Shawn Winsley
New member
Hello all. C&C Please. Trying to better my work.
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
The Bride
- Thread starter Shawn Winsley
- Start date
James Roberts
New member
It's a little small to comment on...
Shawn--what's the point of this shot? Is it meant to be illustrative or something?
Even at small magnifications this is way over-processed IMO for any normal wedding photo, to say the least. And it's too bad, since the light probably wasn't awful and her expression is fine.
There's nothing special about the rest of the shot either--the blinds and the truck tell a strange "bride at the office" story.
But seriously, the very worst thing about this is the processing.
I would try making it an unprocessed BW (the colour doesn't lend anything to the shot anyway--you've got two white balances on her face, and the red tail-light is distracting--BW will make all that go away).
Shawn--what's the point of this shot? Is it meant to be illustrative or something?
Even at small magnifications this is way over-processed IMO for any normal wedding photo, to say the least. And it's too bad, since the light probably wasn't awful and her expression is fine.
There's nothing special about the rest of the shot either--the blinds and the truck tell a strange "bride at the office" story.
But seriously, the very worst thing about this is the processing.
I would try making it an unprocessed BW (the colour doesn't lend anything to the shot anyway--you've got two white balances on her face, and the red tail-light is distracting--BW will make all that go away).
Shawn Winsley
New member
Thanks James. This was from a workshop. Trying to figure out how to make it bigger. I adjusted the highlights and shadows and that gave the blinds the look. Before, you could see each of the blinds. I will try the BW. Thanks again!
Shawn Winsley
New member
Here is a straight color to BW conversion. Sorry, still can figure out how to make it larger.
James Roberts
New member
Shawn--so now the biggest problem with the shot is that you underexposed it a couple of stops for the bride's face.
When faced with a situation like this, you should try to expose correctly in the camera. By the way, the underexposure is another reason the colour version was so far off.
I took the liberty of correcting the exposure a bit in PS--a 20 second fix with a curve. See how blown out the background should be? (this is one reason I hate matrix meters
)
But fixing things in PS is a pain in the neck. You want to get it right in the camera. Buy an incident meter if you need to and learn to use it... that will get you a better improvement in your photography than a workshop.
When faced with a situation like this, you should try to expose correctly in the camera. By the way, the underexposure is another reason the colour version was so far off.
I took the liberty of correcting the exposure a bit in PS--a 20 second fix with a curve. See how blown out the background should be? (this is one reason I hate matrix meters
) But fixing things in PS is a pain in the neck. You want to get it right in the camera. Buy an incident meter if you need to and learn to use it... that will get you a better improvement in your photography than a workshop.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Jamie,
Greetings and thanks for being here! You have given great advice and it's worth a $10^6!
I used to use my Minoltat IV all the time. Now I have gotten into the habit of getting the person to hold in the incident light an 8"x10" black, white and grey card, the three stripes. Then I check this in the LCD. That way I easily see that the illumination will allow me to photograph an entire range of the reflections.
When I use the lightmeter I can, of course go further and map out the light on her hair, each side of her face and the background and make accurate changes with my lights. Still, do you do that each time to that detailed extent or is it just second nature and you take one reading form her face and another from her dress and that's that?
Asher
Greetings and thanks for being here! You have given great advice and it's worth a $10^6!
I used to use my Minoltat IV all the time. Now I have gotten into the habit of getting the person to hold in the incident light an 8"x10" black, white and grey card, the three stripes. Then I check this in the LCD. That way I easily see that the illumination will allow me to photograph an entire range of the reflections.
When I use the lightmeter I can, of course go further and map out the light on her hair, each side of her face and the background and make accurate changes with my lights. Still, do you do that each time to that detailed extent or is it just second nature and you take one reading form her face and another from her dress and that's that?
Asher
James Roberts
New member
Hi Asher,
On location for events, essentially I've "calibrated" my camera's (reflective) meter with a series of incident tests. I put the cameras on "spot" or as close as I can and place whatever is important in the scene where I want it in relation to where I know the camera's meter will place tones.
For example, if I know I have to hold detail in the bride's (white) dress, I can set the spot meter in my D3 to just about +1.75 stops, which will render just about RGB 242/242/242 (if, of course, the dress is truly white) in my RAW processing. Then, until the light changes or my subject changes, I don't need to meter again.
This is very quick and painless. I don't have to stop my workflow to take multiple meter readings or make anyone hold anything (other than a bouquet)
When I'm doing studio work, and have more time, I'll use an incident meter almost exclusively. In general, all I need to know is the exposure for the (particular) light falling on the subject, not what it reflects back to me. At this point I'm ignoring what the camera says
The only time I'll use an external reflective spot is with a subject I can't frame effectively to meter with the dSLR's spot and where the light falling on the subject is inaccessible to me (and so I can't use an incident meter).
On location for events, essentially I've "calibrated" my camera's (reflective) meter with a series of incident tests. I put the cameras on "spot" or as close as I can and place whatever is important in the scene where I want it in relation to where I know the camera's meter will place tones.
For example, if I know I have to hold detail in the bride's (white) dress, I can set the spot meter in my D3 to just about +1.75 stops, which will render just about RGB 242/242/242 (if, of course, the dress is truly white) in my RAW processing. Then, until the light changes or my subject changes, I don't need to meter again.
This is very quick and painless. I don't have to stop my workflow to take multiple meter readings or make anyone hold anything (other than a bouquet
) When I'm doing studio work, and have more time, I'll use an incident meter almost exclusively. In general, all I need to know is the exposure for the (particular) light falling on the subject, not what it reflects back to me. At this point I'm ignoring what the camera says
The only time I'll use an external reflective spot is with a subject I can't frame effectively to meter with the dSLR's spot and where the light falling on the subject is inaccessible to me (and so I can't use an incident meter).
Shawn Winsley
New member
Again, THANKS! It's great to get the comments. I know that I have ALOT of learning ahead of me but I have to start somewhere. This is a great forum for learning!!