Histograms, expose to the right etc. ... (large thread)
Antonio Correia
Registered Users Posts: 6,241 Major grins
Let me begin by quoting from
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38251
Now, here we go:
Today I made a few shots from this lesson (if I may say so) using as criteria this table:
I only insert here the
I erased the photos as they were of new use at all: They are ahead. Thank you
What have I done ?
I shot with the tripod the same scenario with different compensations as in the table.
It's funny - and I did not expected - that the histograms in Photoshop are very similar what doesn' happen in the 20 D.
The only difference I can see in the shots is the brightness of the shots which were taken with the (-) 1 compensation.
I think the differences are very subtile...
The RAW files had no correction of course ...
What is the plus value of he compensation (-) 1 ?
What am I interpreting the wrong way ?
What am I doing wrong ? If anything...
I want to repeat the hole stuff in harsh light. May be there the results are more obvious...
Your words, please ...
All the photos : http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1705834/1/83982301
Obrigado
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=38251
Nikolai wrote:About your church project: you actually do "not" want any reflectors or lights (candles may be fine since they add to la mystique:-).
What you need is a good tripod, wide lens and a remote trigger with bulb capabilities (you can get one on ebay for ~$15, look for ADIDT canon remote, 20D or 30D does not matter).
You'll be amazed what a long exposure and a decent digicam can do in what seems to be a light-less environment....:D
Of course, shooting RAW and making bracketed/multiple exposures to eliminate the noise is sincerely recommended..:wink
Of course, you can go wild with hidden light sources, etc, but let me tell ya: I know a person who did this for a living (shooting large dark architectural wonders). He told me that their crew of four (all pros) used to spend *days* setting all those lights. I don't remember exact number of lights they had (20? 30? 50?), but it was well beyond my current budget and abilities to arrange on my own... :dunno
HTH
Antonio Correia wrote:As I did not know what ADIDT was I googled and: http://photonotes.org/reviews/adidt-remote/
Now I know what it is as well as your ideia: it is not to shake the camera, right ?
Let me tell you that my ideia was not to spend much money on reflectors because I thought I could be using the sheets from the bed :rofl!
I do have the tripod and I am intending to use it.
I have even asked the priest if he could burn some thing like insense or so.
The smoke would give me a mood with the available rays of light. If any.
I was also thinking to shoot with hight ISO (1600 ) because I'll have the ideia that 3200 ISO produces too much noise with the 20D.
I have the 16~35mm which is very good for this.
For the wood pieces I have the 24~70mm and the 70~200mm eventually... to be near ...
As usual Nikolai I have to say "obrigado" for your concern and attention.
Saúde :thumb
Nikolai wrote:NO!!! Nada! Net! Non! Nein!
Forget ISO 1600.
You're shooting ISO 100. Period. Tripod and remote are your friends.
Smoke is a cool idea, especially if the light sources are small and you can get the light beams from the side. Remember the mantra: light accross:
16-35 is probably good for this (I'd shoot with 10-22, but that's me:-).
You do want to step it down to f/10 or more, to get the details. You may also consider to shoot at hyperfocal distance.
In any case, bring all your gear with you, you never know...
In case you don't have a light meter, scout the location and take a lot of test shots, to make sure you would know your exposure.
Once you're done with the "overall" shots and switch to pews and woodwork, you may wanna bring an external light source. Since the subject would be fairly small, it would not require you to bring 10,000 light sources, one will do just fine, so you'll manage. Just remember the mantra!
Good luck!
Antonio Correia wrote:ISO 100 ?
Man !... I believe you but I think it is too little. But if you say so, I'll do it.
I ca'nt shoot without the priest beeing present.
I could but I won't because if he catch em I will not be able to go again.
So, forget it.
But I'll go and try my father's light meter Zeiss we used with the Rolleicord, under another environment just to test.
I'll remember the light and I'll get the ADIDT.
Obrigado. Muito obrigado.
We have highjacked the post !!! Havn't we ?
Hope Matty doesn't mind .... You don't do you Matty ? :thumb
This is context of this thread.Nikolai wrote:With the long exposure ISO 100 is not as bad as you may thought of it.
Try it at night in the dark corner (back alley? marina? garage? living room?) - you'll be surprised!
Priest is OK, so are other ppl - with the long exposure they will disappear or create ghost illusion that would add to la mystique. You can even enhance the effect by putting an ND filter on...
Tripod, lightmeter, remote, MLU, wide angle, f/10 or higher - you'll be fine!
HTH
Now, here we go:
Today I made a few shots from this lesson (if I may say so) using as criteria this table:
I only insert here the
I erased the photos as they were of new use at all: They are ahead. Thank you
What have I done ?
I shot with the tripod the same scenario with different compensations as in the table.
It's funny - and I did not expected - that the histograms in Photoshop are very similar what doesn' happen in the 20 D.
The only difference I can see in the shots is the brightness of the shots which were taken with the (-) 1 compensation.
I think the differences are very subtile...
The RAW files had no correction of course ...
What is the plus value of he compensation (-) 1 ?
What am I interpreting the wrong way ?
What am I doing wrong ? If anything...
I want to repeat the hole stuff in harsh light. May be there the results are more obvious...
Your words, please ...
All the photos : http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1705834/1/83982301
Obrigado
All the best ! ... António Correia - Facebook
0
Comments
It's great that you took time and effort to test your equipment/settings in a more controlled environment prior to going for the real thing!
However, there are few things that I noticed which, I hope, may help you.
First of all, I think your aperture bed is too wide:-). Depending on your scene, you may wanna get a larger DOF. So you need to practice about f/8 if you wanna get the whole thing in focus. Of course, when it comes to smaller fixtures you can set for shallower DOF, but this is a different story. Your prime objective, as far as I can understand, is a dimly lit large sanctuary.
Which brings me to my second point. Your test scene is so not dimly lit large sanctuary. If the point of your experiments is to get you as close as you can to the Real McCoy, I'd suggest to try something way more dark. Family room at night with few small candles here and there will probably do just fine. Aforementioned dark alley (hopefully, safe enough to get there with all your expensive gear) will do too.
Thirdly and lastly. All the images you have posted look almost identical to me. Definitely not 1 or more f/stops apart one from another. Which may mean only one thing: your RAW played its standard dirty trick on you by automatically adjusting everything. In fact, if you didn't do anything to your RAWs (as you said), this is the most likely cause, since Bridge applies auto changes by default.
To avoid that, select one of these files in ACR, right-mouse button, Clear Camera Raw Settings. This step would clear the image from any manual changes you possibly did.
Then open the same file in ACR, make sure all the auto check boxes are cleared (do not move the sliders!). I'd also recommend to set the curve to linear (it will look ugly, but we're testing exposure, right?).
Once you done with the file (I mean: hit Done), again right-mouse button, Copy Camera Raw Settings. Select the rest of your images, right mouse-button, Paste Camera Raw Settings.
This way you are pretty much guaranteed that you're looking at what you actually got, not what ACR wanted you to see.
Bottom line:
- start from f/8 (at most f/5.6),
- use a really dark test room,
- do not let the ACR fool you.
Good luck and keep us posted about your project!Cheers!
No. What then ?
Obrigado.
No time now. Sorry
Adobe Camera Raw. That's the window that opens in CS2 when you load a raw file. It converts raw into something that Photoshop can process. In order to get meaningful test results you need to make sure that ACR is not automatically mucking with exposure, contrast, etc. By default, it does.
You mean here ?
Gracias Richard.
see you.
Waite and you will see.
I tryied it, I did it nicelly and I' gona make it.
It's going to be useful.
I would suggest remote strobes (even handheld) for some dark areas that you may wish to brighten. I found that with churches ... less is better. You want dark alcoves and heavy shadows on the wide angle stuff to get the imagination working. Then close-ups of details should be with out shadows. I would also use the 70-200 on the tripod for selective focus and minimal DOF.
Unsharp at any Speed
70-200 seems to be a good candidate for the close up work. Possibly with stobe on a side (Light Across!).
For the "overall" shots, however, you would need someting much shorter, most likely under 35 mm, and closed enough to get everything in focus.
Thank you for your input Gary!
Hello. Good afternoon.
I don't have any strobes (I think strobes are lights).
No I'm not saying the truth: I do have 2 or 3 lights 35/40 years old which give a yellow light and I don't touch 2/3 years ago.
So, no strobes/lights.
I have the 430 EX with an extension cable but ket's not complicate.
As I have dicided not to buy the remote cable I will shoot with the timer.
Today I have made a new chart for the photos similar to the one I posted here.
Later, I will shoot 2 scenarios:
my garage with the cars or not, under low light and
outside the house.
May be I'll go to the church - another one - tomorrow morning and shoot tests.
But I do not know. Because the artist I talked about in the thread about Oklahoma is working in Lisbon at Gulbenkian Foundation and I want to go and shoot him. Photograph I mean...
He is my wife's cousin and we have been together some years ago.
Obrigado amigos.
It has only numbers in the places corresponding the lens I had at the moment. I miss the words in English... Do you get it ?
I must complete the table.
Smaller than your but useful enought.
...
...
...
Which do you like best ? The last is more compact. I like it better.
430EX *is* a strobe/light. And since you have a remote cable you can actually use it to provide a light from the site. Of course, those cables are usually rather short, but here comes your original reflector ideas. And you don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get one - just get one of the reflective windshield covers (here in states they are sold everywhere: gas stations, groceries, department store, DIY stores, etc), price being about $10-$15. Regular silver reflector will do. If you want to add some warmth/coldness/coloring, get some colored transparent film (sold as gift wrappers and in DIY stores) and put it around your flash.
With the flash turned away from the subject and reflector being 1-2 meters away from the subject, you can get a very decent lighting on a very tight budget... Just find somebody to assist you to hold it (that's where kids come in handy:-)
HTH
I use it sometimes inside my car...
BTW: how is the temperature in SC ?
I read it is very hight and you have electricity failluares because there is so many AC on...
The cable for the flash was very expensive and is very short indeed : 30 cms or so...
I did mine more fine focal length steps since most of my lenses are zooms and focal length can be changed continuosly. Besides, I do seem to have a wider range of them (from 10mm all the way up to 400mm), hence I had to make a larger table...
But hey, whatever works!
Dual usage, that's the idea. And it's always with you:-)
It was very hot for a few days, kinda unusually hot for this area. I don't ever recall having 107F (42C) in July...
Yeah, I know. Mine is slightly longer, but still is very short. I mostly use it when I put my 580EX onto the bracket.
For the shooting environment like yours I would use one or both of my "potatomashers" Sunpacks Auto555EX, remotely triggered by Pocket Wizards. But, let me tell you, it's not a very cheap setup, no sir, not cheap at all. :cry
However, with the reflective sunshade and an assistant to hold it I have all the confidence that you will be able to get very nice closeups.
I'll try ...
So once you set your camera timer ... you can move the flash into a position to illuminate a dark area and activate it by hand.
The use of simple reflectors is also very good, when combined with a long exposure should work out very well.
What is you widest lens?
Unsharp at any Speed
20 D + 430 EX + 16~35 + 24~70 + 70~200 IS all f 2,8 + extension cord + round reflector + tripod + monopod + 1,4 multiplicator coming soon from Hong Kong I hope.
Uff !...
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1705834/1/84184838
Photo 8
Photo 9
Photo 10
Photo 11
Photo 12
Photo 13
Photo 14
Built from the photo number 8
As I mentioned before - this is a very light scene.
Not representative.
Not even close to your church light...
But this is not too bed is it ?
Obrigado
Unsharp at any Speed
This evenning I have guests for dinner and I won't have the time to upload from my wife's computer.
Tomorrow I will. For sure.
Obrigado my friends.
I have uploaded the files but there still is work to done ...
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1707513
Nice tests.
As I suspected, 16mm on x1.6 crop sensor is not wide enough for this, you can't get it all
Besides, as you can see, shooting not from the center isle brings some ugly non-symmetrical perspective distortions.
If you gonna do HDR, you may need even darker exposures than what you have.
Looking forward for the next iteration. And congrats on a tech-savvy SO!
This is Portugal. I can't rent any lens unless I go to Lisbon and it is very difficult. I've tried before for a 70~200 ...
Borought: from whom ? No. Not possible.
I knew that shooting off center was a problem because of the perspective.
Nikolai, sorry, HDR ? ...
Darker exposures ? Do you mean to use with other shots and stack one over the other with different exposures ?
But for the church whose priest agreed me to shoot on the 9 th august, I am going to shoot from coir. (where people used to thing) which is just above the entrance and where I can get the axis of the church.
I have thought that I could use a program (Photoshop why not ?) to make a photo merge and present the "hole picture".
Obrigado.
Gotcha, abandon that trajectory, Captain:-)
High Dynamic Range image. Feature of PS CS2. Search for it, there were several fresh threads here.. (and in many other places on the Net)
No, I actually mean "darker exposures", separate shots with overall lower amount of light..
That should be nice. Will help with the perspective, neh?
Well, if you're into stitching... :-) In this case I'd suggest switch to portrait and take may be 5 or even 7 (for finer control) "vertical" shots. Portrait would give you enough coverage vertically, and "panorama" would take care of the width of the sanctuary...
I personally am not a big fan of PS as a panorama creation tool, but with a small steps between images it may do just fine.
Just make sure your camera is in strictly horizontal position to avoid distortion...
Good luck!
If it's because you want to follow the "Expose to the Right" technique, then you should set exposure to be as bright as possible without blowing out the brightest highlights. Your camera histogram probably won't be accurate enough to tell you this, so bracket and pick the right one later in Camera Raw. It may look unnaturally light in Camera Raw/Bridge, but you can ignore that because that is your starting point, not your end product. Once you have found that image and raised its Exposure in Camera Raw as far as it will go without blowing out highlights, then drop Brightness to restore the true darkness of the room.
By the way, along with turning off the Auto adjustments for this kind of work, it is often useful to go to the Curves tab and set the curve to Linear instead of the default Medium Contrast. After you think you've set Exposure, Shadow, and Brightness correctly, then go back to the Curves tab and customize the curve contrast for that specific image.
That might get you far enough without having to combine light and dark exposures. If you do need to combine exposures, then according to Expose to the Right, the light exposure will be the more useful one because it will push more tones into the lighter range where more bit resolution and less noise exists. If the dark parts of the church are captured in the middle range of the raw file and later darkened in Camera Raw, they will be less noisy than if you captured the dark parts to the dark range of the raw file.