Be Brave: digital before and after

[stacy]

Ok- I'm asking a lot with this question- but it's on my mind today.

Here goes...

 

I shoot digital the same way I shoot film (mostly)- to get the best

exposure that needs the least amount of processing to get a decent

photo. Is this what everyone does? Or do you shoot and choose your

exposure based on what you plan to do with it in PS? When shooting

white- do you shoot to retain whites and then bring up the skin tones

later? I'm not always happy my digitals and I'm wondering how much of

that is due to mistakes in camera vs. post processing.

 

Can anyone show me their favorite digtal photos before ps and after?

 

Thanks!

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

I find digital exposure is similar to transperancy film. If anything I lean toward under exposure.

 

I do have trouble with the new flash systems with the TTL and ETTL electronics. To me it can easily be fooled by differences in ambient lighting and trying to balance a flash with same and clothing can effect flash intensity.

 

The last wedding I did the vast majority of flash exposures manually and had less processing in PS than exposures made with the Canon 580 flashes. Maybe it's just me!

 

Here's an image with a manual flash taken facing the sun with the flash as a fill of the B&G. This was created on the deck of their home just after the ceremony. No PS whatsoever other than the image size and save for web feature used.

 

At any rate it shows what can be done with manual controls.

 

Hope this helps you.<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Often I will let the flash underexpose in dark situations to give a better 'fill' effect when bringing it up in post process. In certain circumstances I will underexpose both flash and ambient to hold the whites of a reflective dress.

 

This changed with the 1Ds which is incredibly unforgiving of any underexposure, it really taught me to squeeze the DR or recover in post. I'm looking forward to the 5D whose noise characteristics will give me more leeway for these kind of games.

[rich_dutchman1]

When I switched to digital four years ago, I suddenly realized how much I had depended on the lab to adjust everything. Not anymore. I got my chops back and treat JPEGs like chrome. Yes, I cannot resist tweaking the album prints, but the proofs can stand by themselves untouched.

[stacy]

Say with a photo like this- that I'm attaching. I want to retain the on lookers and detail on this side of the dress, but in order to do that I have giant blow outs across the other side. So I wonder- should I be shooting to retain that bit that is blown and bring the rest up later or accept this and move on with my life. I don't really want to have to PS every image and seperate out the whites- am I being unrealistic?<div></div>

[merlin]

The problem with slightly underexposing a digital capture is that you end up "stretching" the pixels to correct the exposure. And since twice as much information exists in the top half of the exposure as the bottom half, you'll get more pixellation and a lower quality photograph... Which is why you should always strive to get the correct exposure.

[picturesque]

Since your blown whites are from the off-camera flash, I would have closed down the aperture on the camera to get properly exposed (not blown) skin and whites on the bright side, and tuned my on-camera flash for some -1 or -2 fill. To preserve the same ratio of background to subject highlight (for the folks standing in the back), you would have had to adjust shutter drag accordingly.

 

I strive for no blown whites in any of my digital files unless I want them blown, although I might allow very small areas of "flashing highlights" on a white gown in direct sunlight when fill flash is used--that's the hardest to control.

 

When shooting film, I strive for about 1/2 stop overexposure, so I key my flashes and camera settings for that, including my distances for off-camera lights. For instance, I know where to place an off-camera light for given f stops but with film I put it where I know I'll get the f stop set on the camera and with the -1 fill flash, I get the f stop plus 1/2 stop because a 1:3 ratio always ups the exposure by 1/2 stop. Conversely, with digital, I put my off camera flash so that it gives 2/3 to 1 stop less light than the f-stop I'm using, so that with -1 fill (and the 1:3 gain), the exposure is correct, and of course with digital, you can fine tune from there.

[fotografz]

Stacy, if you don't want to have to separate out the highlights/whites then ...

 

Two words: Fill Flash.

 

Another two words: Light Balance.

 

BTW, what the heck does "stretching" the pixels mean?

[anner]

Stacy.. my preference would be that the blow out you've shown in this thread is acceptable

and very similar to what you'd get with film results when trying to expose properly for the

dark side of the dress without fill flash. I think that would be a perfectly acceptable image

to your clients.

 

Bill- how in the world was that not photoshopped? Where is all the burning coming from?

Why is it framed perfectly around the couple? Just wondering what it is that caused the

intense darkness around the couple?

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

"BTW, what the heck does "stretching" the pixels mean?"

 

Nothing. Stretching "bits" is closer to what he meant. If you under expose, so that the histogram is only half the x axis, you may be using only 4 bits instead of 8. This gives only 16 levels of gradation instead of 256. Stretching the levels to bring up the brightness still only gives 16 levels of gradation, but the adjacent levels are farther apart and very visible. You reall don't want to make major exposure changes to jpgs.

[nstock]

Marc's words are dead on. REDUCE CONTRAST.

What the eye can see the medium cannot capture because all photographic capture mediums are limited (film and digital).

 

Fill flash will reduce the contrast. If you were shooting film you would choose a low contrast film (Portra 400NC for example) and still add fill flash.

 

If you unstretch pixels does it leave them with stretch marks??? ;)

[todd frederick]

Stacy.

 

My goal with digital is to get as close to what I want in the camera with as little post processing as possible. If i shoot RAW, there will always be post processings, but for jpeg (which I use for receptions and general shooting) I want it to be accurate. That's why I wrote the exposure question below.

 

I'm attaching two photos from the last wedding I photographed. The first photo here is without post processing. It was shot with an LSII flash diffusor and the ambient light was warm. It is a jpeg capture.

 

The second photo was adjusted using the black, gray, and white eyedroppers in curves (or levels) to balance the color balance. The second photo restores the white of the dress and groom's shirt.

 

Both are Ok. It all depends what you like, I guess.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

Adjusted sample. Both had no extra sharpening.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

Sorry, I guess I should have sharpened the e-mail samples, but what I'm trying to show is the color balance. Let me try to post one #2 with better sharpening.

 

I've had internet problems for two days, so my apologies.<div></div>

[todd frederick]

Ok,

 

I was having problems with my earthlink ISP server for two days and I had to reinstall almost eveything, and I had the accelerator function turned on which totally distorts images. I turned it off and they look fine on my computer now...duh. Sorry.

[lb-]

hi stacy,

 

in your posted pic is that the straight capture or did you bring up the exposure in post?

[stacy]

Here's the original Lucas. I didn't bring it up, but tried to bring it down a bit...<div></div>

[adtr]

My understanding is that it is best to be slightly underexposed in digital to avoid clipping because when it is gone, it is gone for good.

I confess that until recently, I always tried to get the best balance, even if that meant sacrificing detail in areas of the dress but looking back at work, I can see that it is better to have all the digital info there and manipulate it with masks, curves and levels.

[fotografz]

Stacy, you've presented a pretty rare example here. The person in the top right corner

fired their flash at exactly the same time you took the photo.

 

This is what caused the rim lighting (which is okay), but it also blew out the side of the

dress completely. There is nothing to be done if that happens. Zero information is zero

information.

 

There's no way to prepare for something like this happening. Fill flash may have helped,

but if you exposed correctly and then a second rogue flash fired, well who knows what the

result would be.

 

The only recourse would be to "rebuild" the blown areas if the shot was important enough.

 

If you shoot RAW, there are techniques in ARC to lower the contrast and exposure then

use Brightness to lift the image some before finalizing PSCS2. But if there is zero info in

RAW, it's still zero information.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Correction: Person in top LEFT corner with flash.

[chris76]

Stacey,

 

I was under the impression that you had a slave firing away from the side, or are you and you assistant working well together??

 

I'm going to try this one at the next wedding with a slave from the side for rim lighting.

 

I quick one to the flash masters? Will TTL work from behind or will this have to be a manual solution?

 

Will also test at home on Friday.

 

PS. Stacey I think the shot was great as it is. I think we sometimes worry way to much about blown highlights. Not saying we should not strive for better but its a stunning picture at the end of the day.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[stacy]

Marc- It does look like the girl is holding the flash, but it is my other flash going off. That's interesting- I didn't pay attention to that before :) I'm going to experiment today with 2 flashes, a handheld meter and a grey card until I can come up with a way to fix this. Marc- as to the original question- do your digital photos look properly exposed right off the camera or do you let the skin go a bit dark to hold the dress? I know you're very good with digital...

 

Thank you Chris- and thanks everyone for responding. Look like it's going to be a sunny day here :)

[matt_neighbour___york__u.k]

Quote Bruce:

 

"Stretching "bits" is closer to what he meant. If you under expose, so that the histogram is only half the x axis, you may be using only 4 bits instead of 8."

 

The principle here is correct, quality will be lost, but not as drastically as that. If the histogram x axis only goes from zero to halfway, one bit has been lost. It'll be a 7-bit capture in actual data, with 128 possible values of tone. 4 bits of data would only yield 16 values of tone!

 

You lose half the possible tonal values, not half the bits.

 

Just thought I ought to clear that up,

 

Matt

[kevin m.]

Stacy,

 

I think you have a happy accident here. I know you'll want to correct your flash exposure in

future shots, but to me, your original looks better than the corrected versions. Plus, it does

look like the girl in the left corner fired her flash, giving you an excuse for your blown

highlights! Luck counts, too.

[EricM]

I prefer the contrast of the original as well, Stacy. But if it's not what you want then I guess you'll take notice where your other flash is and not have it effect exposure by pounding it straight into the lens next time?