Need help with Image

[heather_p1]

<p>Hello, would you please help me with this image?<br>

It was shot with a Canon 50D, ISO 400 f/4.0, 1/250sec, 24mm (24-105mm f4L). I've only bumped up the exposure a tad in Lightroom, no other edits. (their faces look more pink here than on my desktop) <strong>My issue: Am I seeing grain in this image?</strong> Their faces seem a little "noisy" to me. I was using on camera flash (430EX) ETTL. One, I am overcrtical of everythign I do and, Two, I hate noise. If this is a technical issue, would you please give me instruction? If it's a camera issue, well, that will have to wait. I will be upgrading my camera in the next year to either the 5DmII or Nikon equivalent.<br>

Thanks so much.<br>

<img src="http://i587.photobucket.com/albums/ss318/focus28photo/IMG_5077.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[craigd]

<p>I don't see any graininess in their faces at this size, though who knows what I might see in a 100% crop. That said, I wouldn't expect ISO 400 to look flawlessly clean on a 50D. I would expect it to look good, which this does. I would be inclined to look for noise more in the dark areas (the dark clothes, possibly the tree) than in their faces.</p>

<p>It's not a bad group portrait at all, but to my eyes you were standing a bit too close -- I don't much like the way the men's shoes seem to be pointing downward. It gives the impression that they're standing on a slope, which I don't think they are..</p>

<p>There is no Nikon equivalent to the 5D Mark II. The D700 and D3s are full-frame but roughly half the resolution (though with better low-light performance), and the D3x is three times the price, plus larger and heavier.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>At least in this version online I'm not seeing noise in their faces either. If you post it to your site in full resolution and then post the link, maybe we could get a better idea of what you were talking about. Which version of lightroom do you have? If it's LR2, bumping up the luminance can help if the noise is minimal, but I still find the noise reduction available in photoshop CS4 to be far superior. If I'm taking the noise out of an image that is REALLY noisy, that's what I tend to use over lightroom 2.</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>I don't see grain. I do want to add a little Portraiture to it just to soften the faces, but again, only a little.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I don't see grain. The problem is that your subjects are under-lit and needed more fill light, which is why you're tried to compensate for that issue with lightroom. The underexposure results in the pink/reddish cast that you're seeing. I've tried to compensate a bit in the image below with digital fill.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>I didn't look at the grain, I looked at the lighting –it is a tad out of balance.<br>

<br>

I agree with DS - you are under on the fill (not enough Flash Fill)<br>

<br>

I add: you are over on the Ambient Exposure.<br>

<br>

My best guess for corrections to get you in a better ballpark the Fill needs to be 1/2stop more and the Ambient needs to be 1/2 less.<br>

<br>

The EXIF reads Spot metering: From what did you take the Ambient Spot Meter Reading?<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[theresa_skutt]

<p>I'm impressed, WW, you can tell 1/2 stop from this! From where SHOULD one take a spot reading on a group? (sorry, going off-topic here)</p>

[heather_p1]

<p>I do admit I need experience in the lighting department. I shot on manual and was correctly exposed in the camera. Should I use exposure compensation? When the image looks fine in my display and histogram where do I go from there?</p>

<p>I spot metered off the brides face (always).</p>

[heather_p1]

<p>Do you recommend another metering setting?</p>

[craigd]

<p>Heather: "I spot metered off the brides face (always)."</p>

<p>But the camera's idea of "correct" exposure is 18% gray, and the bride is a fair-skinned white woman. Her face is nowhere near 18% gray. You should probably add about a stop when spot-metering off a white person's face unless they're incredibly deeply tanned.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Craig is right. Need to open up a stop or so when metering off skin tone, if the person is Caucasian. This isn't even very exact, since skin tone varies. Plus, you can't go from the LCD. Histogram--maybe. The combination--OK, with past experience thrown in. It is difficult to go by the histogram when shooting these kinds of scenes, where you have a darker foreground and brighter background, since the histogram will not show you the balance between the two.</p>

<p>Also when shooting manual camera mode, exposure compensation is not an option, unless you are talking about 'in your head' (as in opening up the stop for skin tone).</p>

<p>Not what you asked, but I will comment on the perspective you have here. They appear to be distorted from using a wide focal length. For 4 people full length, try to get closer to 50mm (non cropped) for less distortion. I've photographed at that location before--nice place. I know you said the image was without any tweaks, but the distortion, and the skew are things you can't tweak in processing (very well). When I have a symmetrical background, I try to keep my angles from skewing (this is not the tilt, which can be corrected easily). I know I am a PITA to subjects, but with a symmetrical background, I am constantly moving people to be centered, and I shoot straight on to the background.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Can you upload 100 % crop, re the noise issue? Can't tell anything from the size image you posted.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>People often confuse exposure and lighting, they are two very different issues. Typically outside with back lighting of this nature you'll need to add light by way of fill flash or by using a reflector. In this case a reflector would be too small to be effective. Fill flash is generally the simplest and easiest solution.</p>

[savagesax]

I don't see any evidence of a flash. If so, what was the flash reading? Did you bounce? How far away were you?

 

If the flash did fire the faces are about 3/4 of a stop under. If you were over 7 to 8 feet I don't see how a bounced flash from the 430 could reach the people. With a direct flash you should be able to see something in the eyes of the people. If the flash did fire and you didn't bounce the light and aimed it directly at the people, there should be a sign of a flash going off. If you were standing about 10 feet away, reset your flash to manual, not ETTL.

 

I don't think the issue is your camera, but actually with the flash itself. Consider buying/renting a stronger flash such as the Canon 580.

[savagesax]

"Do you recommend another metering setting?"

 

In the case of your photo I would have metered off of the tree branch of the left side of the image, next to the father. Regards to gray cards this green leaf is very close to a gray card. The bride is a bit light skinned, therefore I would never spot meter her face. You can get away with spot metering if someone has a nice summer tan.

 

Even the red bricks on the ground would be a closer match to the 18% gray. Never use skin tones to set your camera.

[craigd]

<p>Bob: "Never use skin tones to set your camera."</p>

<p>I disagree. You can spot meter off almost anything as long as you know how you want it to appear in the finished image, and how to compensate for the meter's assumption that everything is 18% gray. It's basically straight Zone System thinking; the meter tells you how to expose for Zone 5, so if you want the thing you're metering to be in Zone 6, expose one stop more.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Metering: for this scene I would have used a target, something like this:</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375202-REG/Lastolite_LL_LR2050_EZYBalance_Grey_White_Card.html</p>

<p>Camera is in spot metering, and viola', perfect <em>neutral </em>metering. In this particular shot, I agree that there isn't enough fill flash. The larger issue is the use of ETTL. You just never <em>know</em> how it is going to fire. So, I would have put the flash on a lightstand to keep the distances the same and then fired the flash in manual mode to maintain consistency. Of course you would need a way to trigger the flash, but that is another story. </p>

<p>Also, if I were evaluating this image, I would suggest a tighter framing. I try to avoid shooting full length portraits, most people don't want to see their legs/feet (I do of course get a full length of the bride and the bride and groom).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is no Nikon equivalent to the 5D Mark II.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! The Nikon D700 has a far better metering and AF system! And it was the metering of this scene that failed the OP. </p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon D700 has a far better metering and AF system [<em>than the 5D Mark II</em>]! And it was the metering of this scene that failed the OP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(1) This wasn't shot with a 5D Mark II. It was shot with a 50D, a significantly cheaper APS-C camera.</p>

<p>(2) Spot metering is spot metering. The camera did exactly what the photographer told it to do. The problem is that she didn't compensate for the fact that she was spot-metering something a stop or more brighter than a gray card.</p>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> OK folks, I don't want a Nkon/Canon, Canon/Canon, metering method debate(s) here. The OP asked about noise in the image. I also offered a non-noise statement, but let's not get too far afield into debates that historically have no resolution because they are opinion-based.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Heather--will you please upload a 100% crop of the image--probably a person's face or a dark area that would show noise. While exposure has a great deal to do with noise in an image, there could be other reasons, but we won't know until we can actually see what noise you are talking about. We can't really help you until we see it.</p>

[heather_p1]

<p>Hi Nadine, I'm not sure I know how to provide a "100% crop" of this image. Please forgive me. I'm sure it's simple... would you please instruct me?</p>

<p>All others, I appreciate your time, and it's the exposure end of my image issue that I'm seeking clarification to. I realize the crop isn't good. I took both vertical and waist up horizontal shots of each pose for variation for the client. I was approximately 15 feet away from the subjects. I did not bounce my flash - it was pointed directly at the clients.</p>

<p>I'm interested to learn more about the Zone System.</p>

<p>1. I need a more powerful flash. 2. Use a gray card or bump up exposure on Caucasian skin. 3. ??</p>

<p>And, per Bob's comment, if there's greenery in any portrait session, should I meter off of it? </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>(2) Spot metering is spot metering.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, this brings up several interesting points. First, is knowing <em>how</em> your camera spot meters. Is the spot on a focus point (as I believe it should be) or does it just use the center focus point at all times. Next, has the camera meter been calibrated against a true 18% gray card to ensure you are getting the correct reading. And finally, was the camera left in spot metering? In general, most TTL flash systems don't like spot metering and will default to something else. Just another something contributing to the "underexposure" on the part of the flash.</p>

[heather_p1]

<p>Also, regarding a comment to be as close to 50mm as possible. Is this to account for the adjustment with my cropped sensor? I have a 50mm 1.8, should I use this as my portrait lens? </p>

<p>Should I never take full-length portraits unless it's one with a bride and groom? Only waist-up? I agree, they aren't the best looking, but I thought it was more of a standard.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>1. I need a more powerful flash.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Never hurts. But I think the 430 had the power for this shot. So having more power would not be a "solution".</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>2. Use a gray card or bump up exposure on Caucasian skin.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, <em>knowing</em> exposure would be the first step. I like using a target because it takes the guess work out of the equation. I also like it because you can take it with you anywhere, you don't need green leaves/grass.</p>

<p>The Zone System: </p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System</p>

<p>http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/conrad-meter-cal.pdf<br /></p>

<p><br /></p>

[craigd]

<p>The Zone System is basically a way of figuring out how to get a shot to come out with the amount of exposure you really want. You can Google around for various explanations of it, or read Ansel Adams' book <em>The Negative</em> (vol. 2 of his three-volume Ansel Adams Photography set) for the official version.</p>

<p>Basically, Adams divides the levels of brightness in a photograph into eleven zones, each one stop brighter or darker than its neighbors. You look at a scene in front of you and decide what zone some crucial element should be in, like saying, "I want the bride's face to be in Zone 6" and then you meter that element and figure out how to get it to come out in Zone 6. The key is that a spot meter will always tell you how to expose for Zone 5. So to get the bride's face into Zone 6, you spot meter her face and add one stop. You can also look at other parts of the scene and figure out what zones they will fall into by comparing their spot meter values to the point you've already decided (the bride's face in this case). You know that you will get the best details from Zones 3 through 7; outside that range you're getting into deep shadow or brilliance (the actual limits vary a bit depending on the characteristics of the sensor or film you're using). With all this knowledge and a reliable spot meter, you should be able to get the best exposure possible out of just about any situation.</p>