Help my old man out!

M

Mother Goose

Suspended / Banned
Messages
227
Edit My Images
Yes
My dad asked me a question about some of the photos he's been taking. He went to a party and took pictures with his 4D + 18-135IS. He did not use a flash. Here is a typical (basically, unaltered) jpeg:



He met someone else who was using a Nikon with an unknown lens (likely wide-angle) and flash with a diffuser. This is what the other guy had:



My dad's question is: what did the other guy do to make his picture better. Was it:
  1. Better lens?
  2. Camera settings (like white balance)
  3. The flash
  4. Post-processing?

And moreover, how would one change photo 1 to photo 2? For example, can you Photoshop the warm effects (remove the harsh florescence), duplicate the skin tones, etc. I would greatly appreciate it if you guys could describe how these effects can also be done.

Thanks! :thumbs:
 
I'd say a combination of lens and, primarily, flash.
The lens, simply because of its wider field of view allows for more subjects in shot, but the flash is the key as it lights everyone fairly well and warmly, so you're not stuck with the rather harsh light from the strip lights.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I'd say a combination of lens and, primarily, flash.
The lens, simply because of its wider field of view allows for more subjects in shot, but the flash is the key as it lights everyone fairly well and warmly, so you're not stuck with the rather harsh light from the strip lights.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The wider field of view I'm sure is noticeable, but I'm definitely more interested in the colours/lighting/skin tones, etc. moreso than the composition.
 
Yep, as I say, thats down to the flash, I'm sure. Obviously knowing how to tweak the white balance will help, but I'm not particularly up with that, so I'll not post a half formed opinion which'll probably be wrong :P
 
The lens has made a difference, but it's a wider field of view because in the second shot there are more people so it's not comparing apples with apples.

The big factor in why the Nikon shot looks better is use of flash bounced off the ceiling.

TBH, your dad's shot looks great for an ambient-only exposure :)
 
Firstly your dad's shot is pretty good, especially taken with no flash under strip lights. It really isn't far out. Would be improved by warming the WB a little and increasing the exposure.

The white balance is not far off but the skin tones would be more flattetring if the WB is warmed a bit. In camera select for fluorescent light or in PP most programmes will let you adjust the WB (better done with RAW)

Again the exposure is pretty good but the increasing the exposure a little. Both could be done in camera or in post-processing.

I would also crop the picture to lose the ceiling as this adds nothing to the image. I would also add a slight vignette to emphasis the people, but that's personal taste.

Most togs would have used a flash in that situation but your dad seems to have managed very well without.
 
Main difference IMO is the second shot is better because of the ribbons! But there's still a lot wrong with it technically. Agree the first one isn't bad for ambient light.

Second shot, photographer should have been further back with a less wide lens, to reduce diverging verticals and compress the front-to-back perspective more. Lower the camera viewpoint. Move the subjects away from the sides and form another line in front, for better formation and less light fall-off to the sides.

Stofen-type diffuser cap on the flash would be fine. The bounce component would fill the room pretty well, and the direct component to add a dash of fill-in to brighten the faces. Is that what Tog 2 used?

Custom white balance for preference, or fix in post. Both look a bit under exposed to me - the white shirts are grey and those dark suits and frocks need more light.
 
Thanks so much for your help, guys! I've passed them on to my dad. Love this forum!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top