Two sets - with averaged
metering pattern and center metering pattern. Then you get back to
base and look at 10 photos. Of course, the camera is on the tripod
so that the shots are perfectly aligned, thus you could do HDR
blending if you were desperate.

Making a decision up front is the easy part.
--
Ananda
'Ancora Imparo - abbiamo tutti qualcosa da imparare'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/
Click to expand...
Hi Ananda,

Can you please provide some more information regarding the HDR imaging. I have no idea how to achieve that. Or at lease provide me some pointers wher I can get more information.

Thanks
Ronak

 
Hi Ronak,

For HDR you need:

a. at least two and usually more photos. The photos must be exactly aligned otherwise software will have a hard time making them align. The photos are of course shot at different exposure settings. Say one is biased to collect shadow detail, another is biased to collect highlight detail. You obviously need a tripod to make sure the photos are aligned. Else, you take a RAW and produce several JPEGs from it, one biased for shadow and the other biased for highlights.

b. You then use software to blend the photos. The manual way is to use Photoshop

http://www.google.com/search?q=photoshop+HDR

Another way is to use a ready made HDR program e.g. Photomatix
http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html

--
Ananda
'Ancora Imparo - abbiamo tutti qualcosa da imparare'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/
 
John, you can go to top of that hill or that wall :--) but of cours, then you got different style of pic.

Another possibility is to find composition, where sky is almost missing (or if is, then few).

Anyway, graduated filters are for these cases actually most effective ones. (they are cheap actually, also step downs), but of course, some money is needed.

--
P850 + OLY 1.7 TCon, CX7430
 
MuumiTroll said:
Btw, RAW work is also PP :--) and not few. To get better pic with
RAW than in JPG, you must do some extra PP also in RAW, it may take
minutes or hours ... because its not easy to find these right
settings ... also you must have good quick computer for that. If
you need couple of pics, then its not problem, yes ... but with
more pics, RAW is waste of time (at least for showing pics here or
print small prints). Also you need good program for that (if dont
want to buy Photoshop), but most freewares are little not so
pleasant to work with.
Click to expand...
With the Kodaks Raw can be developed right in the camera in just a few seconds - no computer needed at all
MuumiTroll said:
If you dont want to mesh with PP, then please take right exposure
in first place. Its easy to use your exp compensation button.
Click to expand...
This is excellent advice, RAW or Jpeg if the exposure is bad the picture is bad.
MuumiTroll said:
John, in these situations, dont count so much for bracketing. You
used -.33, -.66, 0 ? But why not manually -1, -2, or even -3, +1,
+2 ?
Click to expand...
I disagree bracketing is an excellent way to compensate easily for lighting conditions.
MuumiTroll said:
Thats why many P850 users use constant -0.7. I use with my Nikon
also usually -0.3. But outside, it may be very different.
Click to expand...
I do not think this is wise. CCD sensors are like the old slide films. The exposure needs to be correct, under exposure can be just as bad as overexposure.
MuumiTroll said:
--
P850 + OLY 1.7 TCon, CX7430
Click to expand...
--
Regards Jim
We All Need Water!

 
JimLindner said:
With the Kodaks Raw can be developed right in the camera in just a
few seconds - no computer needed at all
Click to expand...
?? What is the RAW meaning then ? This jpg isnt better than shoot in first place. We talk compact cameras here, RAW isnt very speedy way either, memory card fill quickly, ...
JimLindner said:
JimLindner said:
Thats why many P850 users use constant -0.7. I use with my Nikon
also usually -0.3. But outside, it may be very different.
Click to expand...
I do not think this is wise. CCD sensors are like the old slide
films. The exposure needs to be correct, under exposure can be just
as bad as overexposure.
Click to expand...
Actually, I dont mean underexpose here. I mean underexpose little ... than overexpose. Badly underexposed pic is also duff case. Yes, right would be nice. But -0.6 underexposed pic isnt bad yet (depends on situation).

Of course, for HDR cases, graduated filters seems the wisest choise if dont want to mesh with PP.

Anyway, I'm not directly in opposite side here, most you say is almost true, even if I try to argue :--)

--
P850 + OLY 1.7 TCon, CX7430
 
Good on you Mummi - you get the Kobayashi Maru prize (or is it the Noonan Khan prize?) for thinking outside of the circumstances. If you stick the camera on a monopod and shoot from 3 meters higher or if you climb up stairs or climb up a tree, you shot from that height, looking downwards, then the sky / clouds dominance will be less.

Or not shoot at 24mm and try different photos at zoomed in.

--
Ananda
'Ancora Imparo - abbiamo tutti qualcosa da imparare'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32554587@N00/
 
This is a problem of dynamic range/exposure. I guess its really not that easy to deal with. The best results you should get with HDR technique. Try photomatix. Shoot same picture at different EV with tripod (without moviing the camera) and super impose them.

I did not go through all the comments, if somebody has already suggested then I bag your pardon for repeatation.
Atindra
 
Atindra said:
This is a problem of dynamic range/exposure. I guess its really not
that easy to deal with. The best results you should get with HDR
technique. Try photomatix. Shoot same picture at different EV with
tripod (without moviing the camera) and super impose them.
I did not go through all the comments, if somebody has already
suggested then I bag your pardon for repeatation.
Atindra
Click to expand...
I love repetition! Ananda did suggest HDR as well. What I have found with forums is that I get a lot of suggestions.......then I have to make a decision as to which of the ideas make sense to me...I have found that some suggestions simply don't work for me, either too complex, not technically sound (hard for a beginner like me to gauge), or just don't do what I want to do.....I guess I give more weight to ideas that are suggested more than once, HDR for example.....

THNAKS for your input...

Regards, John (JP)
 
Downloaded Photomatix HRD trial version....took 2 "quick and dirty" pics yesterday just to see what would happen....nothing fancy....here are the results.....

Regards, John....

HDR using software's Exposure Blending



Photo 1



Photo 2

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top