Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
3 Days Ago   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,867
Help settle a dispute.
Lens: Sigma 70~300mm APO Macro Lens. Camera: Canon EOS Rebel t5. Photo Location: Neighborhood ISO: 100 Shutter Speed: 1/60s Aperture: F5.6 



Focal Length 235mm, Manual Exposure Mode with CWA Metering.

I myself really like the image as it is. Soft, nice, deep red color and still retains some detail. While many disagree by stating that the image is lacking detail, contrast and brightness. I really do not care for red roses that are so bright (POP) that they lose the original, natural, actual state of the flower.

Obviously, I am wide open for helpful hints and suggestions. Thanks so much for taking the time.

Rgds,

Tonytee

3 Days Ago   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,119
What have you done to it Tony, in PP, to get it so soft? It's almost like a filter has been applied. I would have thought ISO: 100 Shutter Speed: 1/60s Aperture: F5.6 should have resulted in a sharper photo, even if you may have processed it to have this underexposed look.
3 Days Ago   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,867
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
What have you done to it Tony, in PP, to get it so soft? It's almost like a filter has been applied. I would have thought ISO: 100 Shutter Speed: 1/60s Aperture: F5.6 should have resulted in a sharper photo, even if you may have processed it to have this underexposed look.

According to the EXIF Data, this image was taken on August 13, 2019 @ 7:40PM. So with less than an hour to go, it would have been pitch dark. I honestly did not do

anything in Post Photo Editing. This is straight out of camera, other than some downsizing. I wouldn't know how to make a flower look soft in PPE. It is what it is.

The only filter is a UV Haze and that is it. Thnx.

TT
3 Days Ago   #4
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote
According to the EXIF Data, this image was taken on August 13, 2019 @ 7:40PM. So with less than an hour to go, it would have been pitch dark. I honestly did not do

anything in Post Photo Editing. This is straight out of camera, other than some downsizing. I wouldn't know how to make a flower look soft in PPE. It is what it is.

The only filter is a UV Haze and that is it. Thnx.

TT
Thanks for explaining! I did not realise it's severely underexposed.
Maybe try a flash or a tripod?

3 Days Ago   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,867
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Thanks for explaining! I did not realise it's severely underexposed.
Maybe try a flash or a tripod?

I will tell you exactly what happened. Of course, with a large telephoto like the Sigma, I had it mounted on a sturdy tripod. I did use a Speedlight, but truthfully, I could not get

a decent looking image to save myself. Finally, after about 13 snaps, I turned the Speedlight off and resorted to the camera and lens settings. At first glance I was actually

blown away with the results. I decided to try my luck at lower SS, first to 1/50s,1/40s,1/30 and finally to 1/20s and leaving the lens setting at F/5.6 because by now the light

was quickly leaving. I bumped up the ISO to 400 and I do not dare go above 400 on this Canon body because doing so results in images that appear to have been super

imposed on #3 grade sandpaper. Now the images with the slower SS turned out better exposed, however, they had that artificial effect that shooting reds usually have and I

just could not bring myself to accept them. So that is it in a nutshell. Again, I am liking this image underexposed and all, however I am open minded and will continue to look

forward to more feedback. Thank you very much for your contribution. As always, greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

TT

Last edited by Tonytee; 3 Days Ago at 08:25 PM. Reason: Grammar Corrections.
3 Days Ago   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Westbrook, ME, USA
Posts: 138
I think the tones are fine and the look of deep color works; the only issue really is that the image lacks fine detail.
3 Days Ago   #7
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,867
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by selfnoise Quote
I think the tones are fine and the look of deep color works; the only issue really is that the image lacks fine detail.

Okay, great. How do you get fine detail when you really want a soft surface appearance on such a beautiful red rose? Sharpening in PPE usually results in sharpening artifacts and awful noise and often time increased exposure, making the image look ugly as sin.

Thank you very much, looking forward to your response.

TT

I am currently using Photo Editor 10 which came with Windows 10 along with FastStonesimageviewer.com. Neither is very good.

Last edited by Tonytee; 3 Days Ago at 08:29 PM. Reason: Additional Information.
3 Days Ago - 2 Likes   #8
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote
I will tell you exactly what happened. Of course, with a large telephoto like the Sigma, I had it mounted on a sturdy tripod. I did use a Speedlight, but truthfully, I could not get

a decent looking image to save myself. Finally, after about 13 snaps, I turned the Speedlight off and resorted to the camera and lens settings. At first glance I was actually

blown away with the results. I decided to try my luck at lower SS, first to 1/50s,1/40s,1/30 and finally to 1/20s and leaving the lens setting at F/5.6 because by now the light

was quickly leaving. I bumped up the ISO to 400 and I do not dare go above 400 on this Canon body because doing so results in images that appear to have been super

imposed on #3 grade sandpaper. Now the images with the slower SS turned out better exposed, however, they had that artificial effect that shooting reds usually have and I

just could not bring myself to accept them. So that is it in a nutshell. Again, I am liking this image underexposed and all, however I am open minded and will continue to look

forward to more feedback. Thank you very much for your contribution. As always, greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

TT
Sounds like the light was not making your job easy Tony!
Here's a late afternoon rose shot. ISO 3200 seemed to do the trick.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5  Photo 
3 Days Ago   #9
Photo Forum Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruiing the forum watching his back
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,941
You said you had a UV filter on that lens? I suggest you remove the filter. For film they were good to use, but on digital cameras they are not. They can cause problems,
3 Days Ago   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,867
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by photolady95 Quote
You said you had a UV filter on that lens? I suggest you remove the filter. For film they were good to use, but on digital cameras they are not. They can cause problems,

I see. You mean they can cause the image to appear darker than it should?

Thnx,

TT

---------- Post added 08-14-19 at 10:21 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Sounds like the light was not making your job easy Tony!
Here's a late afternoon rose shot. ISO 3200 seemed to do the trick.

That is beautiful. thnx,

TT

---------- Post added 08-14-19 at 10:25 PM ----------

Alright, so I feel I can safely assume that it is not acceptable to have an image such as this one, underexposed. Many thanks to everyone for such valued feedback. )

Rgds,

TT
3 Days Ago   #11
Photo Forum Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
photolady95's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cruiing the forum watching his back
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,941
Yes it can make an photo darker plus other problems.

I'm surprised the others didn't catch that you had a uv filter on that lens.
3 Days Ago   #12
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,019
Personal opinion, I'd throw that filter away. A lens cap and lens hood do a much better job of physical protection, if that was its idea, without effect on image quality.

2 Days Ago - 1 Like   #13
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,119
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote

That is beautiful. thnx,

Alright, so I feel I can safely assume that it is not acceptable to have an image such as this one, underexposed. Many thanks to everyone for such valued feedback. )

Rgds,

TT
Thanks. I don't think it's a question of what's acceptable or not. But, possibly, more viewers will prefer it a bit more exposed. I'm intrigued why you're not able to use a higher ISO setting with that camera.
You said the results seem to be very grainy?
2 Days Ago   #14
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 8,150
On my monitor, all that black is R=G=B=0. Pure black = no exposure or it was compressed. Did you have -3EV or something for an exposure compensation?
2 Days Ago   #15
MSL
Pentaxian
MSL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Greater Toronto Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,515
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote
I myself really like the image as it is. Soft, nice, deep red color and still retains some detail. While many disagree by stating that the image is lacking detail, contrast and brightness.
For whatever my thoughts are worth these days, here goes. I think there is a difference between images that are soft - and I have plenty of those just because the focus wasn't right - and images that seem fuzzy or badly pixelated. I feel like there is more of the latter going on here rather than a softness in the tone and color. The other is that you stated others say the image lacks "detail, contrast and brightness". I think you can have soft images that are missing one or two of these but when you start to lose them all, the subject of the image starts to lose its personality. Had this image been razor sharp, the lack of color contrast in the reds and brightness would have been fine, because the sharpness in the details of the petals would guide the eye. Had it been a flower with more internal color contrast, it might have been fine to lose some of the sharpness. But at some point when you start to lose all three, you go from soft to blah. That dividing point, of course, will be very personal and subjective, but I can see why people react to this image in that way.
Reply
« Up there. | - »

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
canon, cause, critique, detail, dispute, editor, filter, help, image, iso, jpeg, light, move, photo, photography, pm, post, settle, thanks, tt, upload, uv filter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bird of prey ID required to settle an argument -- photo not mine. jpzk General Photography 21 09-21-2017 07:49 AM
Help me settle a dispute between me and my gf r0ckstarr Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 33 12-16-2015 10:11 PM
Kodak wins $76m in patent dispute with Ricoh ... bossa Photographic Industry and Professionals 24 10-29-2013 08:16 AM
Wanted - Acquired: DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 (might settle for DA L) JP_Seattle Sold Items 2 03-08-2010 02:24 PM
A PayPal Dispute LeDave General Talk 15 10-19-2009 09:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top