Another newbie photo

[hungt23]

This is a picture just outside of the Venetian hotel in Vegas.
What can I do to get the words on the canopies to come out clearly? Did I have the aperture too large? Is it overexpose?
Thank you.

[xseption]

Was this on a tripod or handheld? what was the aperture and shutterspeed?

the answers may help with the questions

[CaptainTom]

It appears overexposed. You can't recover details that are not there.

Did you shoot in RAW?

[Duffy Pratt]

Here is the sign, with a severe curve put on it. (I didn't put it in the full picture because your sig says you don't want others to edit your work, but the only way to see what might be possible is actually to give the image a try in an editor.) The only word I can make out is Grand at the front of the sign. If you were interested in these words, then yes, the shot is overexposed. If you shot RAW, you might be able to save more than what I have here.

Duffy

[venchka]

The rest of the scene is exposed fairly well. The banners (Gordie Brown at the Venetian) on the light poles are very legible. This was probably a case for 3 exposures and layering a composite. I think that's the correct way in Photoshop? An exposure for the canopy signs, one for the fountain & street lights and a third for the fence & posts.

[hungt23]

Here are the details for this photo:
1. on a tripod
2. Shutter speed: 10 sec.
3. Aperture: F/11
4. Focal length: 40mm
5. ISO: 100
6. Metering: Partial

[hungt23]

I didn't shoot it in RAW but I should have.

[shutterdrone]

You're trying to shoot a very difficult shot. You have a range from shadows->highlights that exceeds that of most digital sensors. In this case, you would've have to had picked which part of the scene you wanted properly exposed. If you wanted the highlights exposed, meter off of them and, well, lose some shadows =)

That is, if you wanted the words on the canopies readable, you would've needed to reduce your exposure so that you didn't blow out the light canopies. You can't really recover blown highlights. (You can't also 'create' shadow detail the sensor couldn't register.)

There's obviously a _lot_ more to this than what I've stated, but its your starting point - in such a scene, it's incredibly difficult to get a perfect exposure for everything. Work instead on exposing which part you want properly exposed.

Here're some helpful links:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm
http://www.joereifer.com/words/?p=272
http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcame...oc.aspx?i=2351

!c

[hungt23]

Thanks. Here is a link to the rest of my pictures from Vegas:

http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...ad.php?t=52295

[barP]

your best bet might be to shoot multiple images or process multiple raw files to get correct exposure in each part of the image, then combine in photoshop.

wp.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by barP

your best bet might be to shoot multiple images or process multiple raw files to get correct exposure in each part of the image, then combine in photoshop.

wp.

I guess I was right.

ps: You could also bracket your exposures which is the same as what we said earlier about seperate exposures. Did you need f:11 for DOF? Maybe so, it looks good. However, in these situations, go for the shortest shutter speed you can. Stuff happens and any camera shake would ruin the detail. I bet exposures at 2, 4 & 8 seconds at f:11 would have done the trick.

[barP]

wayne, your stuff is cool! i bet the leica is fun. film or digital?

wp.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by barP

wayne, your stuff is cool! i bet the leica is fun. film or digital?

wp.

Thanks for the kind words. Film. It's all I know.