"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." — Thomas Alva Edison

People CritiqueReassuring_Hands

User avatar
Psjunkie
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:20 am
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Reassuring_Hands

Post by Psjunkie » Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:50 pm

I see some faults with my processing and will probably go back and correct but was wondering what your overall thoughts on this image might be.....
Attachments
20170811FGS_3094_Reassuring_Hands.jpg

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:04 pm

I like it! Tells a sweet story. Strong composition, great back light. The onliest thing I keep wondering about is Baby's eyes are maybe a little (very, very little) too dark? I keep looking and waffling on whether to even say something... (?)
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Duck » Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:45 pm

Wow, what a wonderfully caught moment of sibling (?) tenderness.
I love the framing, the play of the reflections in the wet sand, the overall toning. The thing that really catches my eye is there seems to be something funky going on behind the boy's legs. Some kind of artifacting.

I really like this photo. Nicely done.
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 pm

Psjunkie wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:50 pm
I see some faults with my processing and will probably go back and correct but was wondering what your overall thoughts on this image might be.....
Frank, I love your images and study them. I think you tend toward the light side while I tend toward the dark, so I can learn from you to bring balance to my photos. If you can remember, what did you focus on to set exposure? Thanks. Matt
Matt Quinn

"One should really use the camera as though tomorrow you'd be stricken blind." Dorothea Lange

User avatar
PietFrancke
Mentoris Quartus
Mentoris Quartus
Posts: 865
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: WV
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by PietFrancke » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:32 pm

really nice composition Frank. And caught a nice moment too.. I like that you kept the full reflections, and I can tell by the horizon and the little one's height, that you must have been pretty close to laying down in the sand (or perhaps sitting down, or perhaps you are only three feet tall yourself!!!)

User avatar
Duck
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:31 am
Location: Shelton, CT
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Duck » Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:28 am

Matt Quinn wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 pm
Frank, I love your images and study them. I think you tend toward the light side while I tend toward the dark, so I can learn from you to bring balance to my photos. If you can remember, [highlight]what did you focus on to set exposure?[/highlight] Thanks. Matt
Hey Matt, to be honest, that's the wrong question. Or at the least, a flawed way of thinking about exposure. Focus is about what is sharp and what is blurry while exposure is about light quantity. You need to separate the two in your mind as they are not interrelated.

That said, I'm sure what you were trying to say was what did you meter on in the image to set exposure. There is no one correct answer to this as it is rather subjective and dependent on several factors. In a textbook application one can answer it like this;

Search the scene for an area that would be considered as middle gray (represented as the mid point in the histogram). The reason for this is that In-camera reflective meters are calibrated for middle gray (which is actually anywhere between 12% and 18% gray... think the color of concrete). By placing the exposure (0 EV on your camera's meter) on that middle gray you can then shoot any scene under that lighting condition without having to alter your camera's settings. The only time you would need to change it is if the light changes (goes behind a cloud or come out from cloud cover, etc).

"But wait," you say, "if I set it on auto the camera is always adjusting for the light and even if I'm in the same light the camera is telling me that the exposures are different. What gives?"

Yes, if you give control to the camera the camera will meter whatever you are pointing at and make adjustments based on that reading. However, while the ambient light may not have changed, the surface the camera is pointed at will have different reflectance properties. For example, a white shirt will have a higher reflectance than a dark suit. While the light hitting both is the same (coming from the sun) the surface reflectance values are different. By default the camera will want to underexpose the light in order to make that shirt middle gray while the same camera will want to over expose that suit in order to make it middle gray. It's your job as the photographer to say, "no, that's not what I want."

The difficulty with a beach scene (and why so many beginners have a problem with it) is that wet sand is very light reflective, fooling the meter into thinking the light is much brighter than it really is and that's where our own computer (our brain) needs to override the camera's computer.

Hope this makes sense.

:D
"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Image ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
davechinn
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:01 pm
Location: Ky
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by davechinn » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:38 am

A tender moment captured with no suggestions Frank.

User avatar
Matt Quinn
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Location: MD in winter: Cape Cod in summer
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Matt Quinn » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:35 pm

Duck wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:28 am
Matt Quinn wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 pm
Frank, I love your images and study them. I think you tend toward the light side while I tend toward the dark, so I can learn from you to bring balance to my photos. If you can remember, [highlight]what did you focus on to set exposure?[/highlight] Thanks. Matt
Hey Matt, to be honest, that's the wrong question. Or at the least, a flawed way of thinking about exposure. Focus is about what is sharp and what is blurry while exposure is about light quantity. You need to separate the two in your mind as they are not interrelated.

That said, I'm sure what you were trying to say was what did you meter on in the image to set exposure. There is no one correct answer to this as it is rather subjective and dependent on several factors. In a textbook application one can answer it like this;

Search the scene for an area that would be considered as middle gray (represented as the mid point in the histogram). The reason for this is that In-camera reflective meters are calibrated for middle gray (which is actually anywhere between 12% and 18% gray... think the color of concrete). By placing the exposure (0 EV on your camera's meter) on that middle gray you can then shoot any scene under that lighting condition without having to alter your camera's settings. The only time you would need to change it is if the light changes (goes behind a cloud or come out from cloud cover, etc).

"But wait," you say, "if I set it on auto the camera is always adjusting for the light and even if I'm in the same light the camera is telling me that the exposures are different. What gives?"

Yes, if you give control to the camera the camera will meter whatever you are pointing at and make adjustments based on that reading. However, while the ambient light may not have changed, the surface the camera is pointed at will have different reflectance properties. For example, a white shirt will have a higher reflectance than a dark suit. While the light hitting both is the same (coming from the sun) the surface reflectance values are different. By default the camera will want to underexpose the light in order to make that shirt middle gray while the same camera will want to over expose that suit in order to make it middle gray. It's your job as the photographer to say, "no, that's not what I want."

The difficulty with a beach scene (and why so many beginners have a problem with it) is that wet sand is very light reflective, fooling the meter into thinking the light is much brighter than it really is and that's where our own computer (our brain) needs to override the camera's computer.

Hope this makes sense.

:D
Yes, Duck, I meant meter. Thanks. Now, once I select that part of the image that is closest to what I think in 18% gray, what do I do? If that is not the item I want to focus on, how do I lock the metered exposure so that it doesn't change when I put my focus point on a dark object? I am using bbf. And I have been using exposure compensation to bring the exposure plus or minus to bring it back to 0. Thanks. Matt
Matt Quinn

"One should really use the camera as though tomorrow you'd be stricken blind." Dorothea Lange

User avatar
Psjunkie
Mentoris Secundus
Mentoris Secundus
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:20 am
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by Psjunkie » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:48 pm

Charles Haacker wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:04 pm
I like it! Tells a sweet story. Strong composition, great back light. The onliest thing I keep wondering about is Baby's eyes are maybe a little (very, very little) too dark? I keep looking and waffling on whether to even say something... (?)
Please alway say something Chuck, I appreciate your thoughts and tend to agree with your statement about the eyes......

Duck wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:45 pm
Wow, what a wonderfully caught moment of sibling (?) tenderness.
I love the framing, the play of the reflections in the wet sand, the overall toning. The thing that really catches my eye is there seems to be something funky going on behind the boy's legs. Some kind of artifacting.

I really like this photo. Nicely done.
Thank you Duck, yes there are a few things I need to take care of that I was not watching when I processed this one....

Matt Quinn wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 pm
Frank, I love your images and study them. I think you tend toward the light side while I tend toward the dark, so I can learn from you to bring balance to my photos. If you can remember, what did you focus on to set exposure? Thanks. Matt
If your learning from me your probably going backwards Matt, but thank you all the same...I couldn't tell you what I metered on for exposure Matt...I just use the camera meter and have learned I can push it to the right of center about 3 or 4 notches depending on the scene...I blow some highlights every once in a while but usually not on the subject so most time I can remedy in post....Also take a look back at Covered_Foot for the darker side...

PietFrancke wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:32 pm
really nice composition Frank. And caught a nice moment too.. I like that you kept the full reflections, and I can tell by the horizon and the little one's height, that you must have been pretty close to laying down in the sand (or perhaps sitting down, or perhaps you are only three feet tall yourself!!!)
Thank you Piet, sometimes I wish I was only 3 feet tall...you are correct and I spend considerable time on my belly getting my beach shots....getting harder and harder I'm afraid

davechinn wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:38 am
A tender moment captured with no suggestions Frank.
Thank you for taking time to comment Mr. Chinn...

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:11 pm

Duck wrote:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:28 am
Matt Quinn wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:36 pm
Frank, I love your images and study them. I think you tend toward the light side while I tend toward the dark, so I can learn from you to bring balance to my photos. If you can remember, [highlight]what did you focus on to set exposure?[/highlight] Thanks. Matt
Hey Matt, to be honest, that's the wrong question. Or at the least, a flawed way of thinking about exposure. Focus is about what is sharp and what is blurry while exposure is about light quantity. You need to separate the two in your mind as they are not interrelated.

That said, I'm sure what you were trying to say was what did you meter on in the image to set exposure. There is no one correct answer to this as it is rather subjective and dependent on several factors. In a textbook application one can answer it like this;

Search the scene for an area that would be considered as middle gray (represented as the mid point in the histogram). The reason for this is that In-camera reflective meters are calibrated for middle gray (which is actually anywhere between 12% and 18% gray... think the color of concrete). By placing the exposure (0 EV on your camera's meter) on that middle gray you can then shoot any scene under that lighting condition without having to alter your camera's settings. The only time you would need to change it is if the light changes (goes behind a cloud or come out from cloud cover, etc).

"But wait," you say, "if I set it on auto the camera is always adjusting for the light and even if I'm in the same light the camera is telling me that the exposures are different. What gives?"

Yes, if you give control to the camera the camera will meter whatever you are pointing at and make adjustments based on that reading. However, while the ambient light may not have changed, the surface the camera is pointed at will have different reflectance properties. For example, a white shirt will have a higher reflectance than a dark suit. While the light hitting both is the same (coming from the sun) the surface reflectance values are different. By default the camera will want to underexpose the light in order to make that shirt middle gray while the same camera will want to over expose that suit in order to make it middle gray. It's your job as the photographer to say, "no, that's not what I want."


The difficulty with a beach scene (and why so many beginners have a problem with it) is that wet sand is very light reflective, fooling the meter into thinking the light is much brighter than it really is and that's where our own computer (our brain) needs to override the camera's computer.

Hope this makes sense.

:D
Duck is SO right! And I confess that I often don't take the time to set a single exposure because (1) lazy and/or (2) tracking an almost 3-year-old or (3) lazy. But locking in an exposure in a situation where the lighting will not change is way better than having to go back and even things up in post (which is a pain and I would know 'cuz I often hafta do it). :angel:

I was leading a small group of beginners through a park and explaining the principle of the Sunny 16 rule (see below). This was 40 years ago. No cameras were automatic but pretty much all came with some sort of light meter built in, the best being the TTL (Through The Lens) meters in SLRs. You looked in the optical finder of your SLR and saw (usually) some sort of U-shaped "trap" with a needle inside that would move when you changed the exposure, either shutter or aperture. The idea was to center the needle in the "trap" for "correct" exposure. What the manual didn't tell you was that "correct" exposure would vary wildly with reflectance---the amount of light reflected from a given subject, like the white shirt Duck mentions.

I was explaining Sunny 16 and one woman was growing upset. Her TTL meter kept disagreeing with the principle of the rule and she was badly confused. She was actually near tears when I gently took her little Pentax and removed the button battery that powered the meter. After that she was all smiles because the furshlugginer meter was no longer confusing her. Sunny 16 still works, although nowadays unpowered cameras don't, but you can still learn a lot by locking everything down on Sunny 16 principles. So long as the light does not change the "correct" exposure will not change. (Y)

BONUS TIP: Duck mentioned looking for something approximating 18% reflectance, middle gray or Zone V gray. GREEN GRASS is close enough! Just point your camera at an expanse of grass and it will give you a surprisingly accurate reading that you can lock in. It has the advantage that it compensates for other-than-sunny conditions, plus side light, back light, so on. It's an Old Pro trick that also still works. You're welcome. :goon: (PS won't work at the beach sorry)
Attachments
Screenshot 2018-04-22 at 8.44.12 AM.png
RECIPROCAL: The key thing is to put a one over the ISO to determine shutter speed. Thus if you select ISO 100, your base shutter would be 1/100 second at f/16, front-lit scene (sun over your shoulder), bright sun. The other symbols tell you how to adjust for conditions other than bright sun. There's more but that's enough for starters.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests