Four new pics - getting better?

[xrtoronto]

Went out today to snap a view more photos. This time, instead of walking around the commercial and tourist areas, I chose to walk through the neighbourhood. These pics are from an area one steet north. They have come out ok, but I still have a problem with the colour of the sky. It's all washed out; The sky did have some blue in it today, but was mainly under a haze and cloud.









Anyone know what's up with this problem where the sky is too bright and washed out?

[1K3]

turn of the FLASH feature off on youer camera

[Nilsen]

PM otw XR.

P.S.. ask Mini D and his crew if you want better advice on these things.. im still in full auto with my camera.

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by 1K3
turn of the FLASH feature off on youer camera

I'll look into that Ik3 thanks. A few times each day when I'm snapping shots that flash does pop-up. (at the moment I don't know how to disable it, but, I will find out)

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Nilsen
PM otw XR.

P.S.. ask Mini D and his crew if you want better advice on these things.. im still in full auto with my camera.

Thx Nils.

[Nilsen]

actually i have found that even in daytime the flash can improve outdoor pictures but the range is ofcourse nothing to speak of. I dont think it will hurt anything at all unless the flash somehow interfers with the electronics of the camera and i doubt that.

NEVER use one of those external flash thingies that are meant for non-digital cameras even if you find a way to make it fit. It can send of a charge that can ruin your camera. I read that on one of those photo sites.

[Mini D]

I'm not really that good of a photographer and am by no means an expert on lighting conditions. Saburo and Torque know much more in that area.

Clouds that are reflecting light are a problem for me also. They're great for getting photos of stuff on the ground, but I usually try to keep them out of the shot unless they are dominating image and I can adjust the shudder speed accordingly. Blue sky is definately easier to have as a backdrop.

[Ripsnort]

Not sure why without knowing what your settings are, but when its overcast, yet bright out, never hurts to use a circular polarizer. Sure, it darkens the foreground objects a bit, but the tops of the roof won't wash out like that.

[jigsaw]

Start with something like this, or if you're feeling really froggy, this one.

[Scherf]

How come no pictures of hotties?

You've been all over by U of T - not one shot of undergrad hawtness.

What's wrong with you, man?

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Scherf
How come no pictures of hotties?

You've been all over by U of T - not one shot of undergrad hawtness.

What's wrong with you, man?

Hotties is right! (frosh week)

I will without a doubt spend an afternoon doing UofT. That was the day I took pics of the CN Tower instead.

Don't know about taking pics of women who are just out walking around though...I read about guys who do that in the news

[Debonair]

There are graded neutral density filters that can help in situations like those.
Polarizers help also (alligned properly they can darken up the sky a lot more than foreground objects).
For daylight photos CCDs dont have near the dynamic range of film.
Getting friendly with a good photo software will help u a lot also.
If your on a tripod, u can shoot multiple exposures on different settings & use the sky from on image, the BMW from another, etc...not really worth it all if you're not teh pro, but IMO the polarizer will help you out a lot

[straffo]

sorry to not have answered early xrtoronto but I was a bit buzy and as I think the explaination will be usefull for other people I prefer posting here.




Expose for Shadows, develop for Highlights is more than true for digital ! (cf Ansel Adams)

Digital have less exposure tolerance (aka latitude) than argentic positive film (the latitude is equivalent to slide/reversal film in argentic)

Let me explain :

If the correct exposure for some parts of the image are :

1/125 f8 for the subject
1/125 f11 for the background
1/125 f5,6 for the forground

and your exposure latitude is +/- 1 EV your picture will be correct ,there will be detail in the shadows and in the hillights as you are in the specification of your film (argentic or digital it's the same rule)

Now another example :

1/125 f8 for the subject
1/125 f2.8 for the background
1/125 f16 for the foreground

now your exposure latitude is still +/-1 EV but your OUT of specifications :
as background is at -2EV and foreground is at +2EV.

You have to make a choice :

Leave it as is (after all the exposure is good for the main subject).

Take 3 pictures each one using correct setting for each part and merge it after using software like photoshop

Use a additional source of light (it can be a flash or a simple sheet of white paper) to add light to foreground to reduce the latitude.


Last example :

1/125 f8 for the subject
1/125 f16 for the background
1/125 f2,8 for the foreground

Your doomed ,if it's landscape or a huge subject like this !
else you can like in the previous example use additional light but on the background.



In all cases you shoud remember your SLR is always considering all subjects as being equivalent to a 18% gray chart.

Lastly , it's more easy to add light to the darker part of an image than in than add dark to the light part ,as there is still informations in the darker part when the light part are "burned", I can explain this but I'll have to explain the inner working of a CCD/Cmos captor and it'll be very boring
(if you curious look at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect)

By this I mean it's better to have bit of under exposure than a bit of over exposure as over expose will kill the details.

[straffo]

For those more curious look up :

Zone system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
Sensitometry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitometry

[JB88]

photoshop is to digital what a dark room is to film.

given a knowledgable shooter, the right camera and an interesting shot...
it's all post production.