I'm curious, how come "Expose to the right" is in the thread title?
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.
Colorbox,
Yesterday or better, today at 1 o'clock, on the way to bed, I wrote you a quick message to thank you for posting.
Now, with more time I read it carefully and it contains good advises.
The link you provided is a very usefull one and, as we all know, Luminous Landscape is a very good site with lots of interesting stuff to read and learn.
I almost forget to tell you that the title of this thread is my responsability and it may be not the right one... but I am not going to change ot now.
Nikolai.
Good afternoon.
I think I have - finally - understood what you meant when you said I should do some pics with the same aperture and various speeds.
I have "discovered" HDR and I have done this photo.
Yes, I know it's lauzy but it is the best I can do so far.
Any thoughts ?
Obrigado.
Nikolai.
Good afternoon.
I think I have - finally - understood what you meant when you said I should
do some pics with the same aperture and various speeds.
I have "discovered" HDR and I have done this photo.
Yes, I know it's lauzy but it is the best I can do so far.
Any thoughts ?
Obrigado.
Well, HDR is a really tricky tool. More often than not it results in rather bland, "flat" images. It's really hard to tell when it can bring good results and when not.
It seems to me that this HDR-ed version does not gain a lot, but maybe it's simply me having wrong expectations. I still remember you're saying it's a dark place, but all the pictures you posted so far shown quite opposite, so maybe it's not even a good case for HDR, which, as far as I can understand, should be used when you have a lot of different dark shades, lot of different mid-tones, lot of different (non-specular) highlights, and you want them all in one shot:-)
Comments
You have been very kind and patiente (teaching style also
Obrigado
Please, keep posting and following this thread.
Yesterday or better, today at 1 o'clock, on the way to bed, I wrote you a quick message to thank you for posting.
Now, with more time I read it carefully and it contains good advises.
The link you provided is a very usefull one and, as we all know, Luminous Landscape is a very good site with lots of interesting stuff to read and learn.
I almost forget to tell you that the title of this thread is my responsability and it may be not the right one... but I am not going to change ot now.
Obrigado e Saude.
1511
Date Taken: 2006-07-27 09:49:34 Date Modified: 2006-07-27 11:14:54 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 1536x1024 Bytes: 962769 Aperture: f/5.6 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 16mm Exposure Time: 0.3s (3/10) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: -2
1524
Date Taken: 2006-07-27 09:54:04 Date Modified: 2006-07-28 12:44:00 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 1536x1024 Bytes: 948782 Aperture: f/8.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 16mm Exposure Time: 0.6s (6/10) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: -2
1563
Date Taken: 2006-07-27 10:11:02 Date Modified: 2006-07-28 14:09:43 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 1536x1024 Bytes: 898655 Aperture: f/22.0 ISO: 100 Focal Length: 16mm Exposure Time: 5s (5/1) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: -2
I see no difference in these 3 shots.May be am doing something wrong...
I was all the time inside the hyperfocal.
Good afternoon.
I think I have - finally - understood what you meant when you said I should do some pics with the same aperture and various speeds.
I have "discovered" HDR and I have done this photo.
Yes, I know it's lauzy but it is the best I can do so far.
Any thoughts ?
Obrigado.
http://antoniocorreia.smugmug.com/gallery/1861284
Yay :-)
Well, HDR is a really tricky tool. More often than not it results in rather bland, "flat" images. It's really hard to tell when it can bring good results and when not.
It seems to me that this HDR-ed version does not gain a lot, but maybe it's simply me having wrong expectations. I still remember you're saying it's a dark place, but all the pictures you posted so far shown quite opposite, so maybe it's not even a good case for HDR, which, as far as I can understand, should be used when you have a lot of different dark shades, lot of different mid-tones, lot of different (non-specular) highlights, and you want them all in one shot:-)
Not sure if it helped..
You did.