need an opinion

[fortheluvofpooh]

I had my dd outside today so I was taking a few pictures. here is one I like cause you can see the sand falling out of her hand. I like it and am not going to be upset by opinions. That said, what do you think of it? how is the light? shadow? anything you would change (aside from the fact that she REFUSED to look at me). I am just looking for technical changes. It was taken with no flash. It was taken in the Pmode on my olympus e-500. Just trying to improve.

 

[TinksDH]

Cute hat!

It looks overexposed to me. Her left shoulder, top of her hat and right hand are blown out; i.e. all color information is lost and it appears white. I am on a calibrated monitor, so I think it's accurate, but I'll wait for others to confirm or not confirm my opinion on the exposure.

Do you know what metering mode you were in? It looks like her face is properly exposed, maybe 1/3 stop over, but this is in a shadow so most of the highlights will be blown. If this was shot in mid-day, it will be hard to get her face exposed correctly without blowing out her light-colored jacket.

Depending on what kind of software you are using, you may be able to bring some of it back by adjusting the midtones and darkening the overall image. That will also make the sand more noticable. Good job filling the viewfinder with her image, or at least cropping it tightly!

 

[fortheluvofpooh]

thanks for the input. this is an untouched photo so this is why I posted it. I want to take the photo properly, not retouch it. I know that can be done but want to do it right the first time I guess. Metering?? I am not sure on doing that, I have the button to change this but am still reading up on that. Thank you again.

 

[Anewman]

I want to take the photo properly, not retouch it.

That is a great goal, but even if taken properly photos taken under extreme conditions benefit greatly from some retouching.

In your example even if you had exposed for her shoulder and hat, then you might find that her face would be very dark.

Not all technical aspects of photography are in camera settings, the photographer should take lighting into consideration before snapping the photo and not assume that changing a setting on the camera will compensate.

 

[fortheluvofpooh]

That is a great goal, but even if taken properly photos taken under extreme conditions benefit greatly from some retouching.

In your example even if you had exposed for her shoulder and hat, then you might find that her face would be very dark.

Not all technical aspects of photography are in camera settings, the photographer should take lighting into consideration before snapping the photo and not assume that changing a setting on the camera will compensate.

thank you. Outside lighting is hard as I do not have one of those big silver circle things ( amatuer I know lol). So even the best use retouching??? I am not a perfectionist but want good pictures and want them done right. But if I get the wrong light then it is okay to edit it to make it look like I got the right light. Just do my best and adjust in editing what I can't perfect right?
thank you very much.

ps I like your siggie picture.

 

[TinksDH]

So even the best use retouching??? I am not a perfectionist but want good pictures and want them done right. But if I get the wrong light then it is okay to edit it to make it look like I got the right light. Just do my best and adjust in editing what I can't perfect right?

As the adage goes, it is much easier to get it right "in camera" versus spending a lot of time Photoshopping it. Having said that however, there are many situations that will benefit from a little post-processing, even if it's only to adjust levels/curves. Shooting in mid-day sun with a light colored jacket is begging for trouble! The trick is to make the choices that will get you by with the least amount (or none at all!) of post-processing.

And yes, even the best re-touch. What was once done in the darkroom is now done on the PC, or at the very least, done "in-camera" with the jpeg-conversion engine.

 

[Gdad]

The image is overexposed in general- according to the EXIF the camera was set to exposure compensation of +1.7EV. It says you were in manual mode but I am assuming you used the camera data to meter the shot. The exposure would have been better served without compensation and use fill flash to illuminate the shadows on her face and clothes.

All that being said I think most of the blown highlights could be recovered in photoshop- especially if this was shot in a RAW format.

 

[TinksDH]

The image is overexposed in general- according to the EXIF the camera was set to exposure compensation of +1.7EV. It says you were in manual mode but I am assuming you used the camera data to meter the shot. The exposure would have been better served without compensation and use fill flash to illuminate the shadows on her face and clothes.

All that being said I think most of the blown highlights could be recovered in photoshop- especially if this was shot in a RAW format.

Gdad - What utility are you using the read EXIF? Out of curiosity I just used Opanda IEXIF and I get:

Exposure Time = 1/500"
F Number = F7.1
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2008-03-24 23:46:40
Date Time Digitized = 2008-03-24 23:46:40
Exposure Bias Value = +1.7EV
Max Aperture Value = F3.5
Metering Mode = Pattern
Light Source = Shade
Flash = Flash did not fire, auto mode
Focal Length = 150mm
Maker Note = 2198 Byte

Do you have an older version that maybe can't read the Oylmpus data? Mine shows "pattern" which I'm assuming is something like Matrix metering...

Obviously the +1.7EV is the culprit!

To fortheluvofpooh - you have almost 2 stops of exposure compensation dialed into your camera somehow. Just about everything you shoot will be greatly overexposed. You need to figure out how to reset that so you are metering properly. You also don't need to have your ISO set to 400 for outdoor shooting. It looks like prior to shooting this image you may have been indoors and trying to compensate for some very low light and boosted both the ISO and exposure compensation.

 

[Gdad]

Gdad - What utility are you using the read EXIF?

Do you have an older version that maybe can't read the Oylmpus data? Mine shows "pattern" which I'm assuming is something like Matrix metering...

Obviously the +1.7EV is the culprit!

I use Opanda- it indicates manual control of the camera. I did not mention the metering mode at all (as in spot- center- matrix- etc.)

 

[mabas9395]

I use ViewEXIF on my work computer and it says Pattern for Metering Mode and Manual for White Balance and Normal Program for Exposure Mode.

 

[Gdad]

Maybe I just dont speak 'Olympus' - I have no idea what the difference is. Irregardless my point was it was +1.7EV thus the overexposure.

 

[AydensMom]

That camera does include a flash I believe. Yes fill flash for your daughters facial features would have improved the shot for sure. Harsh midday sun is very hard to make pretty no matter how hard a photographer tries. Just keep shooting and the skill level will improve. Its digital so take as many shots as you want, the delete button is free.

Pat.

 

[Code]

In case you don't know how to turn off the exposure compensation... it's the +/- button right behind the shutter button. Hold it down while you turn the dial and you will see it changing at the top of the display. Forgetting to turn off exposure compensation after I use it is the #2 reason I ruin photos right behind leaving the ISO too high.

As others have said, direct sunlight is hard. If this particular image would have been exposed properly so there were no blown highlights, the image would be underexposed overall meaning you would need to edit up the darker areas (many editing programs call this "fill light"). This is something I do pretty routinely for direct sunlight. A fill flash would have helped.