Help! Sky washed out, what the difference?

[Tyjax]

I saw it. Couldn't beleive it. A sweet nice little Aussie school marm like that. Couldnt be. Must be Photoshop joke. GDR!!!

 

[Tyjax]

I saw it. Couldn't beleive it. A sweet nice little Aussie school marm like that. Couldnt be. Must be Photoshop joke. GDR!!!

 

[surfingfireman]

Everyone pretty much covered the exposure question, but I just want to add that "the bird" was pretty much the first thing I saw when I looked at that picture...

 

[bogleric]

nice bird... anyways.


Since they are digital can you check the image info and see if the flash did detonate. I would actually lean towards the metering setting on the camera as I have experienced this with mine. If the metering is slow to adjust and is on averaging it will average all information it gather while the camera was brought up to take the picture. Therefore if brought from the bottom up the picture would capture more light than if from the top down.

In short the first pic metered on the distance rather than the up close clothes of the people. Play with this a bit and you will be surprised what you find.

 

[voodoocat]

Well it is definately not fill flash. It was just my first thought when looking at the difference between the two. And it, for sure, is not the different meters. This is a difference with the lighting not how the camera determined the exposure.

There are a few variables in these photos. The major contributer to the difference is due to the reflection of light from the water. Also has to do with the positioning of the subjects as well as the camera.

 

[Mitica100]

Hi
I need some opinions.
Nukie advised me to sk u guys but I feel silly putting my ugly mug up here with happy snaps, but here goes anyway.
These 2 pics were taken at practically the same time with the same light. Both set in Program mode on a digital camera.
One was an expensive 4MP Canon G3
One was a not as expensive 3MP Olympus Camedia

Can anyone explain to me why the 2nd gets the sky washed out like that. I took the first one, and the 2nd was taken by someone who is not as camera savvy as me, which isnt saying much.

Ok, here's my humble opinion:

1st picture: positioning of the camera in relationship to the subject mattered to the metering. Say the sun is to the boat's left, as you look through the finder, and there's no direct sunlight hitting the subject. The camera's meter measured the reflected light that came from the waves. Hence the better exposure of the sky, the water and the subject.

2nd picture: again, positioning the camera in relationship to the subject(s). The sun now seems to be behind the shooter, allowing the direct reflection of the waves to enter the camera's meter. Notice how the direct reflection light hits the subjects and hugs them.

So, to sum it all up, I don't believe it's one camera better than another, rather the positioning of the picture taker in relationship to the subject(s) and the different meterings as a result.

 

[Mitica100]

One more thing, I forgot to say about the different meterings:

You know how a polarizer responds, whenever the sun is at 3 o'clock or at 9 o'clock and at about 45-60 degree inclination, the polarizer has the max effect. When sun is behind you, at 6 o'clock, it has minimal effect, if any.

Well, this metering thing works kinda the same way.

:?

Managed to confuse you?

 

[MDowdey]

coming from a non photographic perspective, you have sun in the back and a wall or object of dark, unrefletive color to the right side of Johan. Depending on the color of the wall, the light from behind you is not refracting, therefore every color except the beautiful blue is bounced off of your head and hence the darkness.

Thats just my opinion of course, i could be wrong.(always wanted to say that, thanks dennis miller)

md

 

[Mitica100]

coming from a non photographic perspective, you have sun in the back and a wall or object of dark, unrefletive color to the right side of Johan. Depending on the color of the wall, the light from behind you is not refracting, therefore every color except the beautiful blue is bounced off of your head and hence the darkness.

Thats just my opinion of course, i could be wrong.(always wanted to say that, thanks dennis miller)

md

Trish, of course you're right, that is if the waves I was referring to were the sun's waves. In my earlier explanation I was referring to the water waves reflecting the sun's light. Perhaps I wasn't too clear on explaining my point. Apologies...

Does that make sense now?

 

[MDowdey]

i see your point, but i still say there face is catching the unreflectiveness?? of the surface next to them. this doesnt have much to do with taking pictures in my opinion.


md

 

[Thorniest Whisper]

THANK YOU!!

I saw that right away, and I wanted to post "I think your question is just a clever cover-up to flip us all off," but it was like my first night on the forum and I didn't want to say anything for fear that people would think I was really rude.

 

[manda]

lol
im very surprised at the amont of conversation this topic has caused and I thank you all.

I did not realise what tricks my finger was playing until gero saw this pic on my forum.
I'm so glad my finger gets far more attention than anything else. :LOL:

 

[Mitica100]

i see your point, but i still say there face is catching the unreflectiveness?? of the surface next to them. this doesnt have much to do with taking pictures in my opinion.

md

I think we are agreeing that the surface next to them being actually in front of them and is not being reflective enough (perhaps a dark wall, dark clothing), if at all, to wash their faces with more light.

And you're right, it's not related to photography, imagine you'd rather look at the subjects instead of taking a picture. Same effect! You'd be squinting because if the light coming to you from the water. In the first picture the reflection of the water falls on the subject's face, hence the better exposure. One thing, though... Human eye is a little 'camera oscura' after all.

 

[metroshane]

Perhaps what is wrong with the pic is that it's Johan next to you and not one of our fine young single eligible bachelors???? Hmmm? could it be?

 

[MDowdey]

Perhaps what is wrong with the pic is that it's Johan next to you and not one of our fine young single eligible bachelors???? Hmmm? could it be?

here here!!


way to go shane. If I was there, the picture would now be sitting in the museum of art.




md