Trying to take an indoor Christmas scene

[GeoBonsai]

RE: Terry's before and after images.

This is where the photographer's memory is critical: Do you recall what color the banners were--cyan or red? Will matching the exact color matter to you or to your client?

In Terry's after image, the banners look cyan on my computer monitor. However, Terry's after image has improved the focus/sharpness a lot. Shows what you can do to rescue a photo with post processing.

[ajohnw]

I'd guess these are camera jpg's and that you don't process your own images? That makes things a bit tougher if so. Might be able to help a bit.

I didn't have any problem cleaning one of the images up. For colour balance see if your camera has a fluorescent D50 setting. Not seen you church so can only assume this is about right. The camera may have other settings worth trying.



I've re colour balanced it for D50 lighting. I have also sharpened it a little and applied a contrast adjustment. More could be done in a similar fashion. It would easily take more sharpening.

I don't think that you needed a tripod. To me the problem seems to be down to high iso and in camera noise removal. This often fuzzes things up a little. You need a high iso because the people might move when the shot is taken so low iso, a tripod and a long exposure aren't really an option for shots like this but would be in situations where nothing is likely to move.

The other shot is more difficult if you want to avoid the light reflections on the roof. I would under expose it and then alter the lighting levels in post processing but even that is likely to be very difficult. All in all I would suggest you avoid taking shots with that problem. In this case the lights and reflects have reduced the cameras exposure. If you did that further manually on the camera I feel you would have great difficulty making the whole shot look right.

John
-

PS Anyone have any idea why images aren't maintaining their aspect ratio when I post now? They are ok when enlarged but the height isn't scaling correctly in the unexpanded view.

-

[Loose Canon]

Hi Geri!

I’m not so sure about “rescuing” a photo. At least from where I’m sitting!

If a shot needs a “rescue” and its mine, it gets trashed! If it needs “adjusting” then it may well be a keeper. Skit’s (jeez I wish they’d put up a name!) photo, in my mind, doesn’t need a “rescue’ to begin with which is why I posted a Theory on this.

Fine line probably, but I wouldn’t want to be deceptive.

I’m also hugely opposed to getting into off-tangent discussions (typically pointless arguments) that have nothing to do with the OP and split more hairs than I have on my head, and which happens with alarming regularity here. I find myself getting there with this post so this will be (I hope) that last I say about it.

But if you want dead-on color and accurate white balance, steps were not taken for this.

If there were a “Client” involved what I would have before and after the shoot is descended to the floor and shot a color array and neutral gray card in a number of areas and in the exact same light for reference in post. Plus in the balcony as well if just because I could. If I had enough lens i would have shot these references on the floor from the balcony. I would have done everything I know how to do to cover all the bases. But the caveat with this is that I shoot RAW.

But, if one were dissatisfied with the banners, it could be “re-adjusted” in post as well and still get an acceptable WB and what I would consider to be a good shot of Skit’s church Christmas shot.

My solution was a quickie and meant to offer an illustrated point that hadn’t yet been offered.

[ajohnw]

I don't think there is anything basically wrong with the shot that PP wont sort out. The light yellowing in the lights may need separate attention but I suspect it's down to what is in the shades.



This resizing things is weird. Seems ok in preview during a post but not after posting. Huh - this one seems ok.

John
-

[skitterbug]

Wow! Thank you everyone! I took time away from my "studies" about depth, focal points, white balance, etc to have dinner out! I return to lots of encouragement and helpful information.

Hi Frank - I am intrigued by "a Bracketed Exposure set of three images" and I think I spotted that some place in my book so I'll check out that one. I appreciate your vote of confidence in my efforts! The AV setting seems to be winning lots of support too so I'll give it a try.

Hi Geri - Yep, that tripod seems to be essential or at least I must find some way to support the camera to eliminate camera shake. I'll see what I can do about that one. And you asked about the color of the banners. I'm there almost every service and I can't tell you for sure what the color is! How's that for not paying attention? I'll have to do better!

Hi Terry - I really like the results of your editing work on that pic of mine. You make it look better than I thought it could be! What software did you use?

Again, thank you all for being so welcoming and helpful! I appreciate the supportive help! And I am ready to go out and try again!

Cheers!
Skitterbug

[skitterbug]

Hi John and Terry - to add a little more info because I missed your last posts while writing mine earlier - I do take RAW images. I always figured that having a 30MB(appx) file would give me more to work with if I could ever figure out how to touch up my errors.

The hanging lights are a bit yellow in color to begin with. They are not a true white shade. I think when these lights were purchased, the color choice was done so it'd match the wood a little better. I'll double check that when I see them.

Also there is a choice for florescent lighting on my camera. Tungsten white balance has also been suggested so that gives me some options to try. I do have a hood for the lens and I plan on removing the lens filter for the indoor shots.
Finally, I'll see what I can do about editing my profile. <chuckle>

Smiles
Skitterbug aka Sandy

[ajohnw]

Your PP software should be able to fix up shots like this. Try using spot white balance on various whites in the image. One of them will give the same sort of results as I posted.

It looks like your noise reduction software has mushed things up a little to me. One simple thing you could try is doing what ever corrections you need that don't enhance noise and then reduce the size. Reduction often clears a lot of noise all on it's own. Then use it if needed, sharpen and make local local type adjustments, including curves if you use that. There are variations on this such as using a bit of noise removal on the full sized image then reducing. A lot depends on the PP package you use.

One other point. The image you posted could have been improved a lot with just sharpening. When ever an image is reduced some info is lost, sharpening cleans it up and restores the detail. I always save shots reduced and then load them again for sharpening applying just enough to clean things up. Some Adobe packages automate this but I doubt if they get it right all of the time as some shots will take a lot more than others. Some need that, some don't.

John
-

[skitterbug]

Hi John

One of these days I am going to update my hardware technology and then I'll also update programs. For now, I use a couple of programs that do various corrections. for Instance I use - Irfanview for "Resize/Resample or -Adobe Elements V6 for adjustments to the pic. I don't know what "curves" is yet but I will keep checking out the various things that can be done to a pic to make it "snap".

The reason I am posting is to let all interested to know that I ended up taking some pretty decent shots. I'd post a few but I've got kids in them and I don't want to put their pics on the net. But I am very happy with my results.

So thank you all for your help for this project! May you all have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Sandy

[ajohnw]

Hi John

One of these days I am going to update my hardware technology and then I'll also update programs. For now, I use a couple of programs that do various corrections. for Instance I use - Irfanview for "Resize/Resample or -Adobe Elements V6 for adjustments to the pic. I don't know what "curves" is yet but I will keep checking out the various things that can be done to a pic to make it "snap".

The reason I am posting is to let all interested to know that I ended up taking some pretty decent shots. I'd post a few but I've got kids in them and I don't want to put their pics on the net. But I am very happy with my results.

So thank you all for your help for this project! May you all have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Sandy

This should help. It may be based around a particular package but most have more or less the same basic things in them.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ph...-tutorials.htm

John
-

[Manfred M]

One of these days I am going to update my hardware technology

When you do, make sure that you invest in a decent computer screen and the equipment to profile screen. Most low end screens have terrible colour performance and you will always be chasing your self trying to get the colours to look right. If your screen is not profiled for a colour managed workflow, you'll never understand why the output looks okay to you, but those of us with a colour managed setup keep complaining about the colour cast in your work.

[ajohnw]

When you do, make sure that you invest in a decent computer screen and the equipment to profile screen. Most low end screens have terrible colour performance and you will always be chasing your self trying to get the colours to look right. If your screen is not profiled for a colour managed workflow, you'll never understand why the output looks okay to you, but those of us with a colour managed setup keep complaining about the colour cast in your work.

A colorimeter is probably the best initial purchase. I used one on a very early TN display and it did fix colours even though it was a 6+2 panel. The panel dated to a time when I was one of the very very few actually using one. Where it lacked in comparison with a good modern display was dynamic range. One side effect that I didn't expect was that it then showed that I had a tendency to over sharpen images.

The other problem with older displays is viewing angles. This was very restricted so care had to be taken to look dead square on to them as colours shift away from that. Editing images tends to make people's vision more critical as time goes by and this sort of problem eventually becomes irritating.

New displays also have a problem. In general to meet the claimed dynamic range they come set way too bright for photo work. The answer again is a colorimeter or perhaps setting and a profile from UK tftcentral's database. That site and it's reviews is probably the best one to use when picking a monitor as well.

John
-

[skitterbug]

Thanks John and Manfred for the additional posts. There is definitely a lot of information in the collection of tutorials. I do especially appreciate the one that John indicated.

I guess I hadn't considered that my monitor may not be showing what I actually captured in a photo. That does explain why printed results don't always match up to what I had in mind. A colorimeter - new piece of equipment that sounds interesting indeed!

Currently I have an iMac from 2005 so it has some age. My thought was perhaps going to a Mac mini and getting a decent monitor. Since I've gotten more interested in photography, I agree that the monitor needs to be as good as I can afford!
Thanks again for continued helpful advice! Merry Christmas!
Sandy

[Manfred M]

Apple's screens were well known for having decent resolution but abysmal colour quality until quite recently; perhaps the last 2 or 3 years. With a unit that is pushing 10 years old, yes, it is definitely one of the problematic displays.

Computer screens have always been a bit of a wild card for any of the graphic arts. We photographers don't particularly care about fast refresh rates, high contrast, etc. but want accurate colours. That puts us in the minority of users, and if you add the cost of a unit into the equation, that means we are really in a niche market segment.

Calibrating and profiling are a must; otherwise one cannot tell whether we have a colour issue or the person viewing the image has one. If our equipment has been properly set up, we know it is the other person's problem. That being said, it is another expense and not everyone is willing to put their money into a piece of equipment that is used so rarely. X-rite and Datacolor are the two big names in this business. Most people use one or the other. I'm still using my rather ancient x-rite i1.

http://xritephoto.com/

http://spyder.datacolor.com/products/

[rpcrowe]

Sandy stated, "I am intrigued by "a Bracketed Exposure set of three images" and I think I spotted that some place in my book so I'll check out that one."

The Canon family of DSLR cameras (all of them) are wonderfully easy to shoot with auto exposure bracketing...

Simply have your camera in one of the semi automatic modes Programmed (P), Aperture Priority (AV), or Shutter Speed Priority (TV).

Choose Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) and chose the amount of bracketing (from a fraction of a stop to several stops). Your camera will then shoot one image at the meter reading, one image below the meter reading and one image above the meter reading. To make this even more simple, select burst mode and the camera will shoot three bracketed exposures and then stop until the shutter button is pressed again.

You can select the order in which the exposures are captured. I usually select "under - as meter reads - over" as my preferred sequence. However some photographers like "as meter reads - under - over" as their preferred sequence.

Your user manual will tell you how to make these adjustments...

You can also combine the AEB with exposure compensation. When shooting night views, I select one-stop AEB and a -1 stop exposure compensation. This will provide me with one shot at the meter reading, one shot at 1-stop below the meter reading and one shot at 2-stops below the meter reading. This will provide at least one good exposure for most night shots.

The advantage of using burst mode is that the three shots can often be successfully combined into a viable HDR image, even when hand held since they are shot so close together in sequence...

[Loose Canon]

Since it is always advised to shoot brackets on a tripod if combining (ghosting, alignment isues) best to keep aperture consistent.

You’ll have a fun time trying to combine three different DoF’s in an exposure bracket unless you are specifically doing a DoF composite. In which case you are in a way doing a focus stack and not an exposure bracket.

Meaning bracket with a constant aperture and let the shutter speed determine the exposure bracket.

[rpcrowe]

I should have specifically mentioned a constant aperture when I mentioned HDR compositing. Thanks Terry for adding that! However, just for exposure bracketing P, AV or TV is just fine.

Exposure bracketing, especially when you have the camera set up for a "minus - as meter reads - plus exposure sequence", is a great way to learn the idiosyncrasies of exposure such was when to increase, when to shoot as meter reads and when to decrease your exposure...

BTW: Canon (I don't know about the other brand cameras) can also exposure bracket flash exposures. However, I would not try to do this with burst shooting because there would probably not be enough time between shots for the flash to fully recharge...

[ajohnw]

HDR needs a bigger exposure step than the usual bracketing range. Bracketing is intended to get round exposure errors. It's generally possible to extract something like 10 stops sensibly from a modern dslr from raw and maybe even 9 from a jpg using post processing.

A sensible bracket for HDR combining is something of the order of 3 or 4 stops each way. Possibly another 3 either side of that as well in very extreme circumstances. Not +/- 1. Often only 2 are needed. One to capture mid to high tones and another for darker areas. There generally isn't any need for a tripod these days as auto alignment is so good. Lighting changes can be more of a problem than slight camera movement between shots. An Enfuse gui is particularly useful for most things and if the usual HDR effect is needed it can be applied to the results from that. Or use one of "those" packages if you like that effect.

Enfuse can also make it easy to get the full range out of a raw file. Simply develop on shot for highlights and another for the dark end from a single raw file. Blend in Enfuse. Probably most useful for people who understand the curves PP step or maybe levels as contrast at each level can be set independently.

Enfuse has one aspect that people often miss. It has sliders such as contrast and others, exposure etc. These are the weightings it uses to blend images with not actual contrast controls. There is some extensive documentation about on Enfuse itself but it's highly technical and defaults generally produce good results. Free GUI's are available and also a plugin for Lightroom. THE GUI's produce small previews quickly. Handy as a full sized shot takes some time to align and combine. Not sure what the LR plugin does.

Having said that some one might take three shots bracketed without over or under exposing and combine them, or maybe some are a bit out at one end etc. Something to play with.

John
-

[skitterbug]

First - Happy New Year of 2015!
Second - I have soooo much to learn but I really enjoy the hobby of photography!
Third - Thank you for a fascinating thread (and Forum)! A place to share and learn!

Smiles (click)
Sandy

[William W]

. . . My latest try is capturing our church decorated for Christmas. I cannot use flash. I have to take the pics from the balcony and our church is fairly large. . . attempts ended up having glare from the overhead lights, an orangish cast and are not as sharp as I would think they should be. . . .
So my question: What does anyone suggest that I should try . . .

The “glare” from the lights and also the lights themselves, have several considerations.
The main issues are:

- the lights themselves are ‘blown out’ (over exposed) and present as big white ugly objects distracting to the Viewer’s Eye
- there’s reasonably extreme Chromatic Aberration at the edges (typical) which is also a distraction
- they present many strong LIGHT SOURCES directly into the camera lens creating VEILING FLARE (which can rob contrast and also create a milky white translucent sheen over the image)
- they create hot spots of light on the scene, not necessarily where you might wish to light the scene

***

Two options that I didn’t see mentioned:


1. Simply don’t have the lights in shot.

Did you consider framing any in Vertical Format, thus omitting the drop down ceiling lights from what you viewed in the VIEWFINDER?
Doing so would have had a positive effect to reduce Veiling Flare.

Example from you long shot:



***

2. If the shot is important enough to you, then, carefully think through the result that you want.

Maybe you wanted a shot WITHOUT the lights in it?

This is important – to KNOW what the resultant image is, that you want.

Sure this will take many failed attempts, but at least start with a plan of waht the final image will look like, rather than having no plan at all.

Set your camera in the position and make the image.

Probably a bracket of exposures is a good idea.

Then set about constructing the final image that is your vision, in the Digital Darkroom.

Rough Indicative using your image:




***

One sample of mine, knowing what the final inage was to be - and the original (SOOC), that I used to make it:



Rose Bay Hotel at Dawn

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd (Aust)

WW

[William W]

Addendum - note specifically to the OP:

I have thought for several hours before posting this. It is not an antagonistic comment but written for the benefit of the OP.

Regarding the opinion that the Photographer’s memory of the colours in a scene is a “critical” element for the production of the final image of the scene:

I disagree. And frankly it is a nonsense.

The brain computes colour in situ.

We cannot remember the nuances of any specific colour in a scene and then later make an accurate judgement call concerning the colours seen on a screen or in the print. Noted also which, as an added problem, the screen and print are themselves located in a DIFFERENT lighting situation to the original scene and will thus be influenced by that different lighting scenario.

So don’t waste time and effort to even try remembering the nuances of the colours which are in a scene that you photograph.

IF you want (or need) accurate rendition of colour in a scene (as for an example - forensic images), then there are specific technical procedures to follow.

IF you want (or need) CONTINUITY of COLOURS through a shooting session of multiple images in DIFFERENT locations (as for an example – continuity of colour of bridesmaid’s dresses for a Wedding Client’s Album) - then there are other technical procedures which need to be followed.

But for general Photography of a single scene or a single lighting scenario:
shooting in raw;
setting AWB (Auto White Balance);
then, in post production tuning the colours to your 'preference' of what is 'correct' to your vision of the image is a very reasonable and easy procedure to follow which will provide you with excellent results.

WW