C&C this noob right here

[Plato]

Hmm...

So if a subject is much too underexposed, you can tell without exif if the shutter speed was too fast? Instead of the aperture being closed up WAY too far? Or the ISO being much too low?

The important aspect of your example is the beginning phrase "...a subject is much too underexposed..." Then, there are several solutions for that problem depending on what else you see. The solution COULD be opening up the lens OR slowing down the shutter OR increasing the ISO. For example, if there is a very large DoF AND there appears to be no benefit to the large DoF, you might suggest opening up the shutter. On the other hand, if there is a subject in motion that appears frozen, you might suggest slowing down the shutter and panning the shot.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Posting the exif shortens the process and makes it easier to see what someone might have done wrong. Maybe you're good enough to tell if an improperly-exposed image was caused by an off shutter speed or ISO, but I'm not able to differentiate just by looking at the image.

 

[Plato]

Posting the exif shortens the process and makes it easier to see what someone might have done wrong. Maybe you're good enough to tell if an improperly-exposed image was caused by an off shutter speed or ISO, but I'm not able to differentiate just by looking at the image.

The problem that I have with the EXIF data is that it suggests that the issue is cut and dried and that's definitely not the case. Consider a hypothetical example...
I've just shown you an under-exposed photo. According to Lord EXIF, the shutter speed is 1/125, the aperture is f/4.0 and the ISO is 200. What caused the under-exposure?

 

[Overread]

Psst it might be an idea if those wishing to debate what data should and should not be added to a photo start a separate thread for that matter - so as not to derail this one any further

As for the shot in question I find myself very much agreeing with kundalini's points - you have a scene with a very wide range in lighting from dark shadows through to brilliant sunlit petals and in such a scene with the camera alone your always going to have to sacrifice one aspect over the other to get a shot. Do you overexpose the whole shot and get the details in the shadows and blowout the petals or do you save the petals, but get a very dark and detailless insect.
It's a hard call to make and I think in this shot it shows that, with the camera alone, you can't win either way - the petals are too large an area to blow out and the insect to key a focal point for the shot you want to risk underexposing him.

So you have to think - what do you need. Less lighting overall or more lighting? Well you can block out the light from the sun with a diffuser (if you get one of those small 5 in one reflctor sets they have a diffuser mode on them) but then you still have to battle with the dark insect, and you've just shadowed him even more with your diffuser.
So what's next - adding light - a reflcetor set to reflect light (anything white will work) and used to direct light onto the subject will help - then your whole shot brightens and the gap between the darkest and brightest point lowers - which increases your chances of getting all the points exposed correctly.
Another way to add light is also with flash - a little bit of added light to fill in those darker areas.

What you use in the field though is up to you - it can all work and it can all be tricky - especailly during the height of the day when the sun is strong and the insects very active - early mornings work a little better with softer overall lighting and more cold and sleepy insects.

As a final point your depth of field in this shot looks good - esp for f5.6 in macro work - but if you start getting close to your subject your going to have to start stopping down even more - f8 or smaller (up to f13 is common) to get that greater depth of field into the shot (since the closer you get hte smaller your depth of field will be)

Ok I think I have rambled enough there - any questions just ask

 

[Plato]

Psst it might be an idea if those wishing to debate what data should and should not be added to a photo start a separate thread for that matter - so as not to derail this one any further

As for the shot in question I find myself very much agreeing with kundalini's points - you have a scene with a very wide range in lighting from dark shadows through to brilliant sunlit petals and in such a scene with the camera alone your always going to have to sacrifice one aspect over the other to get a shot. Do you overexpose the whole shot and get the details in the shadows and blowout the petals or do you save the petals, but get a very dark and detailless insect.
It's a hard call to make and I think in this shot it shows that, with the camera alone, you can't win either way - the petals are too large an area to blow out and the insect to key a focal point for the shot you want to risk underexposing him.

So you have to think - what do you need. Less lighting overall or more lighting? Well you can block out the light from the sun with a diffuser (if you get one of those small 5 in one reflctor sets they have a diffuser mode on them) but then you still have to battle with the dark insect, and you've just shadowed him even more with your diffuser.
So what's next - adding light - a reflcetor set to reflect light (anything white will work) and used to direct light onto the subject will help - then your whole shot brightens and the gap between the darkest and brightest point lowers - which increases your chances of getting all the points exposed correctly.
Another way to add light is also with flash - a little bit of added light to fill in those darker areas.

What you use in the field though is up to you - it can all work and it can all be tricky - especailly during the height of the day when the sun is strong and the insects very active - early mornings work a little better with softer overall lighting and more cold and sleepy insects.

As a final point your depth of field in this shot looks good - esp for f5.6 in macro work - but if you start getting close to your subject your going to have to start stopping down even more - f8 or smaller (up to f13 is common) to get that greater depth of field into the shot (since the closer you get hte smaller your depth of field will be)

Ok I think I have rambled enough there - any questions just ask

You're correct but I kept seeing too many C&Cs that suggest "We can't tell if your picture is good or crappy unless we have the EXIF data." That's my last comment on the matter.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Admittedly, your example it's not so cut and dried... But some people do some crazy things like shooting in M at 1/5000 at f5.6 and ISO 200 which would of course indicate that the shutter speed needs adjustment if the photo was dark....

In your example, it could be any of those things, if it's a kit lens then I'd rule out aperture... Of course with a faster lens maybe it's closed up too far, we'd need to know what lens is being used... My guess is that an underexposed photo here would be due to poor lighting and that the ISO likely would need to be cranked, as 1/125 is rather slow though still plenty hand-holdable. BUT I could certainly not be correct. I see and understand your point, and I agree with it. Exif is supplemental, I never said it was the end-all for diagnosing exposure problems.

Let's not bring tripods and flashes into the discussion:lmao:

 

[Overread]

Posting the exif shortens the process and makes it easier to see what someone might have done wrong. Maybe you're good enough to tell if an improperly-exposed image was caused by an off shutter speed or ISO, but I'm not able to differentiate just by looking at the image.

The problem that I have with the EXIF data is that it suggests that the issue is cut and dried and that's definitely not the case. Consider a hypothetical example...
I've just shown you an under-exposed photo. According to Lord EXIF, the shutter speed is 1/125, the aperture is f/4.0 and the ISO is 200. What caused the under-exposure?

your lens cap :lmao:
EXIF alone is clearly not the whole story - but neither is the photo alone. When an artist asks others for input into their creation and their technique it would be foolish of htem not to divulge the tools that they used -the paints, brushes, pencils. Sure the compostion and construction of the image can be said from the image alone, but the tools used can be key in understanding possible faults with the image itself.

There is a big divide in photographer between gear and settings addicts and composition addicts -- the truth is that both are just as important as the other and to just focus on one area will lead to the overall images to suffer - you can have the best eye in the world but if your settings are off its not going to work = just as perfect exposures (note perfect is subjective of course) without any composition or life to the shot are also failed as photographs alone (though they make good record shots)

 

[Overread]

You're correct but I kept seeing too many C&Cs that suggest "We can't tell if your picture is good or crappy unless we have the EXIF data." That's my last comment on the matter.

Its one aspect only I agree - read the C&C link in my signature for what I feel is the best to include for the best possible results (OP hopefully your not lost in all this babble but have a look there too )
EXIF does help and it is a good starting point - and many people often focus on the technical perfection of an image before they think to the reason for creating the image and what they wish to show - its no bad thing its just a way of gaining control over the tools to better allow one to realise and create what they wish to

 

[Plato]

Posting the exif shortens the process and makes it easier to see what someone might have done wrong. Maybe you're good enough to tell if an improperly-exposed image was caused by an off shutter speed or ISO, but I'm not able to differentiate just by looking at the image.

The problem that I have with the EXIF data is that it suggests that the issue is cut and dried and that's definitely not the case. Consider a hypothetical example...
I've just shown you an under-exposed photo. According to Lord EXIF, the shutter speed is 1/125, the aperture is f/4.0 and the ISO is 200. What caused the under-exposure?

your lens cap :lmao:
EXIF alone is clearly not the whole story - but neither is the photo alone. When an artist asks others for input into their creation and their technique it would be foolish of htem not to divulge the tools that they used -the paints, brushes, pencils. Sure the compostion and construction of the image can be said from the image alone, but the tools used can be key in understanding possible faults with the image itself.

There is a big divide in photographer between gear and settings addicts and composition addicts -- the truth is that both are just as important as the other and to just focus on one area will lead to the overall images to suffer - you can have the best eye in the world but if your settings are off its not going to work = just as perfect exposures (note perfect is subjective of course) without any composition or life to the shot are also failed as photographs alone (though they make good record shots)

"Psst it might be an idea if those wishing to debate what data should and should not be added to a photo start a separate thread for that matter - so as not to derail this one any further."

 

[Samanax]

An experienced photographer is capable of making that determination without the EXIF data.

This is the Beginners' Forum.

 

[Plato]

An experienced photographer is capable of making that determination without the EXIF data.

This is the Beginners' Forum.

You're saying that beginners are evaluating pics by other beginners?