File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I'm a beginner photographer, and I was wondering if I could get some general tips
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A70Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size5.41 - 16.22 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 2.00Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:07:15 10:48:07Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.41 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1536Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeFull AutoImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeAutoCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance1.310 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed128Image Number126-2662
>> Anonymous
Imm a newb but i like it, comp looks good. lost alot of cool and shadows tho
>> N.C.F.
     File :-(, x)
here's an awesome tip

Don't ask 4chan for tips.
>> Anonymous
>>63277
Unless you want to hear...shove the camera up your but and squeeze real hard, then tell us what that picture looks like.
>> Anonymous
>>63277
coming from someone who thinks png is a legitimate format for photography.

fuck off.
>> ^^
i have one wonderful tip... use google ^^
>> Anonymous
>>63285
hey, I liek png. It doesn't get shitty jpeg artifacts all over it.

Anyway, I think this photo might've been a good candidate for HDR; that way the top of the tree wouldn't be so overexposed. It's an interesting subject, but the light on the rocks is dull. I'd suggest you go back there and try it from different angles and heights.
>> Anonymous !Bjd0a/XWuE
>>63277

Thats not a tip, thats a protip.
>> Anonymous
>>63285

.png is good because it's lossless so you can save your photo and show someone without opening in raw. .jpeg is good for 4chan because it doesn't use bandwidth. If I saw a serious photographer shooting in only jpeg I would tell them to stop.
>> Anonymous
>>63277

I came.
>> Anonymous
A tip for you would be to mess around with your metering. The reason that the highlights are so blown out is because you likely metered on the darkest thing in the composition. Likewise you don't want to meter on the brightest thing as most of the photo will be under exposed. Try to find something that is in the middle range (like part of the rock face that is fairly well lit) at the same distance (so focus isn't compromised) as what you really want to be the main subject (in this case the tree). Once you have it metered then move the camera as needed to frame your subject correctly. You kinda have to get a feel for it and it's different for different cameras. You may not get it in focus the first time so always take multiple exposures of the subject.
>> Anonymous
>>63312
a bag of cocks.
you must eat them.
>> Anonymous
>>63315

gb2 /b/
>> Sorry I couldn't resist Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Did some clean up, toned down highlights and such.
I think it makes a much better B&W

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A70Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:07:18 04:14:04Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.41 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1536Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Take alot of pictures and always underexpose. It's easier to fix under exposed pictures than overexposed ones.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>63384
Wouldn't it be better to, you know, expose correctly rather than always underexposing?

Seems like it would...
>> Anonymous
>>63399
youre a cool guy and all, ac, but that's just plain crazy talk
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>63384
Actually, less flippant response:

It's actually better to overexpose as much as possible rather than underexposing. That "As much as possible" is key, though.

See, a digital camera's sensor is a lot better at recording information from brighter sources than dark ones. When you underexpose, you lose some color information and you're a bit more likely to have noise in the underexposed areas. If you underexpose and brighten in post, you lose a lot of information in the shadows. On the other hand, if you overexpose and then darken, you don't lose information.

HOWEVER: This all goes to hell when your pixel gets to the brightest point the camera can deal with. The pixel will spike at 255 and you get nothing but whiteness, no details whatsoever. So you want to check the histogram (and preferably a color histogram, since it's possible for just one color to clip and "luminance" histograms usually only show you the green channel) after shooting and adjust appropriately so that the histogram's weighted towards the right without anything important getting clipped off into oblivion.
>> Anonymous
>>63408is a noob. Don't listen to him.

Digital sensors clip highlights. They don't clip shadows. You can actually gain a stop or two in dynamic range by underxposing and stretching the histogram, with the obvious trade-off in noise. It's just like with slide film (they even have the same tonal response curve); if you overexpose, you don't have any information to fix. This isn't even getting into JPEG architecture, which stores way more information in the first 75% of the histogram than in the last 25% (highlights). So, to recap, underexpose if you're ever in doubt. But also learn how to properly expose, noob.

And nice photo. probably the nicest on /p right now, clipped sky notwithstanding.
>> Anonymous
>>63418
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>63418
>Digital sensors clip highlights. They don't clip shadows.
You realize that, by this logic, you could take a picture at 1/1000th, f/5.6 by candlelight and just shift the brightness slider to see what was in the room, right?

They most certainly do clip shadows.
>> Anonymous
>>63423

Without a doubt, and I did overstate the point. Shadows do clip, but highlights clip much faster than shadows with a digital sensor. I'll prove my point shortly.

>>63420

links are the laziest arguments of all. for shame.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>63426
The luminous landscape article he linked basically gave the same argument that I did. And you don't seem to have actually read my argument, so it probably would've saved everyone time if I'd just linked to the LL article myself...

One of the key points in my reply--and I threw some uppercase letters by it for emphasis and everything--is that what you want to do is to overexpose right up to the point where things might clip, but no further.
>> Anonymous
>>63426

The purpose of linking was two-fold:

1. Michael Reichmann, who wrote the article, is a recognized, experienced expert on photography. He knows more than you, ac, and I do put together. I was hoping you would bother to look and recognize that fact.

2. He explains it better than I could because he has a better grasp on the technical issues.

It's not lazy; it's efficient except when dealing with people too arrogant to actually examine things, which I assumed I wasn't.
>> Anonymous
I don't believe you guys either way. I think achieving the proper exposure for the photo is what you should go for. If you want more range then get a tripod and do some hdr.
>> Anonymous
>>63445

1. This looks realistic, whereas HDR almost never does.

2. Tripods and multiple exposures aren't always possible. In fact, they're usually not for everyone except landscape photographers.
>> Anonymous
>>634471. This looks realistic, whereas HDR almost never does.

That's a fairly large assumption there.
>> Anonymous
>>634472. Tripods and multiple exposures aren't always possible. In fact, they're usually not for everyone except landscape photographers.

Well duh. For anywhere on land with a static subject, I think you can do it. :P
>> Anonymous
>>This looks realistic, whereas HDR almost never does.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. There is no doubt in my mind you can find thousands of HDR photos on flickr that look completely unrealistic; but they're doing it wrong. I was able to make a HDR panorama that doesn't look like I used an HDR program. The problem is a lot of people feel the urge to put the saturation on full blow and increase the dynamic range to over nine thousand. When used in moderation you can come out with some good photos.
>> Anonymous
>>63459
Of course it's possible to make a good, realistic HDR. But I said "almost never," which is true.
>> Anonymous
>>63487

It's really quite wrong actually.
>> Anonymous
>>63399
>>63384
>>63445

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned bracketing yet. Yes, it would be ideal to get the correct exposure first time but we aren't all perfect. Any camera with decent manual controls will provide this feature. So long as the memory card has room it's very useful. Plus, it is even possible to do a limited form of HDR with the over and under exposure images.
>> Anonymous
anyone wanna actually post a proper HDR photo? since you're all experts and all.

Where's a guide to do it properly?>
>> Anonymous
>>63791

There used to be some good ones on the FM forums; but most attempts at HDR come out looking badly mainly for one reason, lack of exposed shots to go from.

3 isn't enough and, usually, 6 is barely enough. Most well-done HDR requires around 9 to 12 bracketed shots to get a good tonal variation. Otherwise, you will either get a minimal difference or have the exposure differences very coarse across the whole photo.

I would take photos and do a photomerge in Photoshop (not the HDR option, but that is still fine)and play around with the levels and curves. Try to tone down the highlights and bring up the shadow/darker areas of the photo.

I'll post back if I can find some of the HDR I did on photos awhile back.
>> Anonymous
1. point camera at person, place or thing
2. tak picture