Neglected 35 f1.8:

[AB26]

This morning, before work.
Playing around with some camera settings while using my neglected 35 f1.8 Nikkor lens.

WB was set, using the histogram. Manual focus, focusing in and out, at f9, to see what my eye liked most with regard to DOF.

I am fairly happy with this shot. What do you think? Any suggestions for improvement will be appreciated.

Thanks for viewing.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[IzzieK]

Just my opinion -- since you have already clipped the sides too closely, why not include some more cropping at the bottom too to make it a square composition? -- only if you haven't tried this yet...

[AB26]

Nicely done.

Thank you John.

[AB26]

Just my opinion -- since you have already clipped the sides too closely, why not include some more cropping at the bottom too to make it a square composition? -- only if you haven't tried this yet...

Izzie,

I’ve got a bad habit of shooting very tightly. On this shot I got in very close to the flower and I did not crop the sides, it was shot like that. The aspect ratio was changed to 4:3, from the bottom.

Cropping off the bottom, any further, will cut the crown of the flower at the bottom and it will reduce the stem the subject is growing on, it will also disturb the balance in the image. You are most welcome to try different crops and see how it works. To me it does not look right. The OOF parts of the flower is restricting possibilities of a tighter crop.

I was supposed to use a tripod for the shot but my wife will shove the tripod up my, you know what, setting up a tripod in her flower bed, damaging other flowers. It is easy to shoot tight when using a tripod, but handheld it is not as easy as a slight move of the camera cuts edges. Ok, I will work on it, shoot wider and crop in PP.

Thanks for the comment.

[bnnrcn]

Nice image

[Downrigger]

I think this handsomely shows the form and nature of your subject. I think you got the DOF perfectly, in the sense that there is teensy softness on the nearest and furthest portions which I think enhances the 3-D feel. The crop feels/looks right, to me.

I'm interested in what you meant by: "WB was set, using the histogram." Could you elaborate?

[AB26]

Nice image

Thank you Binnur.

[AB26]

I think this handsomely shows the form and nature of your subject. I think you got the DOF perfectly, in the sense that there is teensy softness on the nearest and furthest portions which I think enhances the 3-D feel. The crop feels/looks right, to me.

I'm interested in what you meant by: "WB was set, using the histogram." Could you elaborate?

Thank you Mark.

I now use the histogram to get the correct White Balance. Tend to do it more and more.
It is simple, get the red and blue channels to look alike. Does not work for all subjects but is effective when you understand what a "perfect histogram" should look like.

[DanK]

A nice shot, although I think the DOF is too shallow. The central point (in my opinion, anyway), is the petals in the front of the top part, and they are OOF.

Re this:

I now use the histogram to get the correct White Balance. Tend to do it more and more.
It is simple, get the red and blue channels to look alike. Does not work for all subjects but is effective when you understand what a "perfect histogram" should look like.

There have been long threads about this recently. I don't get this. There is no "perfect histogram." An accurate WB can produce a dramatically different mix of color channels with one image than with another. While it is true that changing WB can have a minor effect on the histogram, the only way to get an accurate WB (which is not necessarily what you want) is to use a spectrally neutral target.

I'll illustrate this with two shots of flowers that had WB set with a neutral target. Here is the first:



Here is the histogram:



Now consider this Zinnia:



And here is the histogram:



If you look at the mix of colors in the two images, it is obvious that the histograms have to be different. The second one, for example, has the distribution of red far to the right, showing that a lot of the bright pixels in the zinnia are red. The lilly shows a peak of the yellow channel to the right. The zinnia doesn't, and shouldn't. Notice that the red and blue channels are dramatically different in the lilly shot. They should be. If I had a spectrally neutral area in the photo, and if I were somehow able to restrict the histogram to that area, the red and blue channels should balance in that histogram. However, many shots don't have spectrally neutral areas, and in any event, the histogram represents the entire image.

I wouldn't have much of a clue how to set WB based on the histograms. Clearly, reds should be to the right in the second one, but how much so? and where do the other curves belong?

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Ah, you caught it. I was going to say both flowers looked the same.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Andre, I think it's a nicely done shot. I'm wondering if this lens is a tad soft on center focus at f9. I have a few Nikkor lenses and find the sweet spot is closer to f5-f8 on some. I know the DOF will change somewhat but could you take the same shot at f5 or 6 instead for comparisons sake? I think the image would have more impact if the texture of the leaves or petals of the flower could stand out more.

[Stagecoach]

Thank you Mark.

I now use the histogram to get the correct White Balance. Tend to do it more and more.
It is simple, get the red and blue channels to look alike. Does not work for all subjects but is effective when you understand what a "perfect histogram" should look like.

Andre, are you referring to the simple method of using a grey card adjacent to your subject (receiving the same lighting) and adjusting the camera WB setting to align the separate R, G & B peaks on the RGB histograms?

[AB26]

Thank you Dan.

A nice shot, although I think the DOF is too shallow. The central point (in my opinion, anyway), is the petals in the front of the top part, and they are OOF.

Depending on the viewer and the purpose of the shot, I would approach the shot differently. If I was shooting for the botany class I would have used different light, a different lens and a different perspective.

This shot would suit the botany class better:



It is all flat with lots of detail in the image.

There have been long threads about this recently. I don't get this. There is no "perfect histogram." An accurate WB can produce a dramatically different mix of color channels with one image than with another. While it is true that changing WB can have a minor effect on the histogram, the only way to get an accurate WB (which is not necessarily what you want) is to use a spectrally neutral target.

I have noticed a distinct pattern in using the histogram to set the WB. It gives me a very solid base to start from without using any additional aids to get the correct WB.

I am still busy with experiments but from what I have done thus far the results are consistent. It seems there is some science hidden in the histogram.

Changing WB has a dramatic effect on the histogram. It is possible to “pull” the red and blue channels to any side of the graph by adjusting colour temperature.

I'll illustrate this with two shots of flowers that had WB set with a neutral target.

If you look at the mix of colors in the two images, it is obvious that the histograms have to be different. The second one, for example, has the distribution of red far to the right, showing that a lot of the bright pixels in the zinnia are red. The lilly shows a peak of the yellow channel to the right. The zinnia doesn't, and shouldn't. Notice that the red and blue channels are dramatically different in the lilly shot. They should be. If I had a spectrally neutral area in the photo, and if I were somehow able to restrict the histogram to that area, the red and blue channels should balance in that histogram. However, many shots don't have spectrally neutral areas, and in any event, the histogram represents the entire image.

I wouldn't have much of a clue how to set WB based on the histograms. Clearly, reds should be to the right in the second one, but how much so? and where do the other curves belong?

I like both of the examples you posted. Flowers seem to pop better on a black BG.

The screen I am working on now is not the best of screens. It is pretty much calibrated to what I see on the back of my cameras. So whatever I see on my screen might not be what you see on yours.

The Lilly seems a tad yollowish to me. The greens have a clear yellow tint in it. The histogram indicates too much red and not enough blue in it.



The Zennia histogram was clipped to the right. Too much red removes detail in the red. Pulling back a tad on the red enhances the red giving more detail in the red petals.



How accurate is WB when set using a neutral grey card? Is the histogram perhaps a better indication of "true colour"?

Perhaps there is a "perfect histogram". If something is consistent there must be some truth in it?

[AB26]

Andre, I think it's a nicely done shot. I'm wondering if this lens is a tad soft on center focus at f9. I have a few Nikkor lenses and find the sweet spot is closer to f5-f8 on some. I know the DOF will change somewhat but could you take the same shot at f5 or 6 instead for comparisons sake? I think the image would have more impact if the texture of the leaves or petals of the flower could stand out more.

Thank you Alan,

I have not yet found a Nikkor lens to be "soft" at f9. Beyond f16 a bit of diffraction might set in.

The same flower at the opposite time of day: Same lens. Different mood. Different shot.



Light changes and with it the WB changes.

[AB26]

Andre, are you referring to the simple method of using a grey card adjacent to your subject (receiving the same lighting) and adjusting the camera WB setting to align the separate R, G & B peaks on the RGB histograms?

Pretty much something like that. Without using a grey card.

Check the histogram in this shot, almost perfect.
You can believe the colours are "true".

[Stagecoach]

Pretty much something like that. Without using a grey card.

Check the histogram in this shot, almost perfect.
You can believe the colours are "true".

So what is your definition of a 'perfect' histogram with respect to white balance Andre?

Assuming that you are attempting to achieve the 'correct' white balance for a subject (not a grey card) what are you aiming to see in the histogram when adjusting camera WB?

If we compare the histogram of Dan's tulip and your succulent histogram and assume they are both correct with respect to WB (ignoring minor errors) what balance or similarity can you recognise between the two obviously different histogram arrangements?

[IzzieK]

Good question.

[AB26]

So what is your definition of a 'perfect' histogram with respect to white balance Andre?

Assuming that you are attempting to achieve the 'correct' white balance for a subject (not a grey card) what are you aiming to see in the histogram when adjusting camera WB?

If we compare the histogram of Dan's tulip and your succulent histogram and assume they are both correct with respect to WB (ignoring minor errors) what balance or similarity can you recognise between the two obviously different histogram arrangements?

If there is consistency in the histogram, perfect WB can be attained by using the histogram without any additional aid.

Before taking this shot I set WB, using the histogram, after taking a shot of my pool area. Again, consistency. Look at the histogram.



I can’t seem to find the shot of Dan’s tulip. The only shots I can see that was posted by Dan is a Lilly and a Zennia.

If there is no reason for others to attempt to use the histogram, setting WB, why bother? There is no easy explanation or recipe to follow, it is like learning to use flash.
In my experience there seems to be a consistency I can use to my advantage.
It is a matter of experimenting with it and if it works, use it.
It is extremely helpful when using bounce flash off painted walls.