Mall shots that I mentioned earlier

[gracie_r]

I said I'd try to post some examples connected to my earlier question - and here they are!

Any ideas on how these could have been taken better? I am not really concerned about style stuff now, more on how to just get the basics down of lighting and such. But feel free to comment on whatever!


ISO 400, 1/125, f/5. I used the flash, but I hate how the flash feels - looks so washed out or something. I try to avoid it whenever possible.



ISO 800, 1/20, f3.5. No flash here, but as you can see it turned out blurry...

I think I was using shutter priority on the first one and aperature priority on the second. So if you would have grabbed your camera and tried to get these shots, what settings would you have started with?

Thanks for any comments!

[Rocket_Scientist]

I think shutter priority would be right for the first shot which involves motion, and it doesn't look too bad. Perhaps a little post-processing: straightening, color balance, brightening, even sharpening.. and voila! On the second, I'm guessing that the larger aperture produced a small depth of field, and, perhaps your focusing (was it auto or manual?) may not have been at the best spot. Also, it appears the ambient lighting needs some correction in post processing. But then... I'm just guessing...

[AgingEyes]

I'd likely use flash for both photos unless I have a D3 :-)

With what I have, I'd still shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 without flash to get as high a shutter speed as I can. Right now they look blurry. Likely shutter speeds were too slow.

Problem with the first one with flash is the white horse; it could fool the sensor thinking that the subject matter is well exposed before it actually is. This results in under-exposure on the rest of the photo. The background of the second photo looks much brighter than the kid and so would likely cause under-exposure on the kid, too. Flash is not a bad thing sometimes. Then unless, of course, you have a D3 Even so, you still need to know how to get the right exposure in the first place.

Sorry, I haven't read your first thread.

[Frog]

I don't know about the second shot but guessing on the first, your point of focus was on the horse and thus that is what your flash exposed for. More talented than I correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if your camera has AFcontinuous servo which will hold a moving object in focus but I think it would be ideal for this shot.

[AgingEyes]

I went back and read your previous thread. Just want to add that you could shoot them at a different angle. More from the sideway for the first one if you still want a white horse (and avoid any mirror or bright background), or simply pick a darker horse. For the second one, change the angle to remove the bright background, the light on the video game machine behind the kid.

Flash can freeze much faster action than any shutter speeds your camera have can. You don't need shutter priority to take the shots. Besides, not all shutter speeds can be used with flash. Even if you shoot @ a slower shutter speed with flash, you should still be able to get a clear image of your subject of interest in your photo, only that it/he/she may have some kind of blurry shadow next to it/him/her if it/he/her is moving when the shot is taken.

Also, how far the flash can "reach" depends on the ISO you use. I don't think you need to get a bigger flash

[brmill26]

First, Gracie, these really aren't that bad at all! Just some basic problems, that's all.

The first one, as mentioned, the camera was fooled by the white horse - the flash bounces off the white and the camera thinks the scene is brighter than it really is. The camera will always do this (with this exact same shot) in any mode other than manual. There are a couple ways to fix this - use the AV+/- button and adjust it up +.5 or so. Or, shoot in RAW and make the same adjustment on the computer. Finally, you can shoot it manually and expose it properly, for this shot, maybe just bump the ISO to 800 and leave the rest.

The second one is an extremely dark place. With the way the light is (strong lights behind the subject, subject unlit), you're going to have to use a flash in those situations, otherwise you won't be able to see the subject. The blur is caused by the slow shutter speed - 1/20 is too slow to hand-hold without getting blur. You'll need at least 1/60 with some very steady hands, but more likely 1/80. To raise the shutter speed, the camera needs more light. You can do that several ways - open the aperture wider (smaller f/ number), raise the ISO, or use flash. Or all of the above.


Don't worry, you're not doing bad at all! These are two VERY difficult lighting situations for a camera. You'll learn - it's ALL about the light! Once you understand, on some level, how the camera "sees" light, you'll get it. It's not that hard... just takes time.

[gracie_r]

Wow, thanks everyone! I don't even know where to start replying, there were so many good useful comments.

- I would have never thought about the white horse. What a simple concept, but I can see that it would make a big difference.
- I know the camera has the AFcontinuous servo setting, and I didn't think to use that - so I'll have to keep that in mind for those motion shots.
- I did try some different angles and these two were the best of each scenario I got unfortunately, the light was just so hard to work with!
- I had no idea that the flash was dependant on the ISO! I'll have to look into that some more and learn that relationship too...
- I haven't started playing with the AV+/- function yet, so I'll have to look into that one too (might be easiest to avoid the white horses in the meantime though )

Sorry I didn't reply to all of your comments, but I really do appreciate every one of them. I can't beleive how much I've learned just from this one thread. What a great source of information this board is!

[mn shutterbug]

Gracie, I think you've got some sound advice. I see you're from Southern MN. Whereabouts, may I ask? I live in Marshall. BTW, welcome to this awesome forum.

[gracie_r]

Hi Mike! I am about 45 minutes straight south of the Twin Cities. Near Faribault.

[mn shutterbug]

Gee Gracie, you should have gone to Red Wing with me yesterday. The weather was perfect and the eagles were cooperative. If you go to 442 miles and well worth it. you'll see what I got over there yesterday.

It's nice to have another Minnesotan on the forum.

[Rocket_Scientist]

I didn't see anyone else mention this, and I often hesitate to since it seems so obvious that someone might feel I was offending them, yet I've met many beginners (not on this site) who have not figured it out...

Instead of trying to manage "pushing" (is that the right term?) the exposure with the + or -, I generally use the focus and exposure locking feature. For example, to reduce the impact of the white horse, I would focus, say, on the girl's face and lock the settings by pressing the button half-way down. Then I would re-compose the picture, framing it the way I want, and then snap. This is really necessary when there is an especially bright light some where in the background. Somtimes it bleaches out bright spots, but I tend to get good exposure of the important part(s). Also, if the only problem is that some of the background is slightly dark, you can do a lot with the shadow lioghtening feature of PhotoShop Elements. Meaning: do not be shy about post processing. I tried some on the carousel shot, and I could share it with you if you're interested.

Oh... and by the way... my wife is from St. Paul...

[mn shutterbug]

Instead of trying to manage "pushing" (is that the right term?) the exposure with the + or -, I generally use the focus and exposure locking feature. For example, to reduce the impact of the white horse, I would focus, say, on the girl's face and lock the settings by pressing the button half-way down. Then I would re-compose the picture, framing it the way I want, and then snap. This is really necessary when there is an especially bright light some where in the background. Somtimes it bleaches out bright spots, but I tend to get good exposure of the important part(s).

But, you would need to set the camera to spot meter and I don't believe all cameras have true spot metering. Otherwise, it makes total sense.

[Rocket_Scientist]

But, you would need to set the camera to spot meter...

Well, I don't know that my camera has that, but I can set it to focus at the center. In general, I am trying to eliminate the camera "reading" a hot spot, or other distraction, and trying to pick out some area (not necessarily a point, or "spot") that represents the "average" of the exposure I want. This is, more or less, how I've always done it, all the way back to when I used a film SLR, except there I would get the aperture and shutter readings (with just the camera) and then use them as manual settings. That camera did not have autofocus.

[mn shutterbug]

That works fine for the focus, if the camera is set for spot focus. However, if the camera is set for evaluative metering, locking the settings on the face won't do your exposure any good.

[AgingEyes]

For example, to reduce the impact of the white horse, I would focus, say, on the girl's face and lock the settings by pressing the button half-way down. Then I would re-compose the picture, framing it the way I want, and then snap.

Perhaps you're saying you zoom in to the girl's face so that the entire frame is on her, take the meter's reading, lock the reading, zoom out, then shoot?

If you simply get a focus lock on the face instead of really zooming in to take the reading on the girl's face, then the exposure reading will still be affected by the surrounding when you actually take the shot. Think about shooting a black cat on a bright sunny beach. The photo should have the cat pretty centered but with the majority of the background being the beach brightly lit by the sun. Will the exposure readings be different between the first shot focusing on the black cat and the second shot focusing on the sand (assuming you can do that for a moment) a few inches away from the cat, without changing the lens? I doubt it. Even if nothing is in focus, the exposure reading should be the same if the scene and lighting remain the same.

If you don't zoom in, then it's likely you'd be using spot meter reading, take a reading on the girl's face, lock the exposure, recompose and shoot.

[gracie_r]

I would focus, say, on the girl's face and lock the settings by pressing the button half-way down. Then I would re-compose the picture, framing it the way I want, and then snap.
Oh... and by the way... my wife is from St. Paul...

This is actually how I usually shoot - unfortunately the carosel was moving so fast I wasn't able to in this situation. I do use Photoshop a little bit, and have on a few pictures I've taken before, but I'd love to see what you did too. Feel free to post (or send?) them!

And your wife should be glad she is down in OK - it was one heck of a winter this year! We are finally warming up a little this week.

[gracie_r]

However, if the camera is set for evaluative metering, locking the settings on the face won't do your exposure any good.

If evaluative metering is the default, that is probably where it is set, I haven't played with that at all. That explains why even when I do focus as the previous poster mentioned, it hasn't made a difference.

If you simply get a focus lock on the face instead of really zooming in to take the reading on the girl's face, then the exposure reading will still be affected by the surrounding when you actually take the shot.

Yes, and this is what I do (and would have done if I had the time here). That makes sense about what you are saying how the camera needs to read it.

Thanks again everyone for the replies!

[AgingEyes]

This is actually how I usually shoot - unfortunately the carosel was moving so fast I wasn't able to in this situation.

What I usually do is to shoot before the carousel actually moves. After it started moving, well, may be you could try do a pan shot. Otherwise, just use the flash.

Don't take it wrong. IMO, for the kind of photos like what you've posted, I would just pull out my full-auto fujifilm f40fd and get it done with, if, what you really want is the photos by any means. Right now, your first photo up isn't all lost either. It can be fixed easily.

[freygr]

I said I'd try to post some examples connected to my earlier question - and here they are!

Any ideas on how these could have been taken better? I am not really concerned about style stuff now, more on how to just get the basics down of lighting and such. But feel free to comment on whatever!

ISO 400, 1/125, f/5. I used the flash, but I hate how the flash feels - looks so washed out or something. I try to avoid it whenever possible.

ISO 800, 1/20, f3.5. No flash here, but as you can see it turned out blurry...

I think I was using shutter priority on the first one and aperature priority on the second. So if you would have grabbed your camera and tried to get these shots, what settings would you have started with?

Thanks for any comments!

Look at what is in focus in both PHOTOs. You auto focus failed you. The lens is wide open so you don't have any Depth of Field (DOF). This is a common problem so you will either have to go over the auto focus settings in the camera's manual an set the auto focus mode or use manual focus.