How to capture/control tonal range

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>I have always wondered after seeing photos like <br>

this<br>

and this<br>

<p>how are such shallow, warm, crisp, clear tones achieved? Obviously, the light dictates the creation of such tones...but I'm wondering what camera settings help enhance/capture them? I ask because a few days ago I was in a situation in which the lighting was perfect for such shots, but I was not able to capture them using my 70-200mm f/4L lens. I assume the wider the aperture, the easier it is to capture such shots..or am I wrong?<br>

Basically, what should I do with the camera (assuming the right lighting comes along) to create such atmospheric tones? </p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Often, such things are done in postprocessing. The second image looks a bit like some colours were slightly desaturated, and maybe a filter involved.<br>

Sometimes it may just be a certain light. Experiment with your WB settings in postprocessing, and with ACR settings.</p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>I assume the wider the aperture, the easier it is to capture such shots..or am I wrong?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aperture determine the depth of field - how much of the scene appears in focus. It won't have much impact on how the light is recorded (tonal <em>values</em> ). Much of that is down to filters and/or post processing as well as the recording medium. I'm really not much for color, but the first shot looks like they allowed the lens to flare rather a lot, which can be done by using an uncoated lens, or placing an uncoated filter in front of the lens. And, since they shot directly into the sun, they got a lot of flare as well.</p>

<p>The second shot used shallow depth of field or post processing to generate a similar effect. Most of the colors appear desaturated as well, with the exception of the red of the ketchup bottle in the center. The range of tonal values seems normal to me, neither overly flat nor overly contrasty, but as I stated, the saturation of the colors seems muted, which is all in the post processing stage.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>

<p>The tones you see can be adjusted to any desire in post processing. The warm muted colors that is. For settings on your camera at time of capture, you would need to turn down the saturation and change the white balance for warmer tone. An example would be to set your white balance to "Cloudy" or "Shade" when shooting in the sun. This will add a great deal of warmth to the image. The problem is that it will be an uncontrollable amount. That is why it is best to dial in what is desired in post processing. I am not saying this will nail what you want/desire, but that is about all you can do in camera.</p>

<p>The shot taken in the diner looks rather neutral, maybe slightly warm. Also looks like they corrected for the green cast of florescent or the yellow/orange cast of incandescent lighting. Just has that look to me. No special lighting there that I can see.</p>

<p>The Shallowness you mention is indeed the aperture setting. Know as Depth of Field(DoF). The diner shot was with a 50mm f1.4 lens. Most likely shot at f1.4. Your f4 lens will never achieve this. The fastest zoom you will find is f2.8 and they are expensive. You will need a fast prime lens. Good news is that they are much cheaper and still get very good image quality.</p>

<p>If you are shooting film, the process would be a bit different. There it would be the selection of film stock, filters used on the lens, and changes made during processing of the film. Then of course any adjustment made at the time of printing the final image.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

</p>

[SCL]

<p>Jasna - the first contra jour shot isn't an issue of capturing tones by aperture manipulation, but as stated, lighting, flare and desaturation, perhaps even slight underexposure. The 2nd is desaturated (probably) and uses a narrow DOF. Here aperture is the issue as because DOF is inversely related to aperture. There are a gazillion references on this site to the DOF calculator, which I suggest you look at so you can get an idea of just what will be covered by your lens at max aperture. I shoot a lot of manual focus lenses, and in the day, many manufacturers engraved DOF scales on their lenses (although many of those were merely approximations).</p>

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>Thanks for all the answers<br>

I wasn't really referring to the DOF of the shots, I understand how that is achieved and know that I will never be able to get such a shallow DOF (as shown in the 2nd pic) with my f/4 lens. (Good thing I just bought the 50mm f/1.4!) <br>

What I am referring to is, as mentioned in most of the responses, the tonal range of the shot. What is particularly striking to me is not just the warmth, but how that tone mutes the details of the subjects.<br>

An example of this effect (without the warmth) is shown here<br>

http://amor-fati.tumblr.com/post/161256826/noam-griegst.<br>

Obviously, in the shot linked above, a high ISO was utilized which to me would help the situation..but what I don't understand in the responses given is why the shots are UNDERexposed... to me they seem to be overexposed in order to drown out the colors (in the second shot) and to create the warm shallow light ( in the first shot)<br>

I know this seems like a strange question, the style has just always appealed to me and despite my knowledge of cameras/lighting/techniques, I never could nail it- so I thought I'd ask you guys about it.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Thanks!</p>

[ianmaleny]

<p>Could the cause of the effect in shots one and three be veiling flare? My Tammy 90 macro does this all to easily with bright light in the scene, but my Pentax limiteds seem to be immune to this. All to do with the quality of the lens, perhaps.<br>

Just my ha'peth worth.</p>

[randall ellis]

<blockquote>

<p>but what I don't understand in the responses given is why the shots are UNDERexposed... to me they seem to be overexposed in order to drown out the colors (in the second shot) and to create the warm shallow light ( in the first shot)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Underexposure prevents the shadows from developing any real detail and keeps the highlights from burning out to pure white. Exposure (either over or under) does not change the <em>light temperature</em> (warm or cool colors), that is something that is done with film choice, white balance settings, a filter, or again, done in post processing. Exposure only controls the level of detail recorded by controlling how much, or how little, light reaches the recording medium. The longer the exposure the more light reaches the recording medium, and therefore the more information is recorded. If that amount exceeds the ability of the medium to retain detail it goes to pure white, and if it is so little that it does not allow any detail to be recorded those areas show as pure black.</p>

<p>In this last example, underexposing prevented the dark areas from gaining much detail and prevented the lightest areas from blowing out where the spot lights light the scene. If it had been exposed longer, for example, there would be larger halos of pure white around the lights and there would be far more detail in the person's face and clothing as well as a lot of the other shadow areas. Overexposure would give a great amount of detail in the shadow areas and huge swaths of blown out pure white areas in the highlights.</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4242905"><em>Jasna Hodzic</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Aug 12, 2009; 03:50 a.m.</em><br /><em>Basically, what should I do with the camera (assuming the right lighting comes along) to create such atmospheric tones?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the right light comes along, push the button and grab the shot. A huge part of the problem is overcome when you accept that you have to seek out the right light and the right location. You have to put in the time, be there and be ready. It's hard work, but well worth it. <br>

Bill P.</p>