Hit and Miss 2020 Project Thread - Skitterbug aka Sandy

[Wavelength]

Nice image; is it a member from fungus family like mushroom?

[Geoff F]

Looks rather similar to the Scleroderma areolatum that we get over here, Sandy. Eventually splits open to release the spores.

I think I might add just a fraction more highlight brightness?

[Cantab]

...
I think I might add just a fraction more highlight brightness?

Sandy, like Geoff, my sense was that the image is a bit underexposed or may need simply increased highlight brightness. What may have happened is that the camera's automatic exposure mechanism (because you were using auto ISO) simply assumed that the bulk of the image (or perhaps just the fungus) needed to treated as a gray. But I'm assuming that the fungus was brighter than grey. It's the same issue with photographing a snowy scene. Auto exposure will produce grey snow, not white snow.

[skitterbug]

Hi Nandakumar - I believe Geoff has the answer for us in his post. We've always considered it a fungus. There are various types of them and they are fun to see especially when they do "puff" out those spores.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff - I'll work on post processing a bit more and see what I can do. It seemed bright on my computer screen but apparently, I haven't hit the mark quite yet. Thanks for the suggestion!

[skitterbug]

Sandy, like Geoff, my sense was that the image is a bit underexposed or may need simply increased highlight brightness. What may have happened is that the camera's automatic exposure mechanism (because you were using auto ISO) simply assumed that the bulk of the image (or perhaps just the fungus) needed to treated as a gray. But I'm assuming that the fungus was brighter than grey. It's the same issue with photographing a snowy scene. Auto exposure will produce grey snow, not white snow.

Hi Bruce - This puffball is a light tan color with white along the creases of the skin. I'll give the highlighting a go and see how it turns out. Thank you for the added info! Every little bit helps!

[xpatUSA]

I'm still playing with auto ISO versus manual choices. This image was set to automatic.

Not familiar with the camera, Sandy. The posted image EXIF says 4000 ISO but also says manual exposure. So, can your camera combine Auto ISO with manual exposure?

Very nice composition, BTW. We have those down here and also a few that look like brains!

[skitterbug]

Not familiar with the camera, Sandy. The posted image EXIF says 4000 ISO but also says manual exposure. So, can your camera combine Auto ISO with manual exposure?

Very nice composition, BTW. We have those down here and also a few that look like brains!

Hi Ted - It is a Canon 7D Mark II and yes, I can choose manual mode but still have the option of using auto ISO. I like this camera but I am actually still learning how to use it. It has far more choices than the T3i that I started with.

My subject was hiding in lots of cover so it was fairly dark. I didn't want to depend on flash but I reckon that could have been an option. 4000 ISO is fairly high but I was okay with the results. I still plan on working on bringing up the highlight a bit but haven't had a chance to sit and "play".

Thank you for the kind words and I appreciate your comments!

Having some brains around would be nice to see! <chortle> Happy Thanksgiving!

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted - It is a Canon 7D Mark II and yes, I can choose manual mode but still have the option of using auto ISO. <<>

My subject was hiding in lots of cover so it was fairly dark. I didn't want to depend on flash but I reckon that could have been an option. 4000 ISO is fairly high but I was okay with the results. I still plan on working on bringing up the highlight a bit but haven't had a chance to sit and "play".

Thanks for the info, Sandy. I finally figured out how it worked. You chose the aperture and shutter speed in manual and they did not change for the shot. The metering however "disagreed" with your choice by theoretically 5.3EV which is the ratio between 4000 and 100 ISO. So, with Auto-ISO on, the sensor data resulting from your exposure settings got auto-brightened by X40. Pardon the tech.

Thank you for the kind words and I appreciate your comments!
Having some brains around would be nice to see! <chortle> Happy Thanksgiving!

You're welcome and U2 ...

... yes, brains are in short supply around here too.

[skitterbug]

Thanks for the info, Sandy. I finally figured out how it worked. You chose the aperture and shutter speed in manual and they did not change for the shot. The metering however "disagreed" with your choice by theoretically 5.3EV which is the ratio between 4000 and 100 ISO. So, with Auto-ISO on, the sensor data resulting from your exposure settings got auto-brightened by X40. Pardon the tech.

Hi Ted - I don't mind the tech but I confess that I don't understand how it works. My chosen settings are based on how something turns out - which is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. I pixel peep until I 'think' that the results are what I can accept. The tiny screen on a camera does make it difficult. The histogram helps though. Anyway, I figure each time I read comments that are technical, maybe more of it will keep soaking in.

You're welcome and U2 ...

... yes, brains are in short supply around here too.

Have a wonderful day in Texas!

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted - I don't mind the tech but I confess that I don't understand how it works. My chosen settings are based on how something turns out - which is sometimes good and sometimes not so good. I pixel peep until I 'think' that the results are what I can accept. The tiny screen on a camera does make it difficult. The histogram helps though. Anyway, I figure each time I read comments that are technical, maybe more of it will keep soaking in.

Understood, Sandy. Here is a much longer version of my comment re: Auto-ISO.

With a film camera, one loaded a roll of film suitable for the expected lighting -e.g. 100 ISO for daytime outside. If you had wanted to shoot in dark shadow but keep a reasonable DOF you would have been forced to lower the shutter speed OR -to avoid camera shake- to leave the shutter where it is. Important point is that you could not just twiddle a knob called "ISO" as you can with digital. Therefore, leaving the shutter as-is got you a dark exposure which had to be brightened during development.

However, with digital, the sensor actually has a fixed ISO (sensitivity) just like your loaded roll of film and you can not even pull out your sensor and stick in a more sensitive one. So digital camera makers have provided a means of brightening during development, just like film but now in-camera. Unfortunately IMHO they called that means "ISO" to make it easy for those poor dumb film shooters -which gave rise to the common misperception that twiddling the ISO knob makes the sensor more sensitive. It does NOT -therefore the aforesaid brightening is still necessary.

So the ISO knob turns out be actually a brightening-during-development-control. As I recall, your lighting was really quite dark and you manually chose aperture and shutter settings to suit yourself as opposed to the "correct" exposure. By using Auto-ISO, you allowed the camera to decide how much brightening should be applied to the sensor's dark output. How this is done inside does not really matter. The camera then decides by looking at the sensor's dark output and deciding how much brightening to apply so as to make the image average brightness equal to mid-gray. In your case, the sensor output was about 5EV below mid-gray, so the camera changed your ISO from say 100 to 4000 - brightening it up by 5.3EV - quite a lot.

Hope this helps a bit ...

[skitterbug]

Understood, Sandy. Here is a much longer version of my comment re: Auto-ISO.

With a film camera, one loaded a roll of film suitable for the expected lighting -e.g. 100 ISO for daytime outside. If you had wanted to shoot in dark shadow but keep a reasonable DOF you would have been forced to lower the shutter speed OR -to avoid camera shake- to leave the shutter where it is. Important point is that you could not just twiddle a knob called "ISO" as you can with digital. Therefore, leaving the shutter as-is got you a dark exposure which had to be brightened during development.

However, with digital, the sensor actually has a fixed ISO (sensitivity) just like your loaded roll of film and you can not even pull out your sensor and stick in a more sensitive one. So digital camera makers have provided a means of brightening during development, just like film but now in-camera. Unfortunately IMHO they called that means "ISO" to make it easy for those poor dumb film shooters -which gave rise to the common misperception that twiddling the ISO knob makes the sensor more sensitive. It does NOT -therefore the aforesaid brightening is still necessary.

So the ISO knob turns out be actually a brightening-during-development-control. As I recall, your lighting was really quite dark and you manually chose aperture and shutter settings to suit yourself as opposed to the "correct" exposure. By using Auto-ISO, you allowed the camera to decide how much brightening should be applied to the sensor's dark output. How this is done inside does not really matter. The camera then decides by looking at the sensor's dark output and deciding how much brightening to apply so as to make the image average brightness equal to mid-gray. In your case, the sensor output was about 5EV below mid-gray, so the camera changed your ISO from say 100 to 4000 - brightening it up by 5.3EV - quite a lot.

Hope this helps a bit ...

Hi Ted - When I used rolled film, I struggled with even picking the right type of film. <smile> And my little camera was automatic! My image composures were not the best either. Part of my problem was that I really didn't have the income to experiment much and waiting for the developed images to return took time. By the time they did return, I'd forgotten what I had even tried to do. The digital age came and I purchased a small Sony camera and then a little larger Sony and finally I started with Canon T3i and the help of CIC. This of course has been followed by the 7D Mark II. If I live long enough, I may turn out work consistently better than before! That's my hope! <chortle> That's my photo history in a nutshell.

Your longer more explained version does help. Technical explanations are not something I am good about since I am more a visual and twiddle type of hobbyist but I figure each time I read anything technical some of it will sink in and make more sense to me. So I appreciate the time you take to share your knowledge! Thank you!

[skitterbug]

I am working on an iPad air using Affinity and its brushes to try and brighten areas of this image. Have I improved it or does it need more work. I'll post the before and after to save flicking back and forth within the posts.

Thanks for any comments!

Before:



After:

[Cantab]

Hi Sandy, in my view, your editing work has improved the image. The fungus now visually stands out more than it did.

[skitterbug]

Hi Sandy, in my view, your editing work has improved the image. The fungus now visually stands out more than it did.

Thanks Bruce - I very recently purchased this iPad/affinity iPad app so it is a "new" way for me to try and do post processing. Hopefully, I can catch on to all the differences that are associated with the desktop Affinity and the iPad Affinity.
I'm appreciative of your opinion and it signifies a step in the right direction for me!

[Cantab]

Thanks Bruce - I very recently purchased this iPad/affinity iPad app so it is a "new" way for me to try and do post processing. Hopefully, I can catch on to all the differences that are associated with the desktop Affinity and the iPad Affinity.
I'm appreciative of your opinion and it signifies a step in the right direction for me!

Sandy, I've never used Affinity and am not an expert on how well iPad screens are profiled. But I often use an iPad when looking at CiC photos; however images sometimes are sometimes subtly different if I look at the same image on my profiled desktop monitor. So it will be interesting how things work out for you.

[skitterbug]

Sandy, I've never used Affinity and am not an expert on how well iPad screens are profiled. But I often use an iPad when looking at CiC photos; however images sometimes are sometimes subtly different if I look at the same image on my profiled desktop monitor. So it will be interesting how things work out for you.

Hi Bruce - This image is my first effort using the iPad Affinity app so I have a long way to go to be proficient! The images (the darker one I PP on the computer and the one from the iPad) side by side on the computer screen seem close other than the adjustment in highlighting but I bet the proof would be if I tried to print them perhaps.
It will be interesting! <chuckle> Thanks for the followup!

[skitterbug]

I just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone who followed this thread. I knew that I wouldn't be quite as faithful posting images in 2020. I won't make a commitment at this time for 2021 other than posting when I do have something worthwhile. Again, thank you for your kindness!