Red Skin , Red everyhting actually.

So I was on a roll last week and then it stopped briefly for a dozen or so

shots. The carpet was red and mostly tungsten lighting and for this one series

of shots its pretty much a red out. I am trying to figure out how to post an

image to show you all. I am pretty screwed if I cant fix these. My speedlight

fired so I am not sure why the dim light. If i bring the tones down on the photo

the subject looks blue. Any ideas?<div></div>

Also, yes i realize in this one that their eyes are closed and such, I just picked one by random.

Did you shoot "raw" or JPEG?

jpeg, i know, i know. I learned a huge lesson over this

While it looks as though you flash did not fire, according to the EXIF data it did. Since your D200 was in manual mode what shutter speed did you use? possibly it was above the sync speed of the camera. Also what flash did you use?<div></div>

The strobe was out of sync with the shutter, ie too high a speed.

used a sb600 so i had the strobe too high? Is there a way to fix this photo or am i out of luck here?

I downloaded the JPEG you posted and opened it up in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

and adjusted the Red Hue slider by +58.

You didn't have the strobe "too high" or too bright -- it just didn't put out very much light or the connection was bad. But you may have had the camera's shutter speed set above 1/250th.

"i had the strobe too high?"

 

the shutter speed was too high. max of 1/250th on the D200 unless you go to a different setting on the flash but i don't think you had that set.

it was shot at 1/100 sec

Use raw+JPEG and throw away the raw if they are not needed.

 

I would also chimp all the really important shots, overall and then a histogram.

 

My correction with curves, levels and then an 80A photofilter.<div></div>

Are you using LR or CS3, Dave? If so, and you feel this is a decent "save" to

your problems, i can email you the jpg i adjusted in ACR and you can then copy

my settings and apply to your other shots in the series.

 

At 1600iso and under exposure in 8bit, you don't stand much of a chance of a

decent recovery and large prints of these wont look to wonderful.

 

"Use raw+JPEG and throw away the raw if they are not needed."

 

I've never understood this mentality.<div></div>

Metadata in Adobe Bridge indicates 1/100 shutter speed, flash firing (return light detected). It also indicates (if I'm reading it right) a +1 exposure compensation. I can see some reflections in various pieces of jewelry that indicate a flash.

 

I can't explain why the flash has such a minimal impact- perhaps it was set for a very low level of fill, or perhaps it was gelled to match the tungsten to make white balance easier? At any rate, the original has already had some work done (Noise Ninja?) but here's my try...<div></div>

I actually hadnt touched the photo yet, i am still trying to figure out what happened, maybe the flash wasnt snapped on perfectly or go loose someway, its really unfortunate.

Garrison thanks so much , I use Lightroom. thanks

 

SHOOT IN RAW it is your WB

I think there is a WB issue here - I'm wondering if the in situ lighting actually overpowered your flash - the image also has quite a lot of contrasty lighting - there's a very strong light source coming from somewhere and it doesn't look like it's your flash.

 

Anyway, I tried to get a better balance in levels, and reduced the saturation as well as a slight shift for the hue.<div></div>

Jo

 

can you email this photo back to me? . I will try using these

settings in lr.

 

thanks

 

[Moderator note: email address removed... Please have a valid email address in your community page. People know they can

click on your name to get to your contact information]

The reason is JPEGS if done correctly are sufficient. If you make a WB error or need to recover highlights, for fix the exposure, the raw file is there to help.

Why did you use 1600? With flash this image could have been done at ISO400

and looked awsome.

 

This is a great example of poor decison making on the part of the photographer

not the equipment.

 

IF your flash was not mounted properly you would have had more exposure not

less as it seems. BUT the basic problem was not matching the ISO to the

specifics of the situation.

 

Trying to get something dececent in a full light with flash situation with such a

high ISO is nearly impossible.

 

Yes you can try to fix this but learn from it and set your camera properly at the

capture moment and pay attention not only to speed but to WB.

 

The settings on the camera and flash are there for a reason.

IF you don't understand how to make them work manually go for P nikon is way

smatter than an inexperienced photog on any day.

 

Brooke

Do you shoot the camera on auto ? I am old school & shoot my digital camera on manual. (Canon 20D, 580ex flash, increased by 1/2) Lots of times when using auto settings the surrounding lights will make camera underexpose shots. *** Hey OK to shoot JPEG ***** I know someone who shoots 50 + schools, seniors, studio, outdoor, team, band, groups all JPEG !

I'm a strict raw shooter. I have a colleague that shoots weddings/portraits/sports 100% jpeg. He nails his WB and exposure,so it's not a problem. Hence, for some photographers, it's ok to shoot jpeg. In this situation, is would have been a lifesaver to shoot raw. It may not have been a 'perfect' image, but a salvageable one, nonetheless.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned the chopped off feet yet!

I see absolutely no evidence of a flash in any eyes, not even the slightest pinpoint

of white. This is what I have to deal with when I shoot film in incandescent lighting

without a flash. I am able to get usable prints, however, but not great prints.