Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th September 2007, 20:29   #1456
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudra Sen View Post
Not as easy as you're thinking. Let me explain:
To use f10 at ISO200, I need to use much longer time for shutter. Though there's no reciprocity failure in digital, other problem would come up.

For instance, how exactly I'm going to manage those direct light sources in the frame? More time means more (abnormal) shadow detail and blown (read burn out) high lights. Longer exposure also means more noise in digital.

My camera handles noise pretty well and I really don't see any reason to pull down ISO. And in this case..
..as you're right here, original size is 95mb (@16bit RGB). Noise is not really there.
At ISO 200 you would have needed approx 5 sec exposure - not enough to bring in noise IMO.

Lower ISO again IMO is always better as long as the shutter speed is manageable. Again nothing wrong with how you shot this - just pointing out that this shot may not have required higher ISO at all.

I use high ISO when there is requirement for maintaining shutter speed either due to lack of support or subject movement. If I have or am anyway using a tripod I will always use 200 ISO [there is a theory that 200 is better than 100 but then thats another story altogether]

BTW do you think that the WB is a bit off in that shot? Looks a bit off on my monitor at least.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2007, 21:01   #1457
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: chennai
Posts: 757
Thanked: 299 Times
Default

Quote:
Wet Bangalore Morning today.
Nice picture rudraji. mood is perfectly captured.
tifosikrishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2007, 21:36   #1458
Team-BHP Support
 
Samurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: B'lore-Manipal
Posts: 22,351
Thanked: 14,177 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumar2007 View Post
BTW do you think that the WB is a bit off in that shot? Looks a bit off on my monitor at least.
I doubt it. He always shoots RAW and has a highly calibrated monitor.
Samurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2007, 21:54   #1459
Team-BHP Support
 
Rudra Sen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 10,404
Thanked: 4,088 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumar2007 View Post
At ISO 200 you would have needed approx 5 sec exposure
On what basis youíve come to this conclusion? And, at which mode? Aperture value?/ Time value?/Full auto?/Manual?/average center weighted metering?/ Evaluative/matrix metering?/spot metering?

Well, I didnít know that life is so simple. Despite using top of the line equipments for my business for years.
Quote:
- not enough to bring in noise IMO.
What size sensor? Which camera? Shooting at what mode? JPEG/TIFF/RAW? And at what size capture?
Quote:
- Lower ISO again IMO is always better as long as the shutter speed is manageable.
Please explain. Iím a keen learner.
Quote:
Again nothing wrong with how you shot this - just pointing out that this shot may not have required higher ISO at all.
You shoot a shot at 200ISO with actual light source in frame and show me. Letís also have all the shadow details in place. OK?
Quote:
I use high ISO when there is requirement for maintaining shutter speed either due to lack of support or subject movement. If I have or am anyway using a tripod I will always use 200 ISO [there is a theory that 200 is better than 100 but then thats another story altogether.
Thatís the whole point of having a choice in film (now digital) speed. It also greatly depends on what youíre shooting. I employ a very good tripod for my shoot. It has very little to do with tricky lighting situation.
Quote:
BTW do you think that the WB is a bit off in that shot? Looks a bit off on my monitor at least.
White balance is auto in my camera all the time. Itís not looking off on my monitor.

And how did you find that white balance is looking off?

As I mentioned before..I love to learn.
Rudra Sen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2007, 23:05   #1460
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Well, since you said that you would love to learn I will try to teach.

Quote:
On what basis youíve come to this conclusion? And, at which mode? Aperture value?/ Time value?/Full auto?/Manual?/average center weighted metering?/ Evaluative/matrix metering?/spot metering?
Metering remaining same as what you have used in your original shot - which you made at ISO800, f/10 and 1.3 sec. If you leave the aperture the same and shoot at ISO 200 that will be two stops difference so you would need a 2 stop difference in shutter speed. 1.3*2=2.6, and 2.6*2=5 [approx]. Its not rocket science really and does NOT depend on ANY of the other parameters that you have mentioned above. I am talking about the shot in the SAME metering mode that you have used. Hope you understand.

Quote:
Well, I didnít know that life is so simple. Despite using top of the line equipments for my business for years.
Actually understanding exposure IS that simple and does not require top of the line equipment

Quote:
Thatís the whole point of having a choice in film (now digital) speed. It also greatly depends on what youíre shooting. I employ a very good tripod for my shoot. It has very little to do with tricky lighting situation.
EXACTLY my point - if you are using a good tripod then you can afford slower shutter speeds with the better IQ of lower ISO. And if you can find me one reference that ISO 800 [any sensor] actually gives as good IQ as ISO 200 i will be amazed. While some sensors will be better than another at a high ISO they all perform better at lower ISO.

BTW if you could post a couple of 100% crops of shadow areas of a 200 ISO and a 800 ISO shot of the same subject with the same lighting from the same sensor then we could actually see the difference. As I said downsized images can NEVER be used for judging noise in an image.

Quote:
White balance is auto in my camera all the time. Itís not looking off on my monitor.

And how did you find that white balance is looking off?
That explains it - you have shot in tungsten light with AWB. If you are shooting Canon at least AWB does NOT do the wonders that it should [not sure about Nikon].

What I would do is shoot in AWB in RAW [where actually WB does not make any difference] and do a WB correction in the post processing.

I know that the WB is off as I use a well calibrated monitor [which I take the trouble to calibrate regularly].

While the WB is a bit off I also feel that it contributes to the "mood" of the image. Some images will not do well with a highly accurate WB.

Hope you will read this with less bias and less condescension than your earlier post. I really do know what I am talking about and love to teach too.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2007, 23:08   #1461
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai View Post
I doubt it. He always shoots RAW and has a highly calibrated monitor.

Shooting RAW does NOT ensure accurate WB. It helps only in that you can change the WB in the post processing. If he does not correct the WB in PP then it remains wrong. Dont know if he is a Canon shooter but that is what Canon AWB would do. AWB in Canon is not great for Tungsten shots.

In fact he has pointed out that he always uses AWB - fine as long as you handle the post processing part as well.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2007, 06:18   #1462
Team-BHP Support
 
Rudra Sen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 10,404
Thanked: 4,088 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kumar2007 View Post
Well, since you said that you would love to learn I will try to teach.
Great going. Here are my points:
Quote:
1.3*2=2.6, and 2.6*2=5 [approx].
5 sec open shutter will blow high light areas. If according to you it wonít, then let me know the process.
Quote:
I am talking about the shot in the SAME metering mode that you have used. Hope you understand.
Yes I do understand and thatís why Iím asking once again about the process.

Shooting for high light and shadow separately and merge later would be other option. But that needs a tripod. I didnít have tripod for that shot.
Quote:
Actually understanding exposure IS that simple and does not require top of the line equipment .
I would like to reserve my view about this understanding exposure. Iím from really old school and very often I go with zone system. Especially, in a tricky situation.
Quote:
EXACTLY my point - if you are using a good tripod then you can afford slower shutter speeds with the better IQ of lower ISO.
Now, this is no rocket science. For regular situations, I go with 100 or less. But..
Quote:
And if you can find me one reference that ISO 800 [any sensor] actually gives as good IQ as ISO 200 i will be amazed.
There is no comparison but if you have the inclination, come and have a look at the same shot on my monitor. Noise is almost non-existant.
Quote:
While some sensors will be better than another at a high ISO they all perform better at lower ISO.
Quote:
BTW if you could post a couple of 100% crops of shadow areas of a 200 ISO and a 800 ISO shot of the same subject with the same lighting from the same sensor then we could actually see the difference. As I said downsized images can NEVER be used for judging noise in an image.
Agree with you here as itís a common knowledge.
Quote:
What I would do is shoot in AWB in RAW [where actually WB does not make any difference] and do a WB correction in the post processing.
Thatís what I do.
Quote:
I know that the WB is off as I use a well calibrated monitor [which I take the trouble to calibrate regularly].
This is interesting. Why do you calibrate your monitor regularly?
Quote:
While the WB is a bit off I also feel that it contributes to the "mood" of the image. Some images will not do well with a highly accurate WB.
Well, itís a question of choice. Depends greatly on what you like.
Quote:
Hope you will read this with less bias and less condescension than your earlier post.
I donít think my tone was as you mentioned. However, Iím sorry if it sounded like that to you.
Quote:
I really do know what I am talking about and love to teach too.
Shooting and post processing is very close to my heart. Of course I need education. Teach me with some examples.
Rudra Sen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2007, 08:26   #1463
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
5 sec open shutter will blow high light areas. If according to you it wonít, then let me know the process.
A 2 stop change i ISO with a 2 stop change in shutter speed will give you the same exposure so your highlights will be exposed the same. While I am pretty sure of this if I am wrong I realy would like to know why and how. This is again like I say at the bottom not an argument but just a discussion.

Quote:
Shooting for high light and shadow separately and merge later would be other option.
I would use that only if the DR is beyond the capability of the sensor - which in this case it is not.

BTW another way to do the above WITHOUT a tripod is to shoot ONE exposure in RAW, postprocess the RAW into two different TIFF/JPEGS, one for highlights and one for shadows and merge the two. Again thats a technique but not needed when the dynamic range is not vast like in this shot.

Quote:
But that needs a tripod. I didnít have tripod for that shot.
Again just curious-how did you shoot 1.3 sec without a tripod? As I said I had presumed that support was used and hence the shutter speed could have been longer.

Quote:
For regular situations, I go with 100 or less. But..
May not be the best actually. Some reports have shown that ISO less than 200 has less dynamic range but then this is controversial and not conclusively proved IMO. Still I use 200 as my minimum EXCEPT when I want to reduce the shutter speed tremendously as for example in taking a waterfall when I would use lowest ISO in conjunction with some ND filters.

Quote:
Why do you calibrate your monitor regularly?
Because unlike most digital photographers I do take prints too and if your monitor is not well calibrated the colours in the prints do not come out as you would want them too.

Quote:
Well, itís a question of choice. Depends greatly on what you like.
Like I said I LIKE the mood of this image [personal taste - I agree], but I still think that the WB is a bit off.Try shooting the same lighting with "tungsten WB" set on your camera and you will see the difference. BTW which body are you using? I think this may be Canon as I have similar WB issues with AWB with Canon and a friend who shifted from Nikon to Canon said that the Nikon AWB was much better.

I also find [after his suggestions] that I get a better WB even in daylight if I select the shade/cloudy etc than by leaving it on AWB.

You may ask why it makes a difference as I shoot RAW. It saves PP time if your WB is better to start with than having to correct every shot in PP. Plus the image looks better when you are chimping

BTW what RAW convertor are you using?

Quote:
I donít think my tone was as you mentioned. However, Iím sorry if it sounded like that to you.
I'm sorry too for that statement if that was not your intent

Quote:
Shooting and post processing is very close to my heart. Of course I need education. Teach me with some examples.
Very close to my heart too and I'm sure you dont need an education. I would say that this is just a discussion with a difference of opinions?

Rudra,

Just saw the EXIF and I see that its the 1DsMk2. What a lovely body you have. [just re read that line and it sounds so funny]. Also that you use PS in Mac. So I guess two of my questions have been answered.

Which lens did you use for this?

Rudra,

Sorry for another post but you know that as a newbie I cannot edit my posts. Forgot to ask - what is the colour of the walls in that shot?

Last edited by Samurai : 15th September 2007 at 09:52.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2007, 12:42   #1464
BHPian
 
mansidea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 238
Thanked: Once
Default

That was quite an informative discussion rudraji & kumar. Hope you will take it forward with the colour of the walls. BTW kumar, why dont you post some of your latest pics too where some of the amatuers here like me, can learn a lesson or two.
mansidea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2007, 19:16   #1465
Team-BHP Support
 
Rudra Sen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 10,404
Thanked: 4,088 Times
Default

kumar2007, I'm out of town and won't be able to visit forum on a regular basis.

I'll get back to you as I get back to BLR, mid next week.

Last edited by Rudra Sen : 15th September 2007 at 19:30.
Rudra Sen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2007, 00:49   #1466
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 139
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudra Sen View Post
kumar2007, I'm out of town and won't be able to visit forum on a regular basis.

I'll get back to you as I get back to BLR, mid next week.
Rudra,

It would be my pleasure to interact with you.
kumar2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2007, 17:00   #1467
BHPian
 
hkanitkar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: pune
Posts: 643
Thanked: 24 Times
Default

Brighten up !!!


Not so heavily PSed

Last edited by hkanitkar : 17th September 2007 at 17:04.
hkanitkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2007, 22:00   #1468
BHPian
 
austere_sly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 287
Thanked: 9 Times
Default

a good pic. But how do you do this black and white at specific places only ?
austere_sly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2007, 10:08   #1469
BHPian
 
hkanitkar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: pune
Posts: 643
Thanked: 24 Times
Default

Thanks man !
Did that in photoshop. Selected the flower and inversed it, so that rest of the area got selected and de-saturated it.
I suppose there's another way of selecting available ( by using 'selective colour' ) but am not sure about that.
hkanitkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2007, 10:31   #1470
BHPian
 
HellwratH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 115
Thanked: 57 Times
Default

Well, another good method of doing it is by converting the whole picture into black and white and use the history brush in Photoshop.
HellwratH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Auto-Image thread tsk1979 Shifting gears 4090 21st November 2017 22:43
Pics: The Official Porsche 997 Carrera thread! Discuss 997 non-turbo models here. RJK Super-Cars & Imports in India 117 22nd January 2013 18:22


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 11:12.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks