Not Blown, just not good

ginger_55

I have spent the day on this. Except for the time I tried to get my old flash to work, not, on my new camera. Baptism tomorrow.

I read Ben Willmore like I was studying for an exam. He is pretty good. White is blown, red and yellow mean that I am close to blown, but not blown. So I took the darn blown photo from last week, went back to the beginning, did it his way, a lot in RAW, then levels, I even used curves. Not saturation, and no contrast/sharpening. That has such a bad rap it should be taken away. I sharpened it once. I did check the 255 thing, it is low on red, but has some green and more blue in the spots that look blown. Here is a day spent together with my husband.





This is last week, should have cropped it more this week, too. So I did. Should have made the beaks redder, I might.



Now I have to read about sharpening. This guy is pretty good, addresses some stuff I haven't been able to find elsewhere.

ginger

Andy

ginger_55 wrote:

I have spent the day on this. Except for the time I tried to get my old flash to work, not, on my new camera. Baptism tomorrow.

I read Ben Willmore like I was studying for an exam. He is pretty good. White is blown, red and yellow mean that I am close to blown, but not blown. So I took the darn blown photo from last week, went back to the beginning, did it his way, a lot in RAW, then levels, I even used curves. Not saturation, and no contrast/sharpening. That has such a bad rap it should be taken away. I sharpened it once. I did check the 255 thing, it is low on red, but has some green and more blue in the spots that look blown. Here is a day spent together with my husband.



This is last week, should have cropped it more this week, too.



Now I have to read about sharpening. This guy is pretty good, addresses some stuff I haven't been able to find elsewhere.

ginger

ginger, something's off... please link me to an orig size file, ok? just do the raw conversion, with zero change to exposre or anything...

ginger_55

Link to Blown/not Blown
http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/16957685-L.jpg

That is the link, I will make sure that access to originals is turned on. This was a better one to give you. It was right next to the one I worked on, I have never touched this one, not at all.

ginger

Andy

ginger_55 wrote:

http://gingerSnap.smugmug.com/photos/16957685-L.jpg

That is the link, I will make sure that access to originals is turned on. This was a better one to give you. It was right next to the one I worked on, I have never touched this one, not at all.

ginger

ginge-

need to -O (original size) full size piccy please. that's only the -L

Harryb

ginger_55 wrote:

I have spent the day on this. Except for the time I tried to get my old flash to work, not, on my new camera. Baptism tomorrow.

I read Ben Willmore like I was studying for an exam. He is pretty good. White is blown, red and yellow mean that I am close to blown, but not blown. So I took the darn blown photo from last week, went back to the beginning, did it his way, a lot in RAW, then levels, I even used curves. Not saturation, and no contrast/sharpening. That has such a bad rap it should be taken away. I sharpened it once. I did check the 255 thing, it is low on red, but has some green and more blue in the spots that look blown. Here is a day spent together with my husband.


This is last week, should have cropped it more this week, too. So I did. Should have made the beaks redder, I might.

Now I have to read about sharpening. This guy is pretty good, addresses some stuff I haven't been able to find elsewhere.

ginger

Hey Ginger,

The main problem with the shot is the Great Egret. The Snowy Egret and the Ibis are ok and you can see some feather detail in them. You have virtually no detail in the Great Egret which is the largest subject in your shot.

The problem is not your post work but the exposure that was set when you took the shot. When shooting light subjects against a darker background you have to adjust for that when you take the shot.

ginger_55

andy wrote:

ginge-

need to -O (original size) full size piccy please. that's only the -L

I just turned the OK for originals on, just a sec ago. I will check again.

g

ginger_55

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=16957685&Size=Original


Will this work

Andy

ginger_55 wrote:

http://gingersnap.smugmug.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=16957685&Size=Original


Will this work

ginger, how come you are shooting at iso 1600? how about iso 400, and f/8 instead of f/16? the shot is noisy, which contributes to the shake/blure that i'm noticing. hey - have you a monopod? that could help you tremendously!

also, what harry sez: -2/3 ec or thereabouts, meter on the bright boid.

hth,

ginger_55

It was getting dark. I was taking photos for the challenge, landscapes, and the birds. When I got back to the car I noticed that my ISO was on 200, that worked for everything else, but I knew it was a no go with the birds.

I walked about 1/2 mile back to get something of the birds. It was cold, the wind was blowing at gusts to 40-50 MPH, sustained at I don't know what, it was freezing and cold. In the photo you can see the weeds blowing.

I had reset the camera to 1600 !SO as Harry told me awhile back that he shoots with it that way to keep the speed up, and it was getting dark. I messed up on the F16 which I already talked to Harry about. I was sick on that. I did change it to 5.6 or something for the sunsets. That was when I realized......on that.

But I had it at -1, I was very clear on that. I certainly thought that was enough. Since then Harry has said that he puts his lower than that.

That is the second time I have been to Pitt street walk, I had problems the first time, I wanted to go today, but no, I didn't.

When I go to Shem Creek, I don't have this problem, and I have shot at 1600 ISO there and at - 2/3 not -1. I am trying to beat it, or I was.

It is difficult to do this online for me, because you don't know the things I know and I feel like I can't respond, as there isn't anyone there any more. Not just you, anyone. They write and go on. You did not know that I shot at -1, no one knew the winds were 40 to 50 mph. I did mess up, and I walked back to try to rectify it. I don't know why I am trying so hard there, I am not close enough to the birds to get a nice looking shot.

I don't know why I decided to try to use the things I learned in the book.

Right now I can't afford a monopod or much of anything else. Bill is going to Arizona next Sat to see his mother who is dying. I hope she makes it that long. I scraped to buy the 70-200 lens, I would like a small tripod, there seems to be mixed feelings on monopods. No matter, it is not happening right now.

ginger

Andy

ginger_55 wrote:

It was getting dark. I was taking photos for the challenge, landscapes, and the birds. When I got back to the car I noticed that my ISO was on 200, that worked for everything else, but I knew it was a no go with the birds.

I walked about 1/2 mile back to get something of the birds. It was cold, the wind was blowing at gusts to 40-50 MPH, sustained at I don't know what, it was freezing and cold. In the photo you can see the weeds blowing.

I had reset the camera to 1600 !SO as Harry told me awhile back that he shoots with it that way to keep the speed up, and it was getting dark. I messed up on the F16 which I already talked to Harry about. I was sick on that. I did change it to 5.6 or something for the sunsets. That was when I realized......on that.

But I had it at -1, I was very clear on that. I certainly thought that was enough. Since then Harry has said that he puts his lower than that.

That is the second time I have been to Pitt street walk, I had problems the first time, I wanted to go today, but no, I didn't.

When I go to Shem Creek, I don't have this problem, and I have shot at 1600 ISO there and at - 2/3 not -1. I am trying to beat it, or I was.

It is difficult to do this online for me, because you don't know the things I know and I feel like I can't respond, as there isn't anyone there any more. Not just you, anyone. They write and go on. You did not know that I shot at -1, no one knew the winds were 40 to 50 mph. I did mess up, and I walked back to try to rectify it. I don't know why I am trying so hard there, I am not close enough to the birds to get a nice looking shot.

I don't know why I decided to try to use the things I learned in the book.

Right now I can't afford a monopod or much of anything else. Bill is going to Arizona next Sat to see his mother who is dying. I hope she makes it that long. I scraped to buy the 70-200 lens, I would like a small tripod, there seems to be mixed feelings on monopods. No matter, it is not happening right now.

ginger

ginger, we're all listening. relax. it's only a photograph and we're trying to help you. we're here ginger, the forum is busier now and there are over 2000 registered members. hang in there and you will always i guarantee get the help you need.

of course you can afford a monopod, they can be found for $50 or even less if you look carefully. you need some help steadying that camera, ginger. trust me on this. and ginger, don't try to copy someone's settings, that's not how it's done. you have to do what's right for your camera, your situtation. -1, -1.3, -2/3, who knows? only you will know, and only by direct experience.

aim for the lowest iso possible. and use a camera support, i think that 300mm is challenging for you to keep steady, so the monopod could help. heck, many folks make them out of walking sticks, etc.

anyhow, ginger, the forum's still here, still helping you.

jwear

same trouble
same trouble i had with the green backdrop it is just palin hard and frustrating .white birds are hard ,most birds are hard Jeff

Steve Cavigliano

Ginger,

It sounds to me like you are trying so hard it's actually hampering your progress. I know when I used to tense up and beat myself up with all the stuff I was supposed to remember, I didn't shoot very well at all. Not only that, but I usually come away upset with myself too. Take my word for it, this is a bad cycle to get into

My unsolicited advice would be to relax and stop pushing yourself so hard. This hobby is supposed to be enjoyable, afterall. Things will eventually click as you begin to understand the relationships that make up the "exposure".

One thing that really helped me was finally understanding that the camera doesn't see like we do. And if I kept shooting with it as if it did, I'd be constantly disappointed. We have to adapt to how the camera sees. The more you begin to see things as the camera does, the better your pictures will become.

We all get frustrated. If not, we're probably not pushing ourselves. Dealing with this frustration is part of the joy of this hobby. If it were easy to capture a masterpiece, it probably wouldn't be such an enjoyable hobby :

Sorry to preach at ya, and I apologize that I haven't been around to help

Steve

Harryb

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

Ginger,

It sounds to me like you are trying so hard it's actually hampering your progress. I know when I used to tense up and beat myself up with all the stuff I was supposed to remember, I didn't shoot very well at all. Not only that, but I usually come away upset with myself too. Take my word for it, this is a bad cycle to get into

My unsolicited advice would be to relax and stop pushing yourself so hard. This hobby is supposed to be enjoyable, afterall. Things will eventually click as you begin to understand the relationships that make up the "exposure".

One thing that really helped me was finally understanding that the camera doesn't see like we do. And if I kept shooting with it as if it did, I'd be constantly disappointed. We have to adapt to how the camera sees. The more you begin to see things as the camera does, the better your pictures will become.

We all get frustrated. If not, we're probably not pushing ourselves. Dealing with this frustration is part of the joy of this hobby. If it were easy to capture a masterpiece, it probably wouldn't be such an enjoyable hobby :

Sorry to preach at ya, and I apologize that I haven't been around to help

Steve

yeah, what Steve said.

ginger_55

Thank you for the support, Steve, Jeff and Harry.

I have to get ready to take a baptism photo at church this AM.

I will have to get back to birds later. But I do want to thank you all.

ginger

rutt

Steve and Andy are right on as usual, but I want to muddy the watter with some different advice. I went through a monopod, tripod phase when I started to shoot telephoto shots of sports. Initially it was a big improvement, but eventually I began to feel that I was missing a lot of shots because I couldn't just point where I wanted to and shoot. So I worked hard on being able to get good handheld shots with long teles. Here are some tips that have really helped me.

1. Pay a lot of attention to how you are supporting the camera. Free standing is usually pretty bad and kneeling is worse (at least for me.) For baseball, I like to lean on the fence and steady the my forearmes with the top of it if possible. Lots of times I'll sit on the ground. When sitting, I try to support my forearms with my knees. Anyway, try to make a stable platform out of your body. I bought a super cheap "sports char" at Walgreens (<$15) and bring that to XC ski races and soccer games. It's a great height for me and much more stable than kneeling or crouching.
2. Try to get the shutter speed as high as possible given the rest of the contraints. 1/800 is good, more is better. But as everyone points out, you don't want ISO too high. The D20 has great low light performance, so say 800 or less (I think you can correct for that much in post pretty easyily). And of course you need just as much DOF as you need but no more. Teles naturally have less DOF so you do have to pay attention. On the other hand, I love to have the DOF no deeper than required, to focus attention.
3. Pay attention to your breathing. Try to inhale deeply and exhale fully before shooting. Your body is most stable after a deep breath. It's like shooting a rifle or bow and arrow. (I forced myself to put this in Western materialist terms instead of Eastern mystical ones.)

As Andy says, there are no hard and fast rules. You have to work with the situation and figure out what works for you. A big part of photography is problem solving. The first step is figuring out that there is a problem to be solved.

I got this handheld last September in dawn light sitting on the beach in Nantucket. I was using my 100-400 full out with 1.4 tc. So, effectively this is 540mm x 1.3. Quite a lot of lens to handhold. ISO 640. 1/500th F11. If I had it to do over, I might open up the lens a bit and up the speed, but with the tc, this lens isn't fast or that sharp when open more. So maybe more ISO would have been the only way to get more speed. In this particular case, though it worked, though there are other pictures from the same set which I can see need more shutter speed.



Here is a 400% crop. You can see the pixelation at this magnafication, but you can also see that it's sharp.

Dee

I'm chuckling here, Ginger

ginger_55 wrote:

It was getting dark. I was taking photos for the challenge, landscapes, and the birds. When I got back to the car I noticed that my ISO was on 200, that worked for everything else, but I knew it was a no go with the birds.

I walked about 1/2 mile back to get something of the birds. It was cold, the wind was blowing at gusts to 40-50 MPH, sustained at I don't know what, it was freezing and cold. In the photo you can see the weeds blowing.

I had reset the camera to 1600 !SO as Harry told me awhile back that he shoots with it that way to keep the speed up, and it was getting dark. I messed up on the F16 which I already talked to Harry about. I was sick on that. I did change it to 5.6 or something for the sunsets. That was when I realized......on that.

But I had it at -1, I was very clear on that. I certainly thought that was enough. Since then Harry has said that he puts his lower than that.

That is the second time I have been to Pitt street walk, I had problems the first time, I wanted to go today, but no, I didn't.

When I go to Shem Creek, I don't have this problem, and I have shot at 1600 ISO there and at - 2/3 not -1. I am trying to beat it, or I was.

It is difficult to do this online for me, because you don't know the things I know and I feel like I can't respond, as there isn't anyone there any more. Not just you, anyone. They write and go on. You did not know that I shot at -1, no one knew the winds were 40 to 50 mph. I did mess up, and I walked back to try to rectify it. I don't know why I am trying so hard there, I am not close enough to the birds to get a nice looking shot.

I don't know why I decided to try to use the things I learned in the book.

Right now I can't afford a monopod or much of anything else. Bill is going to Arizona next Sat to see his mother who is dying. I hope she makes it that long. I scraped to buy the 70-200 lens, I would like a small tripod, there seems to be mixed feelings on monopods. No matter, it is not happening right now.

ginger

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about Bill's mom.

Don't you wish the exif data would give the weather conditions? I'm out here in "Sunny California" and sometimes I have on a hooded lightweight jacket (I call it my "fuzzy" jacket, it's one of those fleece ones), and my squall jacket over that. Of course I'm wearing no socks and my Teva sandals which doesn't help. The wind is blowing off the ocean, the light is starting to fade, my fingers are starting to freeze, despite wearing a ponytail under the hooded jacket, a strand of hair is blowing in front of the camera lens. My slacks are flapping around my legs, and I'm out there like an idiot taking pictures no one will ever see! I'm hoping the edge of the bluff I'm standing on won't fall into the ocean and take my expensive camera and me into the ocean! (To me, my camera is expensive, I worked hard and did without to be able to afford it.)

I have back trouble and couldn't walk a half a mile, so you are lucky there! And you are lucky to see birds like you do! And to have a long lens!

And I admire your quest to improve your craft. I got that Kelby book out of the library that you mentioned and a few others, so you've inspired me!

Some books are good, and others, I just can't make sense of. The more we learn though, the more it all starts to make sense. I really admire that you are out there and trying new things and -- even more, sharing it all with us!

Thank you!

ginger_55

Dee wrote:

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about Bill's mom.

Don't you wish the exif data would give the weather conditions? Some books are good, and others, I just can't make sense of. The more we learn though, the more it all starts to make sense. I really admire that you are out there and trying new things and -- even more, sharing it all with us!

Thank you!

Thanks, Dee. YOu know last night I don't think there was another female on. Might have been but I didn't recognize any of the names as women. I just think that is interesting.

Thanks, Rutt. On the tripod, monopod, advice. I like to go up, down, and in between. I lean, I rest, I sit and use my knees, I do a lot of things that a tripod wouldn't do.

That is a great surfing photo. Did you show it last summer?

ginger

Dee, my back is starting to hurt, had to walk further today as the tide was in.
If those birds are blown today the histogram didn't show it! People here are wearing shorts, I saw a flowering tree, and I know there are daffodils. I was freezing. I have a coat made like what you have on. That is really warm, the coat I had on today.............ooooooooooooh I was cold. Gotta upload what I have.

We are going out for RIBS!

Andy

my ribs radar went off...

ginger_55 wrote:

We are going out for RIBS!

:food

rutt

ginger_55 wrote:

That is a great surfing photo. Did you show it last summer?

Thanks, no. It's from 5 September. Too much was going on then, and I never really went back and mined the shots I took the last week or so on Nantucket. I wouldn't have gone back to look if I hand't been looking for an expample of shooting the the 400+tc. That's a combo that I've only used for surfing and it took me most of the summer to figure out what works on Nantucket to take these (dawn.)

wxwax

andy wrote:

of course you can afford a monopod, they can be found for $50 or even less if you look carefully. you need some help steadying that camera, ginger.

Monopod's a great idea, especially with the 300 lens. I have a 300, and attaching the monopod to the lens, not the camera, is just the ticket.