Results 1 to 14 of 14
04-11-2007, 07:16 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
How do I make a skier more vivid from far away
I used a 200m Tamaron lense. I shot this photo with an aperature of 10, tv of 640, iso of 100, and focal length of 149. my skier looks dark and overexposed. how do i reveal his true colors of a red jacket in this photo.
04-11-2007, 08:56 PM #2
im on a shitty laptop right now but it looks underexposed, also there's only so much you can do with the sun behind him, he's casting a shadow on himself.
04-11-2007, 08:59 PM #3
04-12-2007, 06:57 AM #4
It's also backlit.
Even without knowing what kind of camera you're using, I'd say the Tamron lens is the culprit in this shot, IMHO. Chroma is one of the first things to get washed out by lesser lens coatings, especially when the red jacket is in shade like here. There's a reason why "L" series lenses for Canon, or the Contax T* series, are so expensive.
04-12-2007, 07:13 AM #5
Here, I fixed it for you:
Of all the muthafuckas on earth, you the muthafuckest.
04-12-2007, 10:13 AM #6~
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Gare du Lyon
Corset, whips, lingerie, some girls in leather... Whatever makes them more Vivid.
04-12-2007, 10:23 AM #7
You under exposed this by about 1.5-2 stops.
You can tell. Not only is your subject blacked out, but your snow is grey. You used autoexposure didnt you? didn't you? Use manual exposure or at least use exposure compensation. Otherwise the AE system will almost always make your snow grey and your subject black.
Decrease camera processing contrast and use a lens hood (very helpfull in contra light)
Originally Posted by blurred
04-12-2007, 10:37 AM #8
Having a 28-200 Tamron from a while ago, I can tell you it completely sucks.
Id rather just not shoot with it anymore since I always get frustrated when images come out soft and dull. Nothing I ever did with that lens helped, even stopping it all the freaking way down or at either end of the zoom range.
I think it was best right around 105-110mm or wherever its reproduction ratio was the highest. Like i said, I dont use it anymore, so its been a while.
good tips otherwise.
also read back through your first thread you posted where everyone gave you *lots* of good tips on snow exposure.
speaking of your other thread
this advice http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...5&postcount=19, would have given you the right exposure
Last edited by pechelman; 04-12-2007 at 10:41 AM.
04-12-2007, 11:03 AM #9
Thanks, Pechelman. Sometimes I actually do know wtf I'm talking about (I once owned that lens as well.)
For a down & dirty manual exposure method just hold your arm out in the direction you're shooting, bend your wrist so that your palm is running parallel to the scene, and meter your hand. It's the closest thing on your body (assuming you're Caucasian) to Neutral Gray, which your camera's meter will try to average the scene out to. The snow, as Summit pointed out, will fool your camera into thinking there's more light than there really is, thus causing the underexposure.
If you can Auto-compensate (most cameras can) then set it at +1.5 - I find +2 washes out all texture on the snow.
04-12-2007, 11:15 AM #10
Have your skier wear a reflective skirt, like one of those solar hot dog roasters.
04-13-2007, 03:04 PM #11
OK, yes, the 28-200 is a shit lens, but that is nowhere near being the primary culprit in this situation.
Uncorrected levels show obvious underexposure in around the 1.5-2 stop range. It shows complete shadow blackout (near total loss of detail).
We can make it better with levels:
Or even better with curves:
But we cannot salvage information that was not recorded. The lowlights are gone due to underexposure, not the lens.
Sure getting a better lens will decrease flare, vignetting, chromatic abberations, and will increase sharpness and contrast. That's only helpfull if you are getting usable exposures. The eye behind the viewfinder and the mind that controls the tool are always more important than the glass.
Last edited by Summit; 04-13-2007 at 03:11 PM.Originally Posted by blurred
04-13-2007, 03:16 PM #12
your handy with that there photoshop
and purely academic at that
what % grey is the snow in the original shot?
04-13-2007, 03:33 PM #13
I dont understand the question... are you asking what zone it was exposed at or what zone it should have been exposed at?
I don't know how to convert ~200 (of 256) luminance to a % grey (that is what his exposure yielded). But I can tell by looking at the picture and by looking at the levels, that the snow is probably 1.5 to 2 stops under.
I honestly don't know how to convert that to a grey percentage. You totally stumped me there. Honestly, you never use % grays as far as I know except when describing a neutral gray card as "18% reflective" and a reflective meter (ie your SLRs meter) presumes an average of zone V (unless you are using a programmed AE mode). I just know 18%=V, 100%=IX, and 0%=0.
Snow I *usually* want it to be zone VIII on a print... knowing the camera's limits of capture for dynamic range (i figure my 20D gets generally 5.5-6 stops in jpeg mode depending on the contrast setting), an exposure of a snowscape exposed at +2 (give or take 1/3) at of appropriate spot metered snow is pretty good most of the time and yields zone VIIIish snow (depending on the rest of the lighting situation). For film shooters, this is about the dynamic range of slide film.
Last edited by Summit; 04-13-2007 at 04:07 PM. Reason: clarificationOriginally Posted by blurred
04-13-2007, 04:46 PM #14
Last edited by Summit; 04-13-2007 at 04:54 PM.Originally Posted by blurred
By SkiEvil in forum Ski / SnowboardReplies: 7Last Post: 02-16-2007, 12:17 PM
By spook in forum Ski / SnowboardReplies: 3Last Post: 01-05-2007, 05:01 PM
By powstash in forum Ski / SnowboardReplies: 57Last Post: 09-11-2006, 04:40 AM
By shmerham in forum Ski / SnowboardReplies: 33Last Post: 02-20-2006, 02:29 PM
By powpowpowderwheels in forum TGR Forum ArchivesReplies: 1Last Post: 10-30-2003, 09:23 PM