hgh iso

[laceyhughes]

<p>Color version - Isolated the lighting on subjects more. Also applied a Diffuse Glow filter to make the bride "glow"... </p><div></div>

[laceyhughes]

<p>Black and White version - Working in Layers, I applied the BW converion using a Green Filter. Blended the two layers together allowing only a little original color show through. Then applied a Sepia Photo Filter.</p><div></div>

[william-porter]

<p>Melinda,</p>

<p>You've already gotten a lot of expert advice. I want to say that the photo you posted doesn't look too bad to me. Not going to win any prizes, perhaps, but hardly a disaster. I'm somewhat surprised that you got a usable photo at all given the settings you've described. I wish the formals from my first wedding had looked this good. I was dealing with strong backlighting from the altar and I didn't meet the challenge very well. Anyway, if this is representative of the results you got, don't beat yourself up.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Here is what I would do. If you believe you are not equipped, skill-wise, to do the PP, then find someone to do it, pay them - even if you wind up taking a loss, and protect the outcome for your client as best you can. If it were me, I'd be honest about the entire thing with them. That says, essentially, look, I screwed up, I did my very best to fix it, your satisfaction matters more to me than my profit. I would not discount the price to them unless they specifically asked for it.</p>

<p>I've always found that paying for lessons like this ensure their being learned. I've found that the correlation between large sums of money leaving my wallet due to my mistakes and my never repeating said mistakes is a perfect one. The approach I've suggested would also protect the long term reputation I'm expecting is the important thing at risk here.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I use Ninja noise. I always feel it (as well as other noise reduction programs) leaves the face a bit plastic appearing.. so I generate a layer in photoshop, noise reduce and then back off on transparency visually to balance the evil plastic with the good noise reduction...if you send me one RAW file, I will try to see what I can do.. no expert here</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi I have to wonder why you shot this at "F18".Thats just asking for trouble indoors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to mention that shooting with that small of an aperture is going to cause quite a bit of loss in resolution due to diffraction.<br /> <br /> I'm just curious, why F18?</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Keith, I'm assuming that the photographer shot this at F18 for the same reason that she shot it at ISO 3200. It sounds like neither was intentional.</p>

[ruslan safin]

<p>Dear Melinda! Why for God's sake do you use flash with such high ISO????? and why f18??????? %)))</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think she made a mistake and shot them at the wrong ISO.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Keith, I'm assuming that the photographer shot this at F18 for the same reason that she shot it at ISO 3200. It sounds like neither was intentional.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK.... I see. So the ISO was accidently set to 3200 (and forgotten about) which made for a smaller aperture to expose correctly (altho it looks a little under-exposed IMO).</p>

<p>I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude. I just wanted to point out one of the differences in Digital from Film (I shoot both on a regular basis) and that is diffraction. Some digital sensors become diffraction limited pretty quickly (D3X). Something that someone new to digital might not be aware of.<br>

<br /> Anyways, for anyone new to digital I would suggest picking up a Scott Kelby book or two. If you want to learn more about your camera itself, I would strongly suggest an e-book from Tom Hogan.<br>

<br /> Best of luck to you Melinda.<br>

<br /> P.S. Stuart, good job on the post. Really nice how you brightened it up and still kept it so clean.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Thanks Keith. I should have softened the eyes just a touch more though as they are now just a bit too sparkley. A full size image would be better to work on. The D90 should produce a 12mp image that image is less than 6mp and it has been cropped also as it is no longer a 2:3 ratio. I don't know how much has been cropped away from the image I wonder if Melinda could let us know.</p>

[think27]

<p>Stuart Moxham - Excellent work!</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is another.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p >I too, like Stuart, believe that the exposures at ISO3200 were a complete mistake. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The OP mentions that she is experienced with Weddings, but <em>not so much with digital. </em>Also previous comments indicate she is quite used to working with film. This leads me to my point . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >After the dust has settled, and these images are rescued, I think it would be prudent to find out why the mistake was made and also investigate why the mistake was exacerbated; both answers will go to ensuring the mistakes do not happen again.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I offer a couple of guesses to get that thinking process going.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Brainstorming - <strong ><em >Why was the camera set at ISO3200?</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >. returning from a long shot from the rear of the Church at High ISO? </p>

<p >. rushed for time? Using the same lens for both shots - therefore no "trigger" to the brain to reset the ISO? </p>

<p >. using a kit lens like 18 to 105? </p>

<p >. brain completely forgot that ISO was flexible with digital, because so used to having film set at one ISO?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Solutions to consider: </p>

<p >. small card stuck on back of camera with "Check ISO" written on it; </p>

<p >. consider prescriptive lens changes between the "set - must have" sessions; </p>

<p >. use fast primes; </p>

<p >. use two cameras.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Brainstorming - <strong ><em >Why the image was underexposed, and by so much:</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >. not proper understanding of the automatic Flash modes used; </p>

<p >. incorrect selection of manual overrides used;</p>

<p >. incorrect selection of manual settings used; </p>

<p >. equipment failure; </p>

<p >. poor understanding of flash fill technique.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Solutions to consider: </p>

<p >. establish what settings were used. </p>

<p >. establish if there is full knowledge and application of these techniques; </p>

<p >. establish if underexposure was peculiar to this set of images only (consider if pressure of time was a factor); </p>

<p >. establish if Flash Fill techniques are fully understood, in the first inst.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p >PS: Stuart Moxham: Excellent / Brilliant. Yes. Bravo. </p>

<p > </p>

 

[sam_ellis]

<p>Stuart wins! Can I send you some files? LOL!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Stuart, your recovery of this sample photo is nothing short of amazing. You're a wizard! The OP should hire you to rescue the rest of her ISO 3200 images.</p>

<p>I'd like to know what model of Nikon camera the OP used and what exposure mode (P,S,A,M) and pattern she used.</p>

[melinda_thomas1]

<p>To all,<br>

I can not thank you enough for the advice and kind words, especially Stuart,Lacey and Peter for taking your time to show me that I could get better results than I was seeing. I am looking for someone to help me or just take the task on themselves as I need the best possible results. William and Joel, yes this was completely unintentional and I'm really not sure why this happened yet. The last choir loft shot i took was at 1/4 5.6 @ 200. I am going over the images to see if i can figure this out. I had been extemely distracted during these shots and it makes it difficult to recall. Stuart you are very skilled and I am amazed at what you did with this image. I downloaded Ninja Noise and did not get very good results. I really need to make these photos acceptable so if you all say they can be, then you have given me some hope , thanks Keith no offense taken and Steven, I am senfing you a RAW file-thanks</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>I agree that Stuart did a great job, however, I would not zap out so much noise from the images. As said above, noise does not look so bad when printed. If the image is zapped clean of so much noise that the skin begins to look plastic--that is worse, IMHO--and the plastic skin DOES show up in the print. Seems to me a lot of the examples are perilously close. When I have used noise reduction software, I always pull back on the 'recommended' amount just because of this. I would do a test print first and possibly, as you go along, before applying much noise reduction.</p>

<p>Another possibility, as to why the mistake happened, is that you just mis-read the LCD screen. Those LCD numbers are sometimes mind tripping. William's suggestion re the note on the back of the camera is a good one. I used to do this all the time with my film cameras, where a mistake in settings usually had more dire consequences, since you couldn't see the mistake immediately. It took me a while (coming from film) to use ISO as another exposure factor, and to remember to manipulate it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p >Ha! I still use coloured DOT stickers on the back of my two Mamy 645s: easy to recognize which camera is loaded with what film, when one is in an hurry. Bright RED and that yucky YELLOW.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If I had to bet, I would wager "rushing without thinking" was a big element of the ISO error. </p>

<p >I would not go without investigating the Flash Fill / underexposure element too: that could have longer term consequences, IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Another thought occurred to me. When I first used a Nikon D100, long ago, it had what is called auto ISO. By default, it is on. When I photographed a studio type shot with it, with manual settings, I was horrified to see that the camera had upped the ISO to 1600 or something like that (but later), even with manual settings. I couldn't figure out why my shots were so blown out, so I just changed the settings to get a good exposure during the shoot, because my client was sitting there in front of me. Later on, I figured out what was happening. Might want to check that.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>The skin on all the "fixes" looks way to manipulated IMO.</p>

<p>I downloaded the shot, and enlarged it ... and realized it had NR already applied ... perhaps in-camera which is not uncommon when ISO 3200 is used. More wholesale NR doesn't appear to be the answer. Perhaps just getting the exposure correct, then trying a print will work. </p>

<p>I did a quick exposure adjustment and a good deal of the noise disappeared (some of which is NR artifacts, not noise). Then lifted the shadows a bit and applied a touch of select area NR on just the coat, rather than the whole image. Color balance on higher ISO shots that are poorly exposed is more difficult than with lower ISOs ... so that was tricky and probably would benefit from more thought. Then I sent it to the printer for a 10" on the long side print and it looked fine. I doubt any client would ever notice.</p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Marc--the client probably won't notice the print, but they would notice the file, and if Melinda gives the client files, they will most likely look at them on the monitor. That's why I said, above, that a sample print and explanation would still be in order. I agree with you about the noise issue--too much plastic skin effect.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Crikey! Bravo. More depth and separation from the B'ground, too. As I mentioned recently, I am constantly amazed at what I take away. PS is one area where I am a novice - and have admitted that freely - my wedding files go to a women, who is a genius at it. I gotta learn more. <br>

<br>

I reckon melinda has some options . . .<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[laceyhughes]

<p>At the end of all this I would like to add that all is not lost. There is post production that can be done. Don't beat yourself up too badly, we all make mistakes. It's how we learn, and how we improve! Keep up the good work. </p>

[laceyhughes]

<p>At the end of all this I would like to add that all is not lost. There is post production that can be done. Don't beat yourself up too badly, we all make mistakes. It's how we learn, and how we improve! Keep up the good work. </p>