Beginnings are delicate. (not muddy)

[JBW]

I have started to explore the exposure compensation button on the camera. I still end up with an underexposed histogram in Sony Express but the colours look better?

Dave and Grumpies check list.

Borders: okay
Muddy: nope
DOF: pretty good
Extraneous stuff: nope
Rules of thirds, fifths etc: indeed

[Ndukes]

I have started to explore the exposure compensation button on the camera. I still end up with an underexposed histogram in Sony Express but the colours look better?

Dave and Grumpies check list.

Borders: okay
Muddy: nope
DOF: pretty good
Extraneous stuff: nope
Rules of thirds, fifths etc: indeed

Are you shooting in RAW? If you are, you could probably ignore the histogram on the camera and possibly wouldn't need exposure compensation but make all adjustments in post processing.

Another nice one Brian and it seems to me regardless of method the results are good.

[JBW]

Are you shooting in RAW? If you are, you could probably ignore the histogram on the camera and possibly wouldn't need exposure compensation but make all adjustments in post processing.

Another nice one Brian and it seems to me regardless of method the results are good.

I am shooting in RAW

[Stagecoach]

I have started to explore the exposure compensation button on the camera. I still end up with an underexposed histogram in Sony Express but the colours look better?]

Brian, firstly, don't forget to reset that EC setting adjustment after the shot (if successful) otherwise it can catch you out when you grab one later and wonder why it was way out on exposure

Secondly, if you are saying your camera histogram is different to your software one the in camera one is based on a jpeg and this may/can be affected by your in camera 'picture style' settings, eg brightness, contrast.....

[JBW]

Brian, firstly, don't forget to reset that EC setting adjustment after the shot (if successful) otherwise it can catch you out when you grab one later and wonder why it was way out on exposure

Secondly, if you are saying your camera histogram is different to your software one the in camera one is based on a jpeg and this may/can be affected by your in camera 'picture style' settings, eg brightness, contrast.....

Okay so even when I shoot in Raw the in-camera histogram is based upon JPEG? No wonder things look different in Sony raw which is basically a RAW file program.

I just checked my EC setting and I had NOT set it back. Thanks for the reminder.

[Stagecoach]

Okay so even when I shoot in Raw the in-camera histogram is based upon JPEG? No wonder things look different in Sony raw which is basically a RAW file program.

I just checked my EC setting and I had NOT set it back. Thanks for the reminder.

Don't panic about it Brian unless it is a large difference. You can if you want spend time adjusting the in camera Jpeg settings (this may not be applicable on all cameras) to match your software but I have found that these minor differences are very easily compensated for in PP.

I also find on both my cameras with my eyesight that my judgement of the histogram at the far right side on the small screen is somewhat dubious. When critical I will also use the blinkies.

[Shadowman]

Nice capture.

[JBW]

Nice capture.

it was a challenge to get the right dof.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure why you are getting different histograms in the two programs. Don't forget the Sony Express histogram is going to show you the results of your edits, not the shot as it was originally captured. If you are darkening the image (you seem to like this look) and not protecting the shadow details and not setting the white point properly, you will get muddy looking images.

As with the image I commented on yesterday, this posting certainly shows loss of shadow details without having any pure whites (although the lack of pure whites might be correct in this image). Unfortunately I don't have any experience with either your camera or editing software and can't really comment there. Posting an unedited SOOC jpeg, in addition to your edit, might help us along trying to figure out what is going on here.

[JBW]

I'm not sure why you are getting different histograms in the two programs. Don't forget the Sony Express histogram is going to show you the results of your edits, not the shot as it was originally captured. If you are darkening the image (you seem to like this look) and not protecting the shadow details and not setting the white point properly, you will get muddy looking images.

As with the image I commented on yesterday, this posting certainly shows loss of shadow details without having any pure whites (although the lack of pure whites might be correct in this image). Unfortunately I don't have any experience with either your camera or editing software and can't really comment there. Posting an unedited SOOC jpeg, in addition to your edit, might help us along trying to figure out what is going on here.

There are no pure whites just creamy whites. here is the original in JPEG

[Jimr1961]

Set your picture style to different settings and take the same shot with each, then compare the histograms. That ought to tell a story.

[JBW]

Set your picture style to different settings and take the same shot with each, then compare the histograms. That ought to tell a story.

I will give that a try.

[Manfred M]

There are no pure whites just creamy whites. here is the original in JPEG

Brian - when I look at the SOOC jpeg and your edited version, the original looks "better" from a technical standpoint. You show no loss of shadow detail at the black side of the histogram and the "whites" (and there is little or no "true white in the image) look better too. You could probably be a touch more aggressive with the whites if you wanted to and that would give the image a bit more pop, without introducing a pure white into the image.

I would say that one thing to be aware of in post is that knowing when to stop is an important thing to learn.

One other thought on both images (the SOOC one as well as the edit), have a look at sharpening the shots a bit (always work at 100% magnification). The image is a touch too soft.

[JBW]

Brian - when I look at the SOOC jpeg and your edited version, the original looks "better" from a technical standpoint. You show no loss of shadow detail at the black side of the histogram and the "whites" (and there is little or no "true white in the image) look better too. You could probably be a touch more aggressive with the whites if you wanted to and that would give the image a bit more pop, without introducing a pure white into the image.

I would say that one thing to be aware of in post is that knowing when to stop is an important thing to learn.

One other thought on both images (the SOOC one as well as the edit), have a look at sharpening the shots a bit (always work at 100% magnification). The image is a touch too soft.

Learning when to stop is hard. But doable.

At this point the unedited looking better is not so bad. as you pointed out the camera is a good camera. In time I hope to put out at least as good a technical shot. (then a better camera?)

[Manfred M]

Learning when to stop is hard. But doable.

And this is not just an issue with photography. In a past life (i.e. prior to me retiring last year), I often had to work with recent university grads (engineers) and had to work with them to get the "best" answer possible on timely basis. Getting them to understand that more work was often counter productive and stopping when the analysis was "good enough" was often the hardest part of the job.

At this point the unedited looking better is not so bad. as you pointed out the camera is a good camera. In time I hope to put out at least as good a technical shot. (then a better camera?)

Virtually any modern camera is a "good camera". How you set it up and how you use it is quite important too.

With all of the processing technology on board, your camera is really a computer that takes pictures. That really means that it is terrible at things like composition and calculating the best way to handle data that lie outside its design parameters. That's where a combination of photographic knowledge (experience) and vision come into play.