Sad but I just figured something out! Some questions Please

perfectorchid

perfectorchid

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Edit My Images
Yes
I finally worked out how to use my camera to take a reading and then expose using manual for either light or dark areas! I understand about combining images in photoshop.

Would this method work if it was a moving subject. I'm guessing the answer is no as the two images would be different and therefore hard to combine?

Also when shooting weddings which is it best to expose for (light or dark i.e bride or groom) or is it best to just shoot raw?

Thanks for taking the time to read:clap:
 
No, it wouldn't work for moving subjects

I always shoot RAW whatever it is I'm photographing, that way there's always the ability to tweak the exposure if it's not spot on
 
Ok lets tackle these one at a time.
First off shoot RAW and make life easier for yourself.

Combining moving images is very possible and pretty easy, however you are only ever using 1 image and opening in Raw, adjusting exposure and saving you can have as many adjusted pictures of the one image as you like.

A good rule of thumb with exposure is remembering the old saying "Dress to the Left, expose to the right."
Basically its advising to err on the side of overexposing as its far easier to recover that in PP than it is to recover Shadows as shadows can be very noisey. I would rather have a little blown highlight than a little noisey shadow.
Hope this helps.
 
CraigF said:
Basically its advising to err on the side of overexposing as its far easier to recover that in PP than it is to recover Shadows as shadows can be very noisey. I would rather have a little blown highlight than a little noisey shadow.
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Exactly the oposite of this is true. If you've got white you've got white, you can't recover it, you can recover most of what is in a shadow :) :bonk:
 
For weddings we always say expose to the right. In other words, get the highlights right.

There is a whole other debate among wedding photographers about the acceptability of blowing the highlights (usually means a blown dress) Personally I think that the majority of the time we should be trying to preserve the detail in the dress but there are times when, from an artistic perspective it can be perfectly acceptable. In other words it's a conscious decision, done for artistic reason and not just we cocked up the exposure!

Yes, I always shoot RAW on a wedding but my mentor makes us shoot JPEG when training with the idea that we should be getting the exposures right in camera. I sometimes shoot my personal stuff on manual, JPEG just for practice sake. Any time spent with a camera in my hand no matter the subject is always useful.
 
bbb said:
Exactly the oposite of this is true. If you've got white you've got white, you can't recover it, you can recover most of what is in a shadow :) :bonk:
Click to expand...

Well in my software there is always a Highlight Recovery slider and it works pretty damn good.
I guess they left it out of yours so as not to cloud your mind too much. :razz:
 
No bbb, it's not just you :)

But for the benefit of the OP, if you have to come here and ask such a basic question on exposure that gives me a great deal of concern if you are offering your services professionally.
 
perfectorchid said:
Thanks for your constructive help, did you know everything when you first started?
Click to expand...

I knew not to put my hat where my hand can't reach :razz:

Seriously it may seem harsh but we all saw the reaction to the wedding disaster photos the other week and everyone was up in arms about how could this happen, and here on this very forum we have someone who claims not to know how to expose for weddings and is advertising as a wedding photographer.

It's great that you want to learn and great that you have aspirations, but you have to walk before you run :)
 
In response I'm not 'advertising' as such. I've not made any effort to push up googling rankings and my site is the only advertisment I have. I'm slowly moving into the area of shooting for other people. At the minute I am shooting for family and friends.. word of mouth. The site is there so those people can see what I am capable of and so far they are happy with it. It is something I am taking slowly and learning as I go along
 
I don't mean to be harsh here, we did all start somewhere but there is starting out and starting out. I only started out professionally when I knew what I was doing with a camera inside out. You really should not be starting out professionally and starting out with a camera at the same time!

If I can offer some friendly advice here, don't try to walk before you can run. Go and learn how to take the pictures first and then think about how you can use the skills you have. Of course I have learned even more since I started doing it professionally, there is a lot of fine tuning going on and there always will be, but I knew how to work a camera properly first.
 
AliB said:
For weddings we always say expose to the right. In other words, get the highlights right.
Click to expand...

I fully admit that I may be getting confused here but I thought exposing to the right, i.e. shifting the histogram right, and exposing for highlights are different things. exposing to the right is about optimising the signal to noise ratio. And a right shifted histogram is more likely to clip highlights :thinking:
 
Sorry Alex, my interpretation of it is that I check the histogram and I will push it as far right as I can without getting any blown highlights. ( and not in the areas I want preserved, blinkies are a blessing :))

Does that make sense now? :)
 
perfectorchid said:
, did you know everything when you first started?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows everything - ever, but I can honestly say that I completely understood the principles of exposure before I started doing weddings and that was in my teens a long, long time ago. The information is all out there. for me it was library books, and I hungrily read everything I could get hold of on photography as well as the usual photography mags. Today you still have those options with the addition of a wealth of information on the nternet, yet you come on the board asking people to explain these basic principles to you.

On the one hand your opening post implies you now understand basic exposure reading, but the rest of your post goes on to show that you clearly don't, whilst asking about wedding photography and apparently, (I haven't looked) running a web site advertising your services as a wedding photographer.

I'm sorry, but it's one thing to come on here asking for basic advice as an amateur, but quite another to expect people to effectively nurse you through your frankly ill -advised leap into wedding photography before you're anywhere near ready.

Seriously, go and find the information you seek - it's all out there with just a little effort on your part, then do yourself a big favouir and learn how the histogram screen on your camera works. :)
 
AliB said:
if you have to come here and ask such a basic question on exposure that gives me a great deal of concern if you are offering your services professionally.
Click to expand...
That is concerning.
Reminds me of that Kryptix fellow who offered professional photo services yet was asking what exposure compensation was! Walking before running is good advice though.
 
bbb said:
Exactly the oposite of this is true. If you've got white you've got white, you can't recover it, you can recover most of what is in a shadow :) :bonk:
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If you over-expose and saturate the sensor, the most complex RAW editing software in the world will not get any detail out of it.


Steve.
 
CraigF said:
Recovery slider and it works pretty damn good.
I guess they left it out of yours so as not to cloud your mind too much. :razz:
Click to expand...

It doesn't work if there is no detail there. It can't make it up. All it can do is work with what is there.


Steve.
 
If your shooting moving objects shoot in RAW, then make 2 different versions and combine them that way rather than bracketing exposures in camera (which won't work for moving things usually)
As for exposure you want to get as near to blowing out the highlights as you can without actually doing it, once they are blown it's lost for ever, you can't recover whats not there in the first place.
 
lol@ Alex, my 1Ds in rather prone to underexposing in certain circumstances (when it's dark or mainly dark tones) so I often end up shifting mine right.

Funny how we have the same aim but describe it in different terms. :)
 
CT said:
and that was in my teens a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

Cedric you missed a few 'longs' out there :D

To the OP pick up a copy of 'Digital Exposure Handbook' by Ross Hoddinott explains most of the basics regarding exposure, and covers the exposing to the right method mentioned above.

Basically expose to the right (slightly over), but avoid blowing important highlights, you can check on your lcd the histogram, and flashing highlight warning.
 
I might get shot down for this but wedding photography isn't just about getting exposure spot on / right, it's timing, composition and people management too.

The wedding pictures from "That" photographer the other week were woeful that even fantastic exposure could not have rectified :)

I still use film so I expose for shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves (and the opposite if slide film is used) though generally a bit of fill in flash bumps up shadow detail so everyones a winner
 
Just a note on shooting in RAW...

RAW is great, because you can do so much more with the image afterwards, and I think this depends on what you're shooting, but it might be worth looking to see if your camera can save a RAW+JPEG file?

On my honeymoon, I took about 1000 photos in RAW as we were travelling around the Baltic, and when I came home it took me about a week to go through them all. And to be honest, there were only a few I wanted to tweak. JPEG would have been fine for the rest, but I hadn't given myself the option :)
 
AliB said:
No bbb, it's not just you :)

But for the benefit of the OP, if you have to come here and ask such a basic question on exposure that gives me a great deal of concern if you are offering your services professionally.
Click to expand...

Why can you not Just answer the question with out getting personal.
It is none of your concern the status of their emerging business.

Such remarks had the wedding forum closed by the Mods.
 
I think some people are being a bit harsh here. The OP is only producing shots for friends and family at the moment, and any future clients can see what she has produced on the site - it's then up to them to decide if they like her work or not, and whether they want to hand over any cash... I don't see any problem! :D
 
I absolutely agree with Terry and Munch....

Why is there a need for self appointed regulators for a 'certain branch' of photography.

Anyone can learn from books and internet; and equally anyone should be comfortable to ask questions here - not just 'amateurs'
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I absolutely agree with Terry and Munch....

Why is there a need for self appointed regulators for a 'certain branch' of photography.

Anyone can learn from books and internet; and equally anyone should be comfortable to ask questions here - not just 'amateurs'
Click to expand...

I agree too.

It's not like this is a medical forum and someone is asking questions prior to performing his first heart transplant (only on friends and family members at the moment) and wants to know which is the best scalpel to use.



Steve.
 
If you are all happy to see someone dive in with little knowledge of THE most basic principle of photography then fine, fill your boots.

I'm not trying to regulate anything but in the light of recent publicity concerning a wedding photographer being sued for what the Judge said was not of merchantable quality, I think it's actually quite resposible to point out that you need to know how to work a camera before you start operating as a professional photographer. And that goes for ANY genre.

Yes, you can say Caveat Emptor, but that did not stop Mr Bowers ending up in a Court of Law.

I have tried to offer some friendly advice about learning some basics first which is more than any of you seem to have done but instead choose to attack me.

I notice that none of you have had a go at CT for saying essentially the same thing.

I hardly think I can be held responsible for the closure of the wedding forum and if you want to have a go at me for trying to encourage people to seek proper advice and training then please be my guest because that's not going to change. :bang:
 
wow can't believe I have been out and come back to find this still being debated. I feel that I have to respond, once again.

CT - There are a few basic principles I don't understand 100% but by no means am I just beginning. I am taking in everything I possibly can. I subscribe to podcasts, have books and magazines I am reading, follow tutorials online, read threads/forums and practice by trial and error EVERYDAY. I didn't want basic principles explaining I just wanted a bit of clarification.

Merovingian - I do consider myself to be walking before I am running, hence family and friends only. If I ever did get any outside clients, which I doubt as I am not fully promoting myself, I would be honest and explain where I am coming from and charge accordingly.

Martyn - Thanks for the rec, it's something I would like to get hold of.

chivers67 - I totally agree, I may not have a good understanding on the technical side of photography but I do believe I have good compositional skills and find it easy to work with people, make them feel at ease.

MatW - It does take raw+jpeg

AliB - I do know how to work my camera hence the photos on my site. I'd just like to be able to use it on manual to really give my best.

To everyone else, thank you for those that have given help. Didn't intend this to turn into a huge debate. Regarding professional status, wasn't 'that' photographer a member of SWPP?
 
perfectorchid said:
wow can't believe I have been out and come back to find this still being debated. I feel that I have to respond, once again.

CT - There are a few basic principles I don't understand 100% but by no means am I just beginning. I am taking in everything I possibly can. I subscribe to podcasts, have books and magazines I am reading, follow tutorials online, read threads/forums and practice by trial and error EVERYDAY. I didn't want basic principles explaining I just wanted a bit of clarification.

Merovingian - I do consider myself to be walking before I am running, hence family and friends only. If I ever did get any outside clients, which I doubt as I am not fully promoting myself, I would be honest and explain where I am coming from and charge accordingly.

Martyn - Thanks for the rec, it's something I would like to get hold of.

chivers67 - I totally agree, I may not have a good understanding on the technical side of photography but I do believe I have good compositional skills and find it easy to work with people, make them feel at ease.

MatW - It does take raw+jpeg

AliB - I do know how to work my camera hence the photos on my site. I'd just like to be able to use it on manual to really give my best.

To everyone else, thank you for those that have given help. Didn't intend this to turn into a huge debate. Regarding professional status, wasn't 'that' photographer a member of SWPP?
Click to expand...

Yes he was but it means nothing because theres no requirment to reach a certain standard before joining, so even somebody who's never actually seen a camera could join, provided they pay their fee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top