Flower

[xDarek]

I want to know what do you think about this picture, is it a little bit over exposed? That's what I see but I'm not sure.In my eyes it is looking good, but what do you think?

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I think the composition, focus, and exposure show that you are new to this but that's not to discourage you. Are you using that bridge camera in your profile picture? What is it?

 

[xDarek]

I think the composition, focus, and exposure show that you are new to this but that's not to discourage you. Are you using that bridge camera in your profile picture? What is it?

It is a fujifilm s9200, it's not a good one but for a begginer I think is ok

 

[IronMaskDuval]

I think the composition, focus, and exposure show that you are new to this but that's not to discourage you. Are you using that bridge camera in your profile picture? What is it?

It is a fujifilm s9200, it's not a good one but for a begginer I think is ok

I actually think Fuji bridge cameras are great. My first camera was one, and when I look at photos taken from it, I sometimes mistake them for photos that I took with my dslrs. It seems to have a super macro function. Are you using that?

 

[xDarek]

Yea, in this pic I used super macro

 

[JonA_CT]

The focus is much softer than I'd prefer, but the colors are nice.

 

[xDarek]

The focus is much softer than I'd prefer, but the colors are nice.

Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G386F using Tapatalk

 

[Tim Tucker]

Yee ha!!!

Brilliant, colour with the original white still intact, a full compliment of pastels as nature intended. One thing though, watch your white balance. Colour works by contrast, not light/dark contrast but the differences between colour. If your white balance is off then you tend to have an overall colour 'cast' or bias and that tends to remove the difference in colours as it adds a certain amount of the same colour to everything, (roughly speaking).

So many over-process shots with contrast/clarity. These two alone will saturate colours (remove pastels) and add black, so many images become a contrast between saturated or more saturated colour shading to black. The white in the colour disappears and with it the pastel shades.

See my response to an earlier thread (this is not saying either one is better only that they are different and I'm only highlighting the differences). This image equates to the bottom lines, see the difference in colour:

Leaves...

 

[xDarek]

Yee ha!!!

Brilliant, colour with the original white still intact, a full compliment of pastels as nature intended. One thing though, watch your white balance. Colour works by contrast, not light/dark contrast but the differences between colour. If your white balance is off then you tend to have an overall colour 'cast' or bias and that tends to remove the difference in colours as it adds a certain amount of the same colour to everything, (roughly speaking).

View attachment 115020

So many over-process shots with contrast/clarity. These two alone will saturate colours (remove pastels) and add black, so many images become a contrast between saturated or more saturated colour shading to black. The white in the colour disappears and with it the pastel shades.

See my response to an earlier thread (this is not saying either one is better only that they are different and I'm only highlighting the differences). This image equates to the bottom lines, see the difference in colour:

Leaves...

Ok, thank you for feedback, for taking your time to explain these things to me. thank you

Sent from my SM-G386F using Tapatalk

 

[TCampbell]

If you suspect an image is overexposed, check the histogram of the image.

Here's the histogram of your image:

You can see from the image histogram that, yes, it's definitely over-exposed.

The histogram's horizontal direction (there's a clue along the bottom) indicates the brightness of a pixel from blackest black to whitest whites and every tonality in between.

The histogram's vertical direction (height) indicates the number quantity of pixels at that specific level of tonality.

Notice that this histogram has nothing at the "black" end... has very few pixels in the middle-dark to middle range... but as it gets to the extreme right edge of the histogram you get this sudden "spike". That means all those pixels were extreme white.

It would be normal for a low-key image to have most of it's histogram toward the left or for a high-key image to have most of it's histogram data toward the right. But it shouldn't actually be all stuck to either the left or right wall of the histogram. When the histogram data is literally pushed into the wall (as this one is) it suggests that there's EVEN MORE data that can't even be represented by the histogram because it is beyond the limits of your camera's sensor.

Most cameras have some button you can press when reviewing your recently shot image to also show you that image's histogram -- that way you'd know immediately that the exposure isn't good and you should re-shoot the image at a different exposure.

Check your camera's manual to see if it offers a way to review an image's histogram.

 

[Tim Tucker]

If you suspect an image is overexposed, check the histogram of the image.

Here's the histogram of your image:

Snip...

Not really in this case. If you look at the image you'll see that it is back and side lit, (probably from windows). It is these that provide the 'spike' in the histogram, the flower, save for a bit of fine tuning, is not badly exposed.
You could expose for the histogram and 'detail', thus under-exposing the flower which you would then 'process' - tone-map to bring the shadows up and 'add' contrast, and 'add' colour.
But what you would really be doing is this:

Under-expose: Add a lot more black to the colours, remove a lot of the white and so loose the subtler pastel shades, the darker tones will have poor/degraded colour.
Tone-map: Equalise the values so your flower petals are now a mix of colour, darker colour and degraded colour.
'Add' contrast: increase the black content and push the saturation of the colours (i.e. subtract grey to enhance the dominant hue which also removes most of the pastels).
'Add' saturation or vibrance: Your colours still a little dull so you 'add' colour, but what you're really doing is stripping back the grey of the badly recorded under-exposed colours and removing any surviving pastel colour. This is not the pastel tone of the original flower but just the dominant hue of what's left.
You could now 'add' clarity, or a little black "to bring the colours out." A world without pastel colour.

I see so many shots on this site that follow this path, so many shots where the pastel shades are stripped out leaving more saturated colour shaded with black. Flowers are not saturated colour outlined in black, they're pastel colours. Pastels are colours with white, they live exclusively in the higher end of the histogram and you must expose for them. Here is a threshold map of the image showing the pixels above 243 in white:

Edit: Pastel colours look great in nature because they're seen against the natural background of de-saturated colour. As soon as you start stripping back the grey and white from colour (saturation/vibrance/contrast) you loose this balance and begin to see more dominant hues and less pastel colour. The more dominant (saturated) hues will look more vibrant than the pastels because they are, and your pastels will look less vibrant in context so you push more to regain the balance. This is what I mean by a subtractive process that always heads in the same direction, you start removing the variety of tints, shades and pastels and have to continue doing so until you achieve a new balance. A world without pastels. The trick with colour is knowing how to use brightness (separate brightness from saturation) and how to maintain the context of colour that makes pastel look good.