Hibiscus_ 0 exposure compensation (I feel like I need sunglasses)

[JBW]

[bnnrcn]

Although it is a bit on the dark side, I like the soft colors and the composition

[Round Tuit]

+ 1 to Binnur's comments. May I ask what metering mode did you used to determine the exposure for this shot? I ask because it looks underexposed to me and I am sure that your camera meter should be able to exposed properly.

André

[skitterbug]

I agree with André and Binnur, your photo looks dark on my computer. It is a beautiful picture but needs to be lightened a bit. Did you take this as the morning was brightening? It reminds me of a flower that is "sleeping" and just about to "wake up".

[Stagecoach]

+ 1 to Binnur's comments. May I ask what metering mode did you used to determine the exposure for this shot? I ask because it looks underexposed to me and I am sure that your camera meter should be able to exposed properly.

André

The Exif shows, Manual exposure, 1/3, f/16, ISO100, Center Weighted Average metering. Shot at 15:28.

But without knowing if the camera was manually set to what the meter 'suggested was correct exposure', the image has been PPd or not, it's difficult to judge.

Personally I'm lost as to the reason for including a reference to EC in the title.

Edit : Further thoughts................

I wonder if this is just a SOOC image taken from the RAW to demonstrate from Brian that if he does not use EC, (for which EC was discussed in depth on his previous posting), this is what his metering method produces. And the reference to sunglasses being that the SOOC is too bright for his liking?

With regard to it being perceived as underexposed going by the histogram when opened in ACR (the posted image) it is only a smidgen below clipping in one area. A good base for a plethora of different interpretations of the image.

[Cogito]

The Exif shows, Manual exposure, 1/3, f/16, ISO100, Center Weighted Average metering. Shot at 15:28.

Additionally, I don't know if the time in Brian's camera is accurately set.

But without knowing if the camera was manually set to what the meter 'suggested was correct exposure', the image has been PPd or not, it's difficult to judge.

The EXIF information says it was processed by Google ! Make of that, what you will ?

Personally I'm lost as to the reason for including a reference to EC in the title.

So am I.

Edit : Further thoughts................I wonder if this is just a SOOC image taken from the RAW to demonstrate from Brian that if he does not use EC, (for which EC was discussed in depth on his previous posting), this is what his metering method produces. And the reference to sunglasses being that the SOOC is too bright for his liking?
With regard to it being perceived as underexposed going by the histogram when opened in ACR (the posted image) it is only a smidgen below clipping in one area. A good base for a plethora of different interpretations of the image.

I sent Brian an article explaining the histogram. In very basic terms, there's no such thing as an incorrect histogram, but as most viewers here would agree, it's underexposed.

[Shadowman]

Nice effort.

[Stagecoach]

but as most viewers here would agree, it's underexposed.

I'd be interested to know on what basis you have determined that the image is 'Underexposed' Tony?

Whilst we can use terms for this image as 'dull', 'dark', 'flat', 'dim' e.t.c these are all subjective and will vary depending upon the viewer and the photographers intention.

Without seeing the original RAW it is difficult to determine if it was 'underexposed'. If the exposure was controlled by Brian to ensure there was no clipping it may very well be correctly exposed. He may have done this by using the histogram, blinkies or relied upon the cameras meters brain.

[JBW]

I seem to have opened up a can of worms. For the record I shoot in manual, RAW and I focus manually.

First my camera is set to more or less, as in a few seconds either way, to the proper time for my location.

Two: I included the 0 exposure compensation in the title to let people know that I was taking their critiques seriously. I usually shoot at 0.-3. I tried to get the exposure right with the histogram and 'blinkies'

Three: This is not SOOC.

Four: I have been told time and again to shoot properly exposed and then adjust in pp. It may not have worked but that's what I tried. I wanted a soft semi bright flower with a darker smoother bg.

5: here's the SOOC.

[Stagecoach]

Thank you for the additional info Brian.

As I had suspected it was not an underexposed image, just processed on the dark side

A good example of an image, when exposed well in camera is then open to numerous interpretations. Hope you don't mind but here's my dark side interpretation done earlier

[JBW]

Thank you for the additional info Brian.

As I had suspected it was not an underexposed image, just processed on the dark side

A good example of an image, when exposed well in camera is then open to numerous interpretations. Hope you don't mind but here's may dark side interpretation done earlier

I'm only going to mind if you don't tell me how you did it! Apparently I captured enough detail but my pp skills have a long way to go.

[Manfred M]

When I set the black point and white point to where they should be in your image, I get the following:



This looks quite similar to the shot that you took.





Now when I leave the black point and white point set where I left them and move the mid-point I get this:



A full tonal range, yet a darker image. The highlights and shadows are still preserved and the look is more what you would get.



And yes, you can do this in Capture One

[Stagecoach]

I'm only going to mind if you don't tell me how you did it! Apparently I captured enough detail but my pp skills have a long way to go.

Exactly, if you get the exposure good you have more scope to work with.

I simply increased contrast, added a bit of 'structure' (LCE/sharpening), applied a dark vignette centred from the flower head using a circular gradient mask and the mid slider of the levels tool, and altered the colour balance towards yellow from blue and cropped.

[Stagecoach]

When I set the black point and white point to where they should be in your image, I get the following:

Now when I leave the black point and white point set where I left them and move the mid-point I get this:

A full tonal range, yet a darker image. The highlights and shadows are still preserved and the look is more what you would get

This is where things get confusing because when terms such as 'should' are used it does not necessarily mean that the results will be pleasing.

[Manfred M]

This is where things get confusing because when terms such as 'should' are used it does not necessarily mean that the results will be pleasing.

Commonly the black point and white point are set where these values start rising in the histogram, but this does not always work well when using a jpeg, hence the words "should".

If the image has black values and white values, these should be "protected", especially the whites as they will quickly fade to an undesirable gray tone if one is not careful in the conversion. Even in night scenes or low key images we can still have white values.

[JBW]

Thank you for the additional info Brian.

As I had suspected it was not an underexposed image, just processed on the dark side

A good example of an image, when exposed well in camera is then open to numerous interpretations. Hope you don't mind but here's my dark side interpretation done earlier

Grahame, your shot inspired me to try and try again. I went into Capture 1 and looked for ways to emulate what you did. Not to say mimic but certainly an effort to enhance both my vision and my skill set.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

Firstly, what I did to your image was not a suggestion that it should be PPd that way but just an interpretation I could see, but I'm sure you understand that.

Right, I think you have got reasonably close apart from the right lower side of the flower.

What I do notice is that it appears in places (top and left side) as if you have made 'selections' and PPd the flower separately to the background almost giving it a back lit appearance. This may be due to you using the original whereas I used the posted 'flat' Jpeg.

[JBW]

Brian,

Firstly, what I did to your image was not a suggestion that it should be PPd that way but just an interpretation I could see, but I'm sure you understand that.

Right, I think you have got reasonably close apart from the right lower side of the flower.

What I do notice is that it appears in places (top and left side) as if you have made 'selections' and PPd the flower separately to the background almost giving it a back lit appearance. This may be due to you using the original whereas I used the posted 'flat' Jpeg.

You're right I used layers in Capture 1.