This bums me out... wide angle

[MeatPuppet]

Don't shoot in aRGB. There are some professional situations where it is necessary and beneficial. But all applications using the image need to be colorspace aware or else aRGB will look dull.

I should add that aRGB is slightly better but if you're not sure that everything you want to view the photo with is aware your shot is aRGB you'll get into trouble.

I would say to always shoot in aRGB. sRGB is optimized to be viewed on a monitor. aRGB records more information than sRGB. Better to record more information than less, and leave your options open for future use. Shoot RAW and set the default color space in PS to sRGB. When you convert the RAW file it will ask you if you want to use the embedded color space(aRGB) or convert the file to the default working space(sRGB). Very easy.

[amyzilla]

Does anyone know where the anti-manual "advice" started from?

I'm guessing it's because some people think it's a waste of film, which is kind of a moot point these days.

I tend to shoot on P&S mode first to see what the camera comes up with, then I shoot on manual with some different settings, and then compare the histograms.

[grizzle6]

Here is a photo that totally bummed me out. Looking through the viewfinder, the scene was stunning. What came out looked like a pile of steaming turd.



Things that I already know:
1. Not to shoot during direct sun--this was more of an opportunistic shot, so I had no choice. Better light would have helped.
2. The range of exposure here, from the rocks to the shadowed bank, is high. Should I use a graduated ND filter? Should I make multiple exposures and combine in PS?
3. Due to high range of exposures, I feel like I might be in no mans land, where the rocks are overexposed and the shadows are underexposed. I have other shots where the trees appear correctly exposed, but the boulders are totally blown out.
4. There is no definitive subject, but that does not concern me at this point.
5. ISO 800 and f/18 are not optimal--this just happened to be a photo that illustrated my point well...

Nate--
This is bad ju-ju for your photography. If you ever want an image to look half as good (or better) than the scene you saw with your own peepers, you have to commit to creating a solid photography. The fact is that you are taking a three-dimensional "experience" and trying to recreate it in a two-dimensional rectangle. You NEED an engaging subject. You NEED soft or workable light. You NEED a solid composition. To say these things don't concern you because the photo was simply opportunistic is to say "what I saw was beautiful, but I know it won't come across in my image cause I didn't make the effort." An opportunistic photo will look like exactly that--opportunistic. The last thing I ever want any of my images to look like is that it was happenstance. I want it to look as though I had picked that location for that time of day or evening for that season for that very moment. Say "no" to snapshots if you're trying to convey the beauty of a scene.

I can recall the moment I started to get serious about my photography is when I quit looking at beautiful scenes and saying "oh I'll shoot that next time" or "I'll shoot this, but I don't need to set up my tripod or spend time acquainting myself with the scene or blah blah blah" and I started actually doing what I knew needed to be done to capture a meaningful and lasting image.

As for this image, this is a super difficult type of image for most digital sensors (or at least the ones that I've dealt with). High contrast is a killer. The difference in dynamic range between trees and rocks probably didn't look so intense to your eye, but your sensor doesn't have the dynamic range that your eye does. In this case, it would have been wise to use a soft transition Grad ND on the FG rocks. Nothing too crazy, maybe a 1-stop or 2-stop max, but it would give you just enough to be able to properly expose for the rocks, and bring out more shadow detail in the trees. It's not your typical use of a Grad ND, but this is an occasion where the FG for the most part is much brighter than the rest of the image. Regardless, with a shot like this, it's going to be very tough to recreate this scene as you saw it. The light is pretty harsh. Sometime you really have to choose what you'd like to showcase or focus on in your images. What's more important in this shot--the rocks or the trees? Decide, and compose, meter and expose accordingly. If they're both equally important, than you'd have to go back under different lighting. From what I can gather with this image, it seems that dawn or light overcast skies would be best.

Definitely not trying to bust your chops here, rather just share from past experience. Obviously, not all of us are out to Ansel the snot out of every scene we see, but it's smart to practice good shooting habits early on. And for the record, I'd say I spend less than 10 min. PP on 90% of my images. I can do this because I capture the image correctly in camera and don't have to do much more than simple global (and sometimes small local) adjustments to each image. If you're capturing the image correctly in camera, there really are only a couple things you need to know in PS:

1. Learn how to set your black and white points with levels (or curves).
2. Learn how to adjust your midtones with curves
3. Be sparing with the saturation. Do just enough, and no more. (I recommend actually getting familiar with the selective color tool, as it gives you much more control over individual colors, and tends to yield a more natural look than saturation).

Sorry for the novel of a post. Guess I should've made chapters for this one...

[Tippster]

pffft. Dick.

[LeeLau]

Grizz - as someone who struggles (a lot) with high contrast shots thank you for that post!

[summit]

Grizz that was a very good post!

[Natedogg]

So Griz, can I send you all of my photos for this analysis?

Just kidding. Thanks VERY much for the detailed post. That was fkna awesome. You can bust my chops all day long if you want to get that detailed.

The first two paragraphs I think I already know, and I accepted about this photo. This was--to me--a 'throw away' because of all of that. Instead, this was a photo that I thought displayed the weakness of color that I feel my body is producing. Maybe it was a bad example. The background of the photo is that I was waiting for the MTB park to open at Sunday River in ME, so I drove up a dirt road looking for photo spots. This is not a spot that I would really come back to, but it (and several others) exemplified what I think of as poor color representation.

Unfortunately, I think I am comparing my digital photos to slides way too much--I feel like my slides (primarily Velvia, Provia, and E100VS) were extremely lenient with dynamic range [look at this shit, I must be learning a ton from all of you guys--I'm already using the term dynamic range in sentences! Thanks for that!] and the colors came out absolutely stunning with little "real" photographic knowledge. It was basically "give the kid a roll of slide film and a ticket to some cool places and he'll come back with amazing photos." I have awesome slides of pink/red sunsets in Idaho, turquoise blue glacial lakes in NZ, and deep green forests of New England. In the six months of owning the 20D, I don't have anything that holds a candle to those shots, and it's frustrating the shit out of me.

Of course, I have taken your post #19 to heart. It makes sense that all the R&D that goes into manufacturing a film (like E100VS or Velvia) is lost, and now *I* am the one who has to do that with post-processing. Logic. I love it.

And for the record, I'd say I spend less than 10 min. PP on 90% of my images.

Good to hear, although I'm wondering if your 10 minutes is my 10 hours... But seriously, great to know, thanks for revealing that. You are alluding to what I said in post #20:

but right now my goal is to get the maximum out of the raw images from my body with as little modification as possible

Call it chest-thumping whatever; I call it "I'd rather be fooling with dials and menus or waiting for the correct light in the field than fucking around with it sitting in front of my computer."

Anyway, thanks again Griz for the great post.

[Natedogg]

heavy overcast (lets say EV12.33)
1. Your camera meter is a reflectivity meter, not an incidence meter.
2. If you are on matrix mode you never know which zones your camera is favoring which makes proper EC nearly impossible, you'll just have to trust the computer.
3. If you are on spot metering while actively shooting under an automated shooting mode, your composition will be compromised as you uncompose to aim your meter

It usually locks you into matrix metering and affects the zone biases algorithms for metering calculations based on likely landscape profiles. The mode is biased against flash use and locks you out of most image parameter, exposure compenastion, and RAW.
And now you know what landscape mode does.

Jesus, I have a lot to learn. Time to hit the books!

Don't shoot in aRGB.

I would say to always shoot in aRGB.

Does this require a poll?

Thanks to everyone for the adivce in this thread. The information in these three pages will keep me busy for quite a while.
BTW, any New England photo mags want some company on any photo outings, let me know. Beers will be offered as payment.

[Natedogg]

The difference in dynamic range between trees and rocks probably didn't look so intense to your eye, but your sensor doesn't have the dynamic range that your eye does.

The book I pulled off the shelf tonight was Galen Rowell's Vision, and page 82 made me think of this sentence in your post:
"The range of usable detail on fine-grained Kodak or Fuji slide films is about a stop and a half of exposure in either direction. These three stops equate to a brightness range of about 8 to 1 that can be increased to 64 to 1 with a three-stop ND grad. ... it pales beside the eye's eleven-stop range of about 2,000 to 1."



Another good resource for me will probably be all the Outdoor Photographer rags that I've kept over the years. I knew I kept them for a reason...

[dr_scrotus]

Random:

Finally got my slides back from my own test of sensor 'crop factor.' What a pissah.

Are those from the sundial in Woods Hole?

[Natedogg]

Nope, between Eastern and Avery Points in Groton, CT.

[MeatPuppet]

Does this require a poll?

Here is a good thread on the subject.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25452316