better dynamic range (?) needed

*FHPhotographer* · 09-06-2008, 04:42 PM

I'm not sure of the term, but I mean the range from light to dark.

I tried both spot and matrix metering, shot in RAW and processed in PS3 for saturation and used Curves to try and balance it out, then a bit of smart shaprening.

Still, I'm guessing the lens is probably better than I am at this point and I can't help but think I'm not getting everything out of the K100+50 f/1.4 combination. Shouldn't there be more, I don't know what to call it, maybe "pop"?
All advice appreciated,
FHPhotographer

AKiss20 · 09-06-2008, 05:22 PM

Well one thing, compositionally, it is not very strong. You are trying to do a diagonal line composition here, but the many infocus stems and bokeh-ed foreground elements, and general "clutter" of the frame confuses the eye. Also, the most in focus and most prominent subject is in the far right of the frame and the flowers of that subject are over-exposed. I think good composition is the first step to making photos "pop."

You are correct, however, in saying that this shot has a very wide spectrum for DR. A spectrum I don't think the camera was able to handle.

My 2 cents, Cheers!

*FHPhotographer* · 09-06-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by AKiss20

Well one thing, compositionally, it is not very strong. I think good composition is the first step to making photos "pop."

You are correct, however, in saying that this shot has a very wide spectrum for DR. A spectrum I don't think the camera was able to handle.

My 2 cents, Cheers!

Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it, but I have to disgree with the first statement; I laid a divine proportion grid over the image (in b&w to make it clearer) and it looks pretty right on to me.

However, I'm a little fuzzy on this whole dynamic range and "camera specturm." I knew you could blow highlights, but I didn't realize there is a range of photos that you just can't take at this resolution?
FHPhotog

AKiss20 · 09-06-2008, 09:38 PM

To each his own, I find it to be a bit busy compositionally, but its a matter of opinion.

The problem with dynamic range is that the human eye can see a rather wide range of "brightnesses" and still retain detail. I believe humans can see something like a 15 stop range? (Don't quote me on that, i'm flying from memory). So that means that even if, tonally, there is a wide range between the brightest thing in our eye's frame and the darkest thing, we still retain detail in both the darkest and brightest areas.

A digital sensor, however, has a much more limited dynamic range (on the order of 7-7.5 stops). That means that if you expose, say one flower in shadow, to be 18% grey and have another flower in sunlight which meters at 8 stops higher, the flower in sunlight will be blown out and contain no detail if you expose for the flower in shadow. The human eye, however, can see detail in the flower in sunlight because it has a wider dynamic range.

So in terms of your shot, the longer flower is very close to blowing out, but the darkest parts of the frame are pure black with no detail. The human eye probably could see detail in both these parts, but because the camera has a smaller dynamic range, it cannot retain detail in both because the difference in exposure between the two areas is too great. This is why on sunny days if you expose for the grass or something in the trees, the sky is all white or if you expose for the sky, the trees are all black.

Because of this limited dynamic range (film has a larger dynamic range, but still less so than the human eye I believe) techniques like graduated ND filters and HDR photography were born. Graduated ND filters change the exposure of a specific part of the frame to allow a single exposure to retain detail. HDR photography requires several frames of the same exact image at different exposure and attempts to take the detail from each frame accordingly.

Hope this helps somewhat
Cheers!

Denis · 09-07-2008, 10:23 AM

Here is a little trick I apply in PS3, Change the image to 32bits than back to 8. The image will now operate in HDR mode. Adjust curve and so on.. accordingly.

krypticide · 09-07-2008, 12:10 PM

I find the composition not so great either, even though it fits that particular geometrical pattern.

What time did you take the picture? If it's anything more than early morning or near dusk light, you will tend to have problems with the huge range between lit and shade areas. One way to "fix" this is to use your flash to bring up the shadows.

*FHPhotographer* · 09-07-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by krypticide

I find the composition not so great either, even though it fits that particular geometrical pattern.

What time did you take the picture? If it's anything more than early morning or near dusk light, you will tend to have problems with the huge range between lit and shade areas. One way to "fix" this is to use your flash to bring up the shadows.

Taken in mid-afternoon but in partial shade. Maybe the "problem" is that I can see things that the camera sensor can't.

I just found this on luminous-landscape and it seems to summarize it pretty well: In most real world situations there is no such thing as an ideal or “perfect” exposure. There is simply one that places the tonal values found in the scene most appropriately within the capability range of the camera’s imaging chip. And "most appropriately" means that the mid-tones found in the image fall roughly half way between the darkest and the brightest values.

Or put another way, maybe there are just some shots like this one that you can't get end-to-end... either underexpose to save the highlights and try to recover shadow detail in post processing, or bracket to merge in PS, or just give up and go have a cold beer,
FHPhotog

*sawtooth235* · 09-07-2008, 08:02 PM

Heaven knows that I am not the best photographer on this forum, but I have found that almost every photo benefits by some creative dodging and burning and then a little kick in the pants by upping the contrast.

There are many areas of this photograph that have similar shading (B&W degree of shade) so manipulation by dodging and burning should give you that increased separation you desire.

My 2 cents worth!

Ray

raz-0 · 09-07-2008, 08:54 PM

Well, you can go HDR with multiple exposures if you want to explore the light, but I suspect your desire for "pop" means you want part of the picture to stand out. Unfortunately your frame is filled with the same thing from edge to edge. Even with a shallow depth of field, you aren't going to bring any portion of the flowers into the center of attention because most of the frame is the same color and the same brightness. Interspersed with dark bits of similar size, color, and brightness.

You can line up all the grids you wan't, and claim it's got perfect composition. However, you have two parallel branches and only one of them is located on your pattern. The same can be said for the bits lower in the picture that line up on the other red diagonal. Their color, brightness, and arrangement is mirrored further up in the frame. In the end, the only thing you have defining your cmpositional focus is depth of field. The fuzzy flowers just aren't different enough form the sharp flowers for it to really separate them. And to add to the composition issue, the bits that line up with your composition grid aren't in uniform focus.

There's a reason you are getting multiple comments regarding the composition being busy. Busy and "pop" are not friends.

*FHPhotographer* · 09-07-2008, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by raz-0

Well, you can go HDR with multiple exposures if you want to explore the light, but I suspect your desire for "pop" means you want part of the picture to stand out. Unfortunately your frame is filled with the same thing from edge to edge. Even with a shallow depth of field, you aren't going to bring any portion of the flowers into the center of attention because most of the frame is the same color and the same brightness. Interspersed with dark bits of similar size, color, and brightness.

You can line up all the grids you wan't, and claim it's got perfect composition. However, you have two parallel branches and only one of them is located on your pattern. The same can be said for the bits lower in the picture that line up on the other red diagonal. Their color, brightness, and arrangement is mirrored further up in the frame. In the end, the only thing you have defining your cmpositional focus is depth of field. The fuzzy flowers just aren't different enough form the sharp flowers for it to really separate them. And to add to the composition issue, the bits that line up with your composition grid aren't in uniform focus.

There's a reason you are getting multiple comments regarding the composition being busy. Busy and "pop" are not friends.

Thanks, I never considered the density of similar "pieces" in the composition, that's a good point I'll keep in the back of my mind when I'm trying to figure oyut how to frame an image.
And I didn't claim it's a perfect compositional model, I just wanted to show how the image did fit one that's been in use for several hundred years of Western art.

Gooshin · 09-09-2008, 10:10 AM

aside from HDR you can get some filters (a variety of ND ones) that make the scene darker but particulary help to reduce the extreme glare that reflective surfaces such as car paint, or in your case, white flowers offer.

the scene you shot has more dynamic range than your camera, period.

either shoot in HDR, which is hard with moving flowers, deal with dark sections or blown whites, or try some filters.

*navcom* · 09-11-2008, 02:17 PM

I agree with krypticide. One of your main problems is there is no depth to the image due to too much sun and not enough contrast. "Golden hour" light is preferred for outdoor photography such as your flower shot....golden hour being early or late in the day when the sun is low on the horizon...colors appear more golden and they create more contrast for your image giving a feeling of more depth. It will also take much of your "blowout" problem away and give you the "pop" you are looking for.

*FHPhotographer* · 09-11-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by navcom

I agree with krypticide. One of your main problems is there is no depth to the image due to too much sun and not enough contrast. "Golden hour" light is preferred for outdoor photography such as your flower shot....golden hour being early or late in the day when the sun is low on the horizon...colors appear more golden and they create more contrast for your image giving a feeling of more depth. It will also take much of your "blowout" problem away and give you the "pop" you are looking for.

Thanks for the tip, I'll reshoot and see what I can come up with,
FHPhotog