An improved photo of Karina?

[Catalina]

Is this one better than the other one?

Did I do worst this time?

Please c y c.

[Shadowman]

Can you post both within the same thread?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Catalina,

Much better in my opinion. Exif is 1/80s, f4.8, -2.0EV, ISO200, Programmed Auto mode.

Exposure is pretty good and I see you compensated by -2.0EV, did you use the histogram to determine this?

This has got to be the sharpest image you have shown us so far, well done.

Grahame

[Catalina]

Dear Grahme: I don't know how to interpret the histogram.
Thank you,

Catalina

[Catalina]

I will try, John, thanks for the suggestion,
Cordially,
Catalina

[Downrigger]

Good job Catalina. I haven't seen the first but I wonder if her face is what is called "soft" meaning very slightly out of focus - or maybe it's just my eyes. See what you think. The hair over her shoulder seems quite sharp though as does some of the background. I wonder if the autofocus fixed on something behind her face?
Sometimes the pros adjust their photographs to make faces look smoother, but Karina doesn't need that.

[chauncey]

I like the subject and image as a whole but, there is something that puzzles me...most everything is sharp and crispy, braids, blouse, earrings...everything except her face.

[Jim B.]

Nice image.

It's a little underexposed and needs a touch of output sharpening.
Hope you don't mind the edit.

[Geoff F]

That edit is exactly what I was thinking, Jim.

[Stagecoach]

Dear Grahme: I don't know how to interpret the histogram.
Thank you,

Catalina

Hello Catalina,

You can see from the edit that Jim has done a change in both exposure (lighting) and sharpness that both enhance the image. The changes he has made are fairly minor and would be considered normal standard routine. What is very significant is that to be able to make these basic 'improvements' in post processing you MUST be able to start with a good image captured within the camera which you had achieved this time.

I am still intrigued as to what your reasoning was based upon to give this image a -2.0EV exposure compensation if you did not use the histogram to determine the need for it. It was certainly a good choice.

The reason I feel this is worthwhile looking at is that achieving good exposure confidently and repeatable is one of the main areas within your learning at present.

Grahame

[shreds]

Hi Catalina,

Since I commented on your previous shot, I will say that this is a marked improvement and you have certainly tried to improve things. I recall the previous shot was manually focussed? Was this the same? I would go along with most of the comments made above (I just didn't find this thread quickly enough), but congratulations on getting Karina to pose again for you, if this was the case, unless it is from the previous session? The smirk is so telling!

Jim has done a lovely job in bringing this shot 'up' and I just wonder if there is anything that is happening with the camera that is producing slightly 'off' shots before they go through PP. Ideally, the image that Jim has produced should be your starting point direct from the camera, which would give more latitude for any other 'tweaks' to the shot.

You asked about histograms, try reading up here:- https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...istograms1.htm

[Stagecoach]

Hi Catalina,
Jim has done a lovely job in bringing this shot 'up' and I just wonder if there is anything that is happening with the camera that is producing slightly 'off' shots before they go through PP. Ideally, the image that Jim has produced should be your starting point direct from the camera, which would give more latitude for any other 'tweaks' to the shot.

You asked about histograms, try reading up here:- https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...istograms1.htm

Ian,

I have been following Catalina's posts for some time now and trying to diagnose exactly what is happening as we have seen a wide variation in image quality with respect to exposure, noise and sharpness.

Catalina has previously advised that her camera/lens does not Autofocus due to a fault so all focusing is done manually.

With respect to this image posted by Catalina what we do not know is if any post processing has been done or what affect any downsizing for downloading has had on it's sharpening/softness.

Having looked at the full Exif of all images it is obvious that there is a distinct variation in picture control settings and at times 'soft focus' and 'soft contrast' settings selected. It has not yet been confirmed if these changes have been concious decisions.

I'm also wondering if there's something not quite right causing shots to be off slightly and basing this on two observation from the last two images posted;

a) For this image in what appears good balanced lighting why would Programme Mode require a corrective compensation of -2.0EV? Admittedly this 2.0EV has given an exposure where the 'jewels' are not clipping which would have been acceptable.

b) For the image of the girl in the flower greenhouse there was considerable noise far greater than I would have expected at ISO400? (Note - Programme Mode with -4.7EV was used so I suspect exposure was increased in post hence noise)

Interesting.

Grahame