Options

Wrestling

2»

Comments

  • Options
    EnitsuguaEnitsugua Registered Users Posts: 186 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2010
    Macushla wrote:
    I really didn't realize they were underexposed

    Not all were. Some were. Some were over. The noise reduction caused some strange effects on some of them, so it's hard to tell.
    Macushla wrote:
    I did a lot of reading today on how to use the camera's histogram. I went back and looked at the histogram for my last shots and they were all a bit to the right of center. Next time I'll try to get it a tiny bit to the left of center. From what I read it is easier to manipulate the image in PP if it is just a hair overexposed. I had it backwards.

    Where that peak is isn't as important as where the edges are. Ignore the peak. Look at the edges. Do you have hills on the far left side that go off the graph? Should typically be a little gap there instead. If the hill goes off the left edge, you've underexposed. Ditto on the right (but that's overexposed).
  • Options
    MacushlaMacushla Registered Users Posts: 347 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2010
    Enitsugua wrote:
    Not all were. Some were. Some were over. The noise reduction caused some strange effects on some of them, so it's hard to tell.



    Where that peak is isn't as important as where the edges are. Ignore the peak. Look at the edges. Do you have hills on the far left side that go off the graph? Should typically be a little gap there instead. If the hill goes off the left edge, you've underexposed. Ditto on the right (but that's overexposed).

    I went back to the last group of photos that I posted and added the histograms underneath each picture. Can you tell by looking at them if my settings were off and how to improve them?
  • Options
    MacushlaMacushla Registered Users Posts: 347 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2010
    Here are the original photos with the Histograms underneath. They are straight from the camera with no post processing.

    1.
    DSC_0202.JPG

    Picture%201.jpg

    2.
    DSC_0044.JPG

    Picture%202.jpg

    3.
    DSC_0161.JPG

    Picture%203.jpg

    4.
    DSC_0086.JPG

    Picture%205.jpg

    5.
    DSC_0252.JPG

    Picture%206.jpg

    I went back to the last group of photos that I posted and added the histograms underneath each picture. Can you tell by looking at them if my settings were off and how to improve them?
  • Options
    EnitsuguaEnitsugua Registered Users Posts: 186 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2010
    Macushla wrote:
    Here are the original photos with the Histograms underneath. They are straight from the camera with no post processing....

    I went back to the last group of photos that I posted and added the histograms underneath each picture. Can you tell by looking at them if my settings were off and how to improve them?

    First, I need to correct myself. Sorry, got this thread confused with another. Your first set with bounced flash was good lighting wise. Your second set standing--not so good (in many ways). Third set sitting with no flash looked better than the second set. Lighting not as good as the first set. If you can bounce a flash, great. I would not use it unless you can bounce it or at least get it on a bracket. The overexposures I referred to were in the second set. Third set doesn't have any overexposures. Just underexposures.

    So, can you post links to originals? Not 96 dpi reduced size files without any EXIF info (which is what was posted).

    Thanks.
  • Options
    MacushlaMacushla Registered Users Posts: 347 Major grins
    edited April 2, 2010
    Thank you so much for taking the time to look a these -

    Bounce flash Flash No Falsh and No flash I am so confused. headscratch.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.