What Happened Here?

LeDudeLeDude Registered Users Posts: 501 Major grins
edited April 17, 2006 in People

[self edit: pic removed... mystery solved; Thank you folks]

That sepia-ish tone is not a processing effect. It's in the raw... so what caused it? Cigarette smoke? I've seen the cigarette-smoke-effect, I think, and it was nothing like this.

??
We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
... come along.

Comments

  • Dave_RG40Dave_RG40 Registered Users Posts: 35 Big grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    Maybe it was the guy's heavy breathing?
    rolleyes1.gif
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited April 16, 2006
    Wow. that's really, really bad. So out of curiosity, was it salvageable in post? As in, could you get it too look halfway normal by adjusting WB?

    How about the ripples/waves down near the left corner?
    headscratch.gif

    You may have found the worst shooting conditions, ever!
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    LeDude wrote:


    That sepia-ish tone is not a processing effect. It's in the raw... so what caused it? Cigarette smoke? I've seen the cigarette-smoke-effect, I think, and it was nothing like this.

    ??
    I have no clue as to what caused this, but i am impressed they kept this pose for 4 seconds....
    Ivar
    www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited April 16, 2006
    I've seen results similar to this with incorrect WB settings. Can you tell us more about the setting and circumstances?
    www.angelo.smugmug.com

    Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
  • LeDudeLeDude Registered Users Posts: 501 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    Angelo wrote:
    I've seen results similar to this with incorrect WB settings. Can you tell us more about the setting and circumstances?

    click on the pic for an exif

    I had a handful of shots other than this (b/f & after) from the same locale that had no such hazing

    not much was premeditated as far as these particular shots were concerned; on-camera flash was used, it was a dark bar in dc, I may have been smoking (but I don't think so, it's hard to operate the camera and smoke simultaneously)

    salvaging? this is it... :) it wasn't an important shot, just some friends messing around, and the pose was so good I couldn't see not keeping it... some processing has already been done, but the haze effect remains 98% as-is

    the pose :D - our man on the right loves camera insanity and has a tremendous sense of timing (eh, kind of, he's ALWAYS doing something ridiculous, so whatever you get will be comical)

    I tinkered with white balance before and just tried again, but the haze remains (albeit with a different tint) - it was on 'auto' when the shot was taken

    peace,
    Rich
    We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
    ... come along.
  • binghottbinghott Registered Users Posts: 1,075 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    ivar wrote:
    I have no clue as to what caused this, but i am impressed they kept this pose for 4 seconds....

    yeah, why was such a long exposure used???
    binghott.com
  • JimMJimM Registered Users Posts: 1,389 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    I think your long exposure acted more like a double exposure and you captured them only during the flash. This added the same look as if film had been partially exposed first, then exposed correctly.
    Cameras: >(2) Canon 20D .Canon 20D/grip >Canon S200 (p&s)
    Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
    Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes

    Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
  • LeDudeLeDude Registered Users Posts: 501 Major grins
    edited April 16, 2006
    JimM wrote:
    I think your long exposure acted more like a double exposure and you captured them only during the flash. This added the same look as if film had been partially exposed first, then exposed correctly.

    hmmm... I don't know if I understand, but something is obviously is awry with the exposure - they didn't hold that pose for 4 sec.; I hadn't noticed the comment on that earlier and didn't notice this detail of my own exifne_nau.gif

    I had switched to auto program, which I almost never use so my settings are probably bizarre. 4" max exposure time (almost arbitrary - I don't wan't to get caught in a 30" exposure after accidentally switching to an auto-mode). Flash was up. Auto ISO was off.

    Is this like a glitch in the camera? (I took other shots that turned out fine) Or, is it something I did?

    Thanks for the help folks. At least I am closer to understanding now.

    Rich
    We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
    ... come along.
  • JimMJimM Registered Users Posts: 1,389 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2006
    With your exposure time Exposure Time: 4s (4/1), the flash then freezed the moment, but the exposure was significantly high. How you got to 4s on auto with flash is anyone's guess.
    Cameras: >(2) Canon 20D .Canon 20D/grip >Canon S200 (p&s)
    Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
    Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes

    Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
  • LeDudeLeDude Registered Users Posts: 501 Major grins
    edited April 17, 2006
    JimM wrote:
    With your exposure time Exposure Time: 4s (4/1), the flash then freezed the moment, but the exposure was significantly high. How you got to 4s on auto with flash is anyone's guess.


    This is possible? I think I understand. I switched to program mode. ISO was locked and shutter speed set to a max of 4". It was extremely dark... AND: my flash was forced to 1/16th power (I forgot about this last bit because I changed it and then got very drunk that night :slurpso... when I checked my settings the next day, flash was on auto).

    This flash setting must be it and I must not have heard the shutter close when I thought I did.

    oopsrolleyes1.gif, anyway - mystery solved :D

    gracias,
    Rich
    We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
    ... come along.
Sign In or Register to comment.