Sharing Comments and Criticism..

[TheBigE]

So I need feedback on this one, mostly on the processing. I'm trying out a new "look" in lightroom for couple portraits... Need to decide whether to discard the new look, just use the new look, or give the clients the new look alongside my more normal look.
Here is the new look:

untitled-228-Edit.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-228.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nice work, and for me I like the bottom one I find the skin tones a touch softer and more appealing.

 

[TheBigE]

Continuing my question to improve my photography on dark rides - I went with a pretty aggressive CROP on this one, still not sure...welcome feedback and critques. The original is included as well....ISO2000 F/1.4 1/80s

Original - Uncropped

I think this one tells a bit better of a story, but really too soft overall. IMO

 

[havoc315]

Continuing my question to improve my photography on dark rides - I went with a pretty aggressive CROP on this one, still not sure...welcome feedback and critques. The original is included as well....ISO2000 F/1.4 1/80s

Original - Uncropped

I think this one tells a bit better of a story, but really too soft overall. IMO

Up to a few years ago, few photographers had the gear capable of getting anything out of a dark ride. Now with improved ISO abilities, and greater proliferation of faster lenses, dark ride shooting isn't the novelty is used to be.

The challenge has become less about the gear, and far more about getting a good composition. Being you are already stretching the capabilities of the gear a bit, and considering you are in a moving ride, and without often already knowing where the various subjects are located... with only a micro second to pick your composition and focus and shoot... It's still a challenge to get a good dark ride shot.

As with all shots, you need to decide WHAT you're shooting, frame the shot accordingly. As I said, with dark rides, there often isn't time, so you are stuck just doing lots of random shooting and hoping to walk away with something good.

And that's what this shot feet likes.

Of course the image is soft -- You're shooting at 1.4 and high ISO! It's also a bit over-saturated. And the purple hue... I assume there was purple lighting, or is that a bad WB? You can decide whether to tone down the purple or not in post.

I do kinda like the composition of the final crop... lots of leading lines on the top and the bottom. Your focal point is the "All Roads Jammed".. I might photoshop out the "Exit" sign which is a bit distracting. So overall, not bad.

If you aren't repeating rides, it can be difficult to get into a dark ride with a game plan. But to the extent you can make a game plan, knowing what shot you really want to capture but with some flexibility, it can be of great benefit.

 

[fractal]

Continuing my question to improve my photography on dark rides - I went with a pretty aggressive CROP on this one, still not sure...welcome feedback and critques. The original is included as well....ISO2000 F/1.4 1/80s

Original - Uncropped

I think this one tells a bit better of a story, but really too soft overall. IMO

I like the last shot best. Middle shot needs to be straightened. I would lower highlights in post and I think this is better shot wide. Actually one of my favorite shots I took of RRRC are with a fisheye...

I placed the camera on top of the fence for some stability.

 

[TheBigE]

Up to a few years ago, few photographers had the gear capable of getting anything out of a dark ride. Now with improved ISO abilities, and greater proliferation of faster lenses, dark ride shooting isn't the novelty is used to be.

The challenge has become less about the gear, and far more about getting a good composition. Being you are already stretching the capabilities of the gear a bit, and considering you are in a moving ride, and without often already knowing where the various subjects are located... with only a micro second to pick your composition and focus and shoot... It's still a challenge to get a good dark ride shot.

As with all shots, you need to decide WHAT you're shooting, frame the shot accordingly. As I said, with dark rides, there often isn't time, so you are stuck just doing lots of random shooting and hoping to walk away with something good.

And that's what this shot feet likes.

Of course the image is soft -- You're shooting at 1.4 and high ISO! It's also a bit over-saturated. And the purple hue... I assume there was purple lighting, or is that a bad WB? You can decide whether to tone down the purple or not in post.

I do kinda like the composition of the final crop... lots of leading lines on the top and the bottom. Your focal point is the "All Roads Jammed".. I might photoshop out the "Exit" sign which is a bit distracting. So overall, not bad.

If you aren't repeating rides, it can be difficult to get into a dark ride with a game plan. But to the extent you can make a game plan, knowing what shot you really want to capture but with some flexibility, it can be of great benefit.

Yes, I agree a bit of a game is really needed to maximize success, otherwise you are just firing and forgetting. In this case I was with DS and trying to keep moving in the queue. I think the results, as you said, speak to that....as I described earlier, a Meh.... type result. I am really not impressed, with either shot and the first "aggressive crop" is the best of what I had...do I consider it one of my better, nope. I think it is also to consider the bad ones and try to see what could have been done better.

I did find that as the week progressed, I seemed to start to think a bit ahead on the rides to have just a split second preparation. On some of the rides where I went solo, it also helped a bit as I could focus a bit on the surroundings. In the end, tho most of the time it was fire, forget and review later. Thanks for the feedback.

@fractal - I do like the fisheye approach great looking photos. I was curious on the EXIF, looks like a pretty large DOF.

 

[havoc315]

Yes, I agree a bit of a game is really needed to maximize success, otherwise you are just firing and forgetting. In this case I was with DS and trying to keep moving in the queue. I think the results, as you said, speak to that....as I described earlier, a Meh.... type result. I am really not impressed, with either shot and the first "aggressive crop" is the best of what I had...do I consider it one of my better, nope. I think it is also to consider the bad ones and try to see what could have been done better.

I did find that as the week progressed, I seemed to start to think a bit ahead on the rides to have just a split second preparation. On some of the rides where I went solo, it also helped a bit as I could focus a bit on the surroundings. In the end, tho most of the time it was fire, forget and review later. Thanks for the feedback.

@fractal - I do like the fisheye approach great looking photos. I was curious on the EXIF, looks like a pretty large DOF.

Remember the math for DOF. When ultrawide, you get a large depth of field, even at fairly wide apertures. If for example, it's an 8mm fisheye, you get focus from 3 feet to infinity, at an aperture of 2.8. This approach can be great for fast rides as you never have to worry about precise focus.... Just fire at a fast shutter speed and everything falls within acceptable sharpness.

 

[havoc315]

I like the last shot best. Middle shot needs to be straightened. I would lower highlights in post and I think this is better shot wide. Actually one of my favorite shots I took of RRRC are with a fisheye...

I placed the camera on top of the fence for some stability.

Love the bottom shot. The curved track works well with fisheye. I might have frame the whole shot just slightly lower... More track and less ceiling.

 

[TheBigE]

Okay, so this has been bothering me since last night....I cannot for the life of me figure out how @fractal's image in this thread image came out so sharp and my is, well not so sharp. Frankly, I know the answer and it can be found in the EXIF.

I looked first at the EXIF on following photo from @fractal ISO800, f/1.8, 1/160s +0.3 EC

Whereas mine, shown below with f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 2000 is soft and when you pixel peep no where near as sharp. Given that we both were likely shooting from the same spot and same light - the results of the EXIF show a lower ISO and nearly triple the Shutter Speed. This factors alone help contribute to the improved image. Aperture wise, @fractal was just over a full stop wider, bringing down the ISO but still nearly 3x the shutter speed? This contribute to the relative sharpness. Is this shooting under exposed and then pulling out the shadows?

Feel free to critque or give input, just trying to learn what I could have done better.

S

 

[dmaxphil]

When I read your original "Photographers trip" thread, I had a feeling your keeper rate for sharp images would be low at those 1/50s shutter speeds. There is just too much going on in these attractions to consistently nail the shot while maintaining technique, while on moving rides. Boosting SS gives you a certain fudge factor.

 

[havoc315]

Okay, so this has been bothering me since last night....I cannot for the life of me figure out how @fractal's image in this thread image came out so sharp and my is, well not so sharp. Frankly, I know the answer and it can be found in the EXIF.

I looked first at the EXIF on following photo from @fractal ISO800, f/1.8, 1/160s +0.3 EC

Whereas mine, shown below with f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 2000 is soft and when you pixel peep no where near as sharp. Given that we both were likely shooting from the same spot and same light - the results of the EXIF show a lower ISO and nearly triple the Shutter Speed. This factors alone help contribute to the improved image. Aperture wise, @fractal was just over a full stop wider, bringing down the ISO but still nearly 3x the shutter speed? This contribute to the relative sharpness. Is this shooting under exposed and then pulling out the shadows?

Feel free to critque or give input, just trying to learn what I could have done better.

S

Your image is slightly overexposed. Plus the higher ISO, plus motion blur due to the slow shutter speed, formula for a soft image.

The exposure triangle makes sense in that perspective of your overexposure. Matrix metering can be challenging in dark rides as the light is constantly changing, you can have better luck with spot metering.

 

[fractal]

Love the bottom shot. The curved track works well with fisheye. I might have frame the whole shot just slightly lower... More track and less ceiling.

Okay, so this has been bothering me since last night....I cannot for the life of me figure out how @fractal's image in this thread image came out so sharp and my is, well not so sharp. Frankly, I know the answer and it can be found in the EXIF.

I looked first at the EXIF on following photo from @fractal ISO800, f/1.8, 1/160s +0.3 EC

Whereas mine, shown below with f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO 2000 is soft and when you pixel peep no where near as sharp. Given that we both were likely shooting from the same spot and same light - the results of the EXIF show a lower ISO and nearly triple the Shutter Speed. This factors alone help contribute to the improved image. Aperture wise, @fractal was just over a full stop wider, bringing down the ISO but still nearly 3x the shutter speed? This contribute to the relative sharpness. Is this shooting under exposed and then pulling out the shadows?

Feel free to critque or give input, just trying to learn what I could have done better.

S

Shooting with a longer lens ( 50mm on APS-C) and using spot metering, I metered on the brightest part of the scene. I may have pulled some shadows, I'll have to go back and look at the original file. But I must say, I was very happy with how sharp for wide open @ 800 ISO.

 

[TheBigE]

Thanks for the feedback, I guess my real question is how to reach those setting from @fractal - ISO800 f/1.8 and 1/160s. Compared to my settings of ISO2000, f/2.8, and 1/50s. I agree the real difference is ISO and Shutter speed to give the sharpness of the image. No doubt, but how to get that shutter speed?

Let me explain and then we can return to normally scheduled program

Considering the change in Aperture from f/2.8 to f/1.8, I believe this would account for the difference in ISO from 2000 (mine) to 800 (fractal). So if in fact I would have had the 1.4 lens on my camera, my ISO could have been near the same by opening up the Aperture...but keeping the triangle balanced, SS would still be 1/50s versus 1/160s. That is 3 stops, and even if I am overexposed and @fractal is EC +0.3, do and does that really make up 3 Stops of Light in terms of shutter speed?

Perhaps the Spot Metering is in fact the difference, and this was a technique issue - meter on the brightest portion of the scene. It is all part of the learning how to master the equipment and technique.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[fractal]

Thanks for the feedback, I guess my real question is how to reach those setting from @fractal - ISO800 f/1.8 and 1/160s. Compared to my settings of ISO2000, f/2.8, and 1/50s. I agree the real difference is ISO and Shutter speed to give the sharpness of the image. No doubt, but how to get that shutter speed?

Let me explain and then we can return to normally scheduled program

Considering the change in Aperture from f/2.8 to f/1.8, I believe this would account for the difference in ISO from 2000 (mine) to 800 (fractal). So if in fact I would have had the 1.4 lens on my camera, my ISO could have been near the same by opening up the Aperture...but keeping the triangle balanced, SS would still be 1/50s versus 1/160s. That is 3 stops, and even if I am overexposed and @fractal is EC +0.3, do and does that really make up 3 Stops of Light in terms of shutter speed?

Perhaps the Spot Metering is in fact the difference, and this was a technique issue - meter on the brightest portion of the scene. It is all part of the learning how to master the equipment and technique.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

1/50s to 1/160s I believe is about 1.5 stops as 1/60s to 1/125 is one stop and 1/60s to 1/250s is two stops. Also, f/2.8 to f/1.8 is a bit more than 1 stop as is ISO 2000 to ISO 800.

 

[TheBigE]

1/50s to 1/160s I believe is about 1.5 stops as 1/60s to 1/125 is one stop and 1/60s to 1/250s is two stops. Also, f/2.8 to f/1.8 is a bit more than 1 stop.

Yeap you are correct....I was told there would be no math. Still seems to be a touch high based on overexposed and EC +0.3, but more plausible at this point.

 

[fractal]

Let's say the wider aperture equals the difference in ISO.

What we are talking about is a difference of about 1.5 stops of light with the faster shutter speed + the 0.3.

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for the feedback, I guess my real question is how to reach those setting from @fractal - ISO800 f/1.8 and 1/160s. Compared to my settings of ISO2000, f/2.8, and 1/50s. I agree the real difference is ISO and Shutter speed to give the sharpness of the image. No doubt, but how to get that shutter speed?

Let me explain and then we can return to normally scheduled program

Considering the change in Aperture from f/2.8 to f/1.8, I believe this would account for the difference in ISO from 2000 (mine) to 800 (fractal). So if in fact I would have had the 1.4 lens on my camera, my ISO could have been near the same by opening up the Aperture...but keeping the triangle balanced, SS would still be 1/50s versus 1/160s. That is 3 stops, and even if I am overexposed and @fractal is EC +0.3, do and does that really make up 3 Stops of Light in terms of shutter speed?

Perhaps the Spot Metering is in fact the difference, and this was a technique issue - meter on the brightest portion of the scene. It is all part of the learning how to master the equipment and technique.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program.

A few things...
Each camera maker, and even each camera model, measures ISO differently. ISO 800 on his camera can be quite different than ISO 800 on your camera. DXO, when they do their testing, they measure "real ISO" as compared to "manufacturer ISO" -- Sometimes there is nearly a 1 stop difference.

Secondly... You can't assume the ambient light was the exact same in your shot from Fractal's shot. Different angles, different days.. the light could have been a bit brighter when he took his photo.

Third, you are overexposed. I'd say by a half stop to a full stop. By metering on the brightest part of the image, Fratal exposed his shot about a half to full stop less than your exposure. Take a look at how overly bright your yellow bricks are on the yellow brick road.

 

[fractal]

A few things...
Each camera maker, and even each camera model, measures ISO differently. ISO 800 on his camera can be quite different than ISO 800 on your camera. DXO, when they do their testing, they measure "real ISO" as compared to "manufacturer ISO" -- Sometimes there is nearly a 1 stop difference.

Secondly... You can't assume the ambient light was the exact same in your shot from Fractal's shot. Different angles, different days.. the light could have been a bit brighter when he took his photo.

Third, you are overexposed. I'd say by a half stop to a full stop. By metering on the brightest part of the image, Fratal exposed his shot about a half to full stop less than your exposure. Take a look at how overly bright your yellow bricks are on the yellow brick road.

I'll also check to see if I raised exposure in post. If anything, this has been an interesting exercise.

 

[havoc315]

1/50s to 1/160s I believe is about 1.5 stops as 1/60s to 1/125 is one stop and 1/60s to 1/250s is two stops. Also, f/2.8 to f/1.8 is a bit more than 1 stop as is ISO 2000 to ISO 800.

What he is trying to figure out...
You were about 1 stop faster in your aperture. But you were 1.5 stops darker in your shutter speed. So IF your exposure was equal, then your (Fractal) ISO should have been about a half stop higher than BigE. Yet, your ISO is 1.5 stops lower.
So by his math, there is a 2-stop exposure difference in your images. (You don't include the EC -- the EC is what caused the camera to calculate the right triangle settings, it's not in addition to the triangle).

Now to my eye, BigE is overexposed... is it 2 stops of overexposure? Probably not 2 stops.... But between some overexposure, as well as just possible differences in the ambient light at that moment, and differences in how different cameras calculate ISO, as well as the real transmission of the lens (Not all 2.8 lenses actually transmit that level of light... not all 2.8 lenses are truly exactly equal. Some may be more like F3, for example).

 

[havoc315]

To add more to the analysis... here was my shot.... Settings pretty similar to the BigE, and consistent with his.... (Aperture a half stop slower, ISO a half stop higher, shutter speed just slightly slower.... leading to a properly exposed and sharp image)

Great Movie Ride, Wizard of Oz by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[TheBigE]

Good information - I struggle with looking at a photo and seeing it is overexposed. I just looked at the EXIF data a bit more in my photo and I was on Pattern Metering Mode and EC -0.3 on Nikon. Here is the photo with Exposure on LR set to -1.00 The original had no exposure adjustment of 0. I guess now I can see a bit of difference.

Oh and we are all friends here you can call me Erik

I am not sure if a -1.0 in LR corresponds to any type of "stop" or not, but does shows the bricks not as bright.