I would like to get an evaluation

I took this yesterday at a local park and I'm wondering how I could have improved on it.

TIA,, Jeff...

Jeff, it looks like you joined PN to get this evaluation but I'll bite. The main improvement would have been getting a exposure. This one's way on the dark side. You can improve it a lot in post-processing by adjusting the tone (levels). Either manually or pressing some kind of ''auto-correct' button.

I tried to edit the post above but the time limit expired so I'll add one more comment. The Exif data in the photo shows that D90 exposure settings were 1/800 sec, f/7.1, ISO 250, Normal program, Pattern metering. Focal length 75mm.

 

I assume that "Normal Program" means "Program Mode" on the D90. So the camera sets the combination of aperture and shutter speed but the user can vary it. The exposure meter in the viewfinder should (perhaps) have indicated underexposure.

 

Unless the petals were blowing around in the wind, 1/800 seems unnecessarily short for this type of shot with a focal length of 75mm. If you used program mode and the exposure was set by the camera (except ISO), the only explanation I can come up is that the white petals were in fact brightly lit. To avoid overexposing the camera set a high shutter speed in response to f/7.1. But it looks like it overcompensated. Perhaps looking at the photo/histogram on the back screen, you might have been able to use exposure compensation.

 

Be interested to hear your thoughts on how the underexposure happened.

 

Mike

I agree with Mike. Exposure way way off. It might help before taking a shot to look at the proposed exposure and mentally see how it compares with a sunny 16 calculation.

The meter in your camera is programmed to bring down the bright values, in this case the flower petals to 18% grey. That's why the picture looks a little under exposed. You could have corrected this by ignoring the meter and increasing the exposure, that is adding an exposure compensation value of 1 to 1 1/2 f-stops. You can easily fix this in Photoshop though by changing the exposure value. Everything else looks great to me. The image is tack sharp, the composition and Bokeh are nice and the bug in the picture gives it life.

As per Mikes suggestion using Auto Corrections in Photoshop Elements. Adjusted Exposure, Levels, Contrast, Color and Sharpness.

Ray, do you think doing what you've done loses a lot of the mood of the original? I think a more selective approach to bringing up some highlights while maintaining more of a low key atmosphere would do the photo a lot more justice.

I was only interested in show what the auto adjustments would do.

I was only interested in show what the auto adjustments would do.

Got it. Thanks. For me, it shows that auto adjustments don't often work and a more selective, thoughtful approach can better bring out the nuances and subtle moods of a photo.

Ray, do you think doing what you've done loses a lot of the mood of the original? I think a more selective approach to bringing up some highlights while maintaining more of a low key atmosphere would do the photo a lot more justice.

No I don't think it loses mood & yes i do think the selective, refined approach would be worth checking out.

Welcome to Photo.net.

 

A technical overlay touching also on some of what has been mentioned:

 

If the camera was in "P" mode then as I understand Nikon's Algorithms of P Mode a basic premise would be to keep the Shutter Speed as fast as possible for two reasons, one would be to arrest Subject Motion Blur and the other to arrest Camera Movement Blur. Whilst the camera's choice of 1/800th second might not have been necessary if there was no wind and the flower was not moving, it is about a sensible Shutter Speed to arrest Camera Shake if you were hand holding the camera and were at a short Subject Distance (i.e. close to the flower), especially if the Lens had no VR.

 

On the point of underexposure - if we reckon that by the capture being a full range of the camera's capacity, then the original is about 2/3 stop underexposed, what I mean is the exposure has to be increased by a smidgen over 2/3 Stop to record the brightest part of the image at the right-hand side of the Histogram (255). This 'underexposure' is not that much and can be rectified in Post Production. If the Camera was in P Mode (or any of the Modes where the TTL Meter sets the exposure), then as per the above comment, the camera was establishing its exposure by reading a lot of big areas of 'white' and interpreting those areas as 'grey'.

 

In a scene, like this one, where there is a large Dynamic Range (lots of gradations between the darkest and the lightest part of the scene), some Photographers will intentionally pass the point of blowing out some (usually a small amount) of the highlights to ensure that they have adequate detail in the shadow areas.

 

I stress that my view is that these technical choices must be predicated on the Artist's Vision - that's a now old and technical term for asking lots of questions - "What was it you wanted to convey to the Viewer with this image?" "What was the story you wanted to tell? What was the mood in which you wanted to display this Flower and Bug?" etc.

 

And - as a direct answer I know that when I am out and about, I typically have little idea of the details of all those answers when I am making an image on the hop any still life study, landscapes and similar: I am much more able to express to myself exactly what I want, when I am photographing people. If I were photographing that Flower, I would have exercised Exposure Bracketing, typically ±⅔ Stop. That’s one way of being able delay the thought around what you exactly want to create and often it makes it easier to make a quality Final Image.

 

On the composition, I am not thrilled with the big white area in the Left Foreground: it detracts and is annoying to my Viewer’s Eye – this leads into my comment on the comment above concerning destroying the mood using ‘universal’ post production – (my comment on that specifically later). I would have tried a different Camera Viewpoint. I understand that you have now is 'what you have now', but you asked “I'm wondering how I could have improved on it.”, and the answer to that question may be, “It’s the wrong image to make in the first place, in so far as you could have had a better one, from a different Viewpoint.” I wasn't there, I don't know, yet it is a comment for your pondering, now.

 

However, addressing the question “How can I improve this image?” – I think that you should create more emphasis on and attention to the centre of the flower and that can be done by increasing the exposure/brightness of that area, and not of the whole image. I think that this is one shot which is a good example showing the need Post Production on selected areas. That thought is however predicated on my opinion that you wanted to make the image “moody” with mysterious-like background and one shaft of light on the centre of the flower with just enough light for the Viewer to see the Bug, easily – and that might not be what you want.

 

Which brings us to the next point – (which is indeed to most important point) – it is really REALLY difficult to answer ““I'm wondering how I could have improved on it.”, when not one of us has any idea what it was that you wanted to achieve. As above you’ll get many very good responses apropos how other people would improve on it – and certainly those might be very helpful to you, but also none might be an ‘improvement’ towards what you wanted the image to be. Therefore instead of "TIA" I encourage you to converse, answering the implied questions in this commentary and providing feedback, to others who have replied.

 

***

 

Here are three images, with technical data, which might be of assistance to you:

 

 

Image 1. This is the original image, as you published it:

 

 

***

 

 

 

Image 2. This is the redo using Universal Post Production, as it was published:

 

 

 

 

 

Image 3. This is a redo using Post Production on Selected Areas of the original Image:

 

WW

 

 

A little note: There is placed a circumflex (^) in Image 2, only because it is easiest to see it on that image, it points to what appears to be a spot of ‘gunk’ on your camera’s sensor. In Image 3 the spot is cloned out.

Edited May 26, 2020 by William Michael

I personally avoid posting any 'ímproved images' unless the OP explicitly requests them. My view is that the OP is free to learn from, experiment with and apply any suggestions/tips given. If OP's need more details, tips or examples then they're always free to ask,

 

Posting different PP versions of the OP's photo (with commentary) could help the OP to learn. But (without commentary) they may not.

 

In this case, the main ion is not 'how do I ímprove this one image but 'how do I prevent over- and underexposed photos when shoting in program mode?

Edited May 26, 2020 by mikemorrell

I believe this photo would be a good candidate for some selective enhancement. To the OP you might want to consider how you could process this photo to move the eye where you want it to go. Look at the photo, and see where it pulls your eye and where you would like it to pull your eye and interest. Than process accordingly. You can use light and shadow to accomplish it as well as other tools.