What do you do in These situations?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Afragola

If you were to convert the images to black and white the first thing you'd see is the contrast is way off. When shooting a pix in the shade the easiest way to correct for contrast it is to use fill flash. But most photos would be improved with fill flash anyway - unless you're doing pj work that requires available light. Then, even still, you will likely have to kick the contrast up.

Regardless of whether shots are black and white or color the contrast should always be taken into consideration. Generally, if backgrounds and foregrounds have the same tonal values you'll detract from the subject. Exposure for the primary subject should always be paramount.

If you're a working professional (volume type ) you should be having someone else do your printing anyway. Any time taken away from shooting is costing you money. You can shoot 4-10 jobs in the time it takes to print a volume job, and shooting is where the money is. A quality print is simply the end product. Your assistant on the front desk can present the final package and take the final check as easily as you can -- if you ain't shooting a job you ain't makin' money.

Afragola

Spot on. Is the Hotel Amaranto still the best place to stay and is the Antica Pizzeria Port'Alba still worth the drive over to it?

[Afragola]

I prefer to stay in Caserta but only because that puts me closer to the palace to wander around to gawk and shoot pictures. Then, not far away is Capua. Do I miss it? Only every day. ;)

[cmalana]

Let me help on the wedding photography question with some of my thoughts -

It seems like you are trying to make exposure a science with some 'rules'. Each of us have our own set, but if you've ever looked at samples of the top wedding photographers in the world, they all have their set of rules that they follow, and the ones they break. You'll have to figure out which ones work for you.

Regarding wedding coverage, if your available light forces you to expose for one part of the image vs. another, then that's the choice you are making as a photographer. If in a particular image the face is important, then expose the face. Crop the picture (in the camera preferably by correct framing) so that the face is highlighted. If you blow out the dress, then so be it. For example, I sometimes take shots that accentuate the boquet - and intentionally light only the boquet and leave the background (including the bride dark). One of my clients absolutely loves a shot where the boquet is in bright sunlight and the rest of her is in the shade and blurred (you can barely see her). So she's probably 1.5 stops under-exposed...but that really didn't matter.

On the other hand, if you are going for a traditional portrait that is lighted evenly, and giving you full control of shadows and shadow density - then you will need to supplement with strobes. There is a reason why some shoots have over 50 lights!

If I had to do an outdoor shot and make sure the bride and her dress are both exposed properly, i'll have to options - I can set up combo lighting (using available light and strobes). This involves probably also getting matching temp on lights. I will then power the lights (you may need more than 1) so that I get the exposure I want (for example, I can set up exposure for the dress and fire a strobe to add a bit more light to her face). You can also try doing something similar with reflectors and feathering it to get the right amount of light.

The 2nd choice, if I want to spend some photoshop time is to bracket the shot (especially if the difference is large) and shoot RAW. I can then 'develop' several exposures of RAW (if bracket is done at 3fps or higher, they can easily be combined without pushing or pulling exposure on just 1 raw file) and layer several of them and use layer masks to ensure that the final combined image has all the right parts exposed.

I hope this helps.

[skdupre]

Everyone has their own style or technique for establishing a workable exposure. Here is mine.

I use a Sekonic L358 hand held light meter and take a reading in front of the subject with the meter facing where I'm going to take the pictures (as the light falls on the subject). I then set my camera on manual based on an equivalent exposure given the aperture I am looking for. With my lens it is usually f4.0 somewhere around 1/125 (in the shade) at ISO 100. These are rough setting based on most of my afternoon shoots in the shade. One of the first things I do is scout out shade for taking outdoor pictures. Sometimes it is at 2pm so it can be a challenge. If I don't like what I see on the LCD / histogram I bump my flash (Canon 580ex w/ LSPJ II) output to + 1/2 - 1 to further separate the subject from the background.

What would a discussion be without samples. See attached. By the way, there is a detailed discussion in reference to the Canon 580ex flash exposure: see thread Camp 580.

Just 2 bits from a wedding photographer.

[Duffy Pratt]

Your first picture, the darker one of the woman sitting, is properly exposed. The second one, IMO, is overexposed. It starts to blow out a highlight in her face, and the background is not appealing at all.

I took the liberty of editing the first file. I applied the Green channel to the RGB at 80% luminoscity, to increase detail in the face and lighten the grass.

Then I jumped to LAB, selected the L channel and added 3% to the Shadow/Highlights in both shadow and highlights. Then I steepened the L curve some, selecting the bright spot in the white button as the highlight, and the darkest part of her hair as shadow.

Then I applied the A channel to itself and the B channel to itself in overlay mode, and reduced opacity to 40%. Then reconverted to sRGB. The whole thing took about 3 minutes.

If I had to do this sort of thing in bulk, I would set up the steps as an action, and have a few actions for a few different typical situations. But I don't think it makes that much sense to isolate exposure questions from processing questions when dealing with digital. Almost everything can use some processing no matter how good the exposure.

(Oops. Originally I had attached the edited file, showing the effect of the changes I made. In my opinion, it shows that the first image was properly exposed to begin with. I'm new to this site, and when I made the attachment, I had seen the option to approve in advance whether one could edit another's photo. Since the original poster had not said "No," I assumed it was OK. It appears I may have jumped the gun. He hasn't either approved or disapproved someone editing his picture, so I removed the attachment. I'd be happy to post it again if JGaddy approves. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes.)

Duffy Pratt

[jgaddy]

By all means....edit and post it....Thanks

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

Your first picture, the darker one of the woman sitting, is properly exposed. The second one, IMO, is overexposed. It starts to blow out a highlight in her face, and the background is not appealing at all.

I took the liberty of editing the first file. I applied the Green channel to the RGB at 80% luminoscity, to increase detail in the face and lighten the grass.

Then I jumped to LAB, selected the L channel and added 3% to the Shadow/Highlights in both shadow and highlights. Then I steepened the L curve some, selecting the bright spot in the white button as the highlight, and the darkest part of her hair as shadow.

Then I applied the A channel to itself and the B channel to itself in overlay mode, and reduced opacity to 40%. Then reconverted to sRGB. The whole thing took about 3 minutes.

If I had to do this sort of thing in bulk, I would set up the steps as an action, and have a few actions for a few different typical situations. But I don't think it makes that much sense to isolate exposure questions from processing questions when dealing with digital. Almost everything can use some processing no matter how good the exposure.

(Oops. Originally I had attached the edited file, showing the effect of the changes I made. In my opinion, it shows that the first image was properly exposed to begin with. I'm new to this site, and when I made the attachment, I had seen the option to approve in advance whether one could edit another's photo. Since the original poster had not said "No," I assumed it was OK. It appears I may have jumped the gun. He hasn't either approved or disapproved someone editing his picture, so I removed the attachment. I'd be happy to post it again if JGaddy approves. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes.)

Duffy Pratt

[Duffy Pratt]

OK thanks. This is my version of the first picture. As I said, this took only a few minutes to do. It did not involve making any selections or masks. It's the sort of thing that could be done with an action and run very easily in a batch on a group of similar pictures.

The attachements are the after and the before pictures:

[Duffy Pratt]

Here's another example of one of your "underexposed" shots. This time I ran through the steps above in a "by the numbers" approach, with two small exceptions: The shirt is very red. Applying the green channel without further action would have made it a dark red. I used the channel blenders to stop that. Similarly, the layer with the A channel applied to itself would make the red shirt turn almost psychedelic, so I used the channel blend slider to stop the effect in the shirt. (Unfortunately parts of the shirt and her lips are almost the same color.

With more time I would be tempted to either mask the shirt or select out her lips so that I could separate the effects between them better.

Once again, I don't think there is anything wrong with this picture's exposure. It could have been opened up very slightly, because the part of the picture that is in danger of being blown was not particularly interesting. But for me, this exposure range is certainly workable.

To make the comparison easier, I'm attaching first the after, then the before again.

Duffy

[AndrewCCM]

I shoot a lot of weddings. Fill flash (bounced if possible) for most of those situations.. Or, I concern myself with the subject.. Worse case scenario, I want the subject to look good...background can blow out. As far as 1000s of images... I personally choose to shoot more selectively and look for good lighting situations (if possible)...I used to shoot video..Don't plan on doing it again with my dSLR. LOL (just kidding)

Seriously, I go through my images and choose the best and then correct those. I do not completely correct hundreds of images unless they are ordered. Proofs are just that...I tell my customers that should they want a print, they'll be retouched and further corrected in PS. Otherwise, it just isn't good biz sense for me to spend that much time on that many images especially when 95% are not ordered. With my business model, we're selling our skill and vision...not wholesale shoot and burn (although that is an option for a price). Thus, prints are still a primary source of income in our model. We do not sell them on the sheer bulk amount of images and the fact they can get them printed themselves for $.15 a piece. We try and sell them as if contracting an artist selling images that are one of a kind. IMHO, as digital photography progresses and everyone and their dog begins calling themselves a professional photog, it'll be very important to differentiate yourself from others to survive and make a decent living. For me, I am taking this approach while many others are shooting and burning for lesser amounts.

Let me apologize for going so far off topic.

Just to get back to what you asked...I do correct most all proofs that I show the client, but very quickly for color tone and exposure. I do use various other techniques that have been mentioned above for my final corrections and I also utilize curves a lot. I find RawShooterPro's curves the easiest to manipulate.

Good luck!

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media