Please Help with Suggestions

[trahanw]

Shot this wedding---believe I'm having problems with the correct ISO setting. Need ideas.

Shutter 1/60s; ISO 320, Focal 62mm; f5.3


Camera; Nikon D80, SB800, Nikon 18-135

[boxofrocks]

looks like the ambient light from the window may have fooled your meter.

[trahanw]

Thanks....Would you suggest Matrix, Center, Spot. Now that I think about it I was also using a Expo disk and may have set teh white balance at a different light setting. Any suggestions on ISO's. Is the rule of thunb the lower ISO the higher in most cases detail you'll get. Of course monitoring the exposure makes a difference in the Histogram.

[davelowe]

Hi Wade!

I'm going to perhaps a bit brutal with my comments. Please don't be offended though. We were all where you were once. <GRIN>

I would not agree that a lower ISO will get you more detail. 200 or 400 would have been fine. 800 if you wanted to lift more of the background perhaps but not in this case. A high ISO may introduce "noise" though - 1600 on a conon 5D is still quite good - really! What will get you more detail is more to do with correct exposure. EG over exposed will mean lost information and therefore lost detail.

It is not so much about saying if matrix, centre or spot is the issue either. It is more about understanding how each one will work and what impact it will have and therefore choosing the one that is best for your situation. But to be really honest, most Pros are probably going to shoot Manual and watch the meter - perhaps in spot mode. Depending if you are shooting a predominately white or dark subject will determine if you go up or down an f stop to compensate for the meter.

If you shoot in raw, you will have a better chance of adjusting white balance and exposure to retain or recover detail. But you really need to try and get it right in camera first. The less post processing you do the better.

I think you also really need to have a good look at where your natural light sources are coming from before even looking in the view finder. The first photo shows that most of the natural light is actually coming from over her shoulder. The left side or her face is predominately in her own shadow and filled by flash. Therefore the shot is actually what it is.

I'm guessing that you are really trying to understand perhaps why this photo is not quite so flattering. The lady probably needed to be facing into the light a little more and you probably needed to be a little more left. You would then not need the on camera flash to fill. The flash has thrown a strong shadow that simply just looks unnatural. The fact that the background - the window - is bright, will naturally draw the viewer's eyes away from the brides face. Your objective here should have really been not to have used any camera flash at all and to have a more neutral background. You already had plenty of natural light. You just needed to use it better.

Just another comment. The pose could have been a little better. A side on shot like this is usually not very flattering. Boobs and cleavage are just not going to look natural. The tummy can also be a problem. Not so much a problem with this lady though. But you really want to show the curves in a more elegant - rather than clinical way. With the face pulled tightly to her left, this introduces skin creases on the neck. So bring the right shoulder around more. Shoot a little from above to show cleavage and prevent a double chin, so you get on a chair or she sits on one. Have her face the light about 3/4 but watch for shadows - ideally none. No fill flash or at least defuse it it a lot or bounce it or it will make the shot flat. Use a reflector if necessary to get a bit more fill instead.

I guess most of this applies to the second shot too.

Time to do a lot more practice and to be a bit more careful with the use of the flash.

Lastly - NEVER trust your LCD screen on your camera to determine subtle exposure or contrast settings. It just won't be accurate enough. The histogram is going to give you a better clue about correct exposure.

All the best, Regards, Dave.

[trahanw]

Dave, thank you so much this is great information. This next picture had some natural light, I imposed another background. But, still used a flash with a difusser on it. Little better but the angle of light source I see now couldv'e been alot better along with manualy taking over the camera with exposure and f stop instead of program mode. You have been an enourmous help. Is this pose close to what you're discussing.

[rott]

Often in situations like the first two where there's some backlighting that may fool the sensor, I'll switch to spot metering, and exposure lock on the face or skin (since it's usually pretty close to middle grey) and get close to accurate exposures. For formals I go all manual since everybody is in the same spot under the same light.

[trahanw]

Thanks..

[Gateruner]

the pose he is trying to explain isnt like your 3rd post. (ps the background overlay on that shot isnt working at all) Take a look at your first pose. Her left shoulder is closest to the camera. Looking at the picture take her left shoulder and have her turn it to the right. (remember looking at the photo) This is going to open her up more to the camera and should be able to get rid of the creases in the neck line since she isnt having to turn her head so far to her shoulder to see the camera. If you can do this without turning the hips to much you will create more of a curvy torso.

[CaptainTom]

I suggest a good book about exposure ( look in the bookstore here). Try to learn how your camera calculates the exposure. Learn about reflected vs. incident metering.
Do not believe what you see on the LCD. Learn to read and understand your histogram.
The client will accept poorly posed photos if they are correctly exposed. Learn about posing.

[trahanw]

Will stop by Books A Million today. Thanks I mean really thanks alot. Appreciate any and all constructive critisim.

[davelowe]

Hi Wade!

Your third shot has three light sources. Probably a window on the right hand side with possible strong direct sunlight. Obviously your on camera flash and on the left is either another window or something reflecting light back from that window on the right. Can you show the third shot with it's original background? Was there a reason to replace the background?I fear that this thread will drift from a question about ISO settings to a discussion about natural lighting before finally getting to correct exposure and posing. <GRIN>

Also, another question. You have the lady's hips and shoulders in "profile" so to speak and her face is angled. Why did you pose her this way? In your mind, what was the shot you were trying to get? And why do you have her facing left?

Regards, Dave.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Do not believe what you see on the LCD. Learn to read and understand your histogram.

Best advice I've heard in a while. That little graph really means something, and can tell you a lot!!!

[laawaaris]

sorry dude if i am harsh as well .. im not the greatest fotog myself and am still learning and just want to pass on what i know ...

in the 3rd picture, there are some rolls of skin on her neck? because of this it makes the photo look a little odd ...

the girl is also cutting her eyes back real far to the camera to look at the lens ... if you try it yourself and replicate her head position you can see how you have to look through the corner of your eyes ... my rule of thumb is that if it might strain model to look at the camera, i need to change something

also, her shoulder is in the front of the photo and it causes what's called the "football shoulder" look ... when you photograph right into the shoulder and arm, it can sometimes look flattering

also, i am guessing you asked her to smile and then right after that tried to compose and take the picture ... her smile looks a little nervous and her hands look a little bit fidgetty for some reason ... you can try to tell her to smile on the count of 3 and it can usually produce a face at the height of expression

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by laawaaris

sorry dude if i am harsh as well .. im not the greatest fotog myself and am still learning and just want to pass on what i know ...

Bobby, that was a little harsh. But since you already apologized, I guess it can slide.

I know he was looking for some pointers, but man, you really let him have it.

[laawaaris]

wade, if my comments come across as harsh please do not take them to heart

i worked in a studio myself and it took me a while to understand what i was doing ... every single photo i was proud of and displayed to my studio manager was slashed and all the faults were pointed out ...

although my manager did her slashing in a very nice manner, when i look back i realized i learned from her largely because i kept getting detailed criticism on my work ... for me, if i don't have detailed criticism it is very hard for me to put the pieces together ...

so i guess all i wanted to do wash show you the thoughts i had because you seemed responsive and receptive to the comments ... i did it on the detailed level because i thought it would be something you would think about rather than take too seriously