Need some much needed advice

[binga63]

What if i used spot metering? Would that help? I guess it would. Hmm - i will look into purchasing one of those light meter.

more gear will not make you a better photographer, read and experiment and learn to use properly the things you own at the moment, you have a decent camera, learn to use it, properly

 

[hamlet]

For the web, probably not. but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.

You mean to tell me that when i resize a 24 megapixel picture, it will be compressed into even higher pixel count when its made smaller?

 

[hamlet]

What if i used spot metering? Would that help? I guess it would. Hmm - i will look into purchasing one of those light meter.

more gear will not make you a better photographer, read and experiment and learn to use properly the things you own at the moment, you have a decent camera, learn to use it, properly

Well that assertion is contestable, but the bulk of the work does rely on the photographers experience. In this case a reflector or a fill light would have made me a "better photographer" as you say.

 

[pgriz]

For the web, probably not. but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.

You mean to tell me that when i resize a 24 megapixel picture, it will be compressed into even higher pixel count when its made smaller?

Um, no. Each display device (monitor, projector, printer) has its native resolution. A computer monitor may have resolutions in the 72-96 pixels/inch range. An inkjet printer has usually at least 300 pixels per inch, up to over 600 pixels per inch resolution. Let us assume you have an image that is 6000x4000 pixels. At the 96 pixels/inch, and assuming you are showing the image at 100%, you'll need a monitor 62.5 inches wide by 41.6 inches high. On real monitors, you'll only see a small portion of the image at 100%, so you need to downsize the image to fit into the actual monitor space.

If you take the same image and print it on a 300 pixels/inch printer, at 100% resolution, that would give you a print of 20 inches wide by 13.3 inches high. A printer capable of 600 pixels/inch will give you a print size of 10 inches wide by 6.7 inches high.

By cropping in post, you are reducing the number of pixels that your image contains. This won't matter much when displayed on a monitor, but will when you want to print full-size.

 

[hamlet]

For the web, probably not. but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.

You mean to tell me that when i resize a 24 megapixel picture, it will be compressed into even higher pixel count when its made smaller?

Um, no. Each display device (monitor, projector, printer) has its native resolution. A computer monitor may have resolutions in the 72-96 pixels/inch range. An inkjet printer has usually at least 300 pixels per inch, up to over 600 pixels per inch resolution. Let us assume you have an image that is 6000x4000 pixels. At the 96 pixels/inch, and assuming you are showing the image at 100%, you'll need a monitor 62.5 inches wide by 41.6 inches high. On real monitors, you'll only see a small portion of the image at 100%, so you need to downsize the image to fit into the actual monitor space.

If you take the same image and print it on a 300 pixels/inch printer, at 100% resolution, that would give you a print of 20 inches wide by 13.3 inches high. A printer capable of 600 pixels/inch will give you a print size of 10 inches wide by 6.7 inches high.

By cropping in post, you are reducing the number of pixels that your image contains. This won't matter much when displayed on a monitor, but will when you want to print full-size.

So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?

 

[Braineack]

The problem is you used the 18-55mm VR. It's a cheap kit lens and you need a $8,000 Pro lens to take good pictures. You need to get rid of your low-quality lens and camera body and get a D4 and quality glass. If you don't have the money to spend, you can go third party and be amazed with the value. But expect to spend around $10,000 to figure out how to use spot metering.

 

[hamlet]

The problem is you used the 18-55mm VR. It's a cheap kit lens and you need a $8,000 Pro lens to take good pictures. You need to get rid of your low-quality lens and camera body and get a D4 and quality glass. If you don't have the money to spend, you can go third party and be amazed with the value. But expect to spend around $10,000 to figure out how to use spot metering.

What a bargain. I think i'll pay a visit to the United states and buy my gear there.

 

[Braineack]

You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.

 

[hamlet]

You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.

As soon as i've covered the basics. This glass is a bit frustrating because i can't do a lot with it, but its not responsible for the problem in my OP.

 

[gsgary]

You used Matrix metering which averages the light in the entire scene. With Matrix metering you can't do this "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced"
You can only do "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced" when you use Spot metering mode.
The bright sky behind him and him being in hard shadow caused the maximum amount of averaging to be done leaving him badly underexposed.
So part of the problem is the direction of the light in the scene relative to the time of day.

If you had used Center weighted metering, again the entire scene is averaged, but the center 70% or so of the frame is given more 'weight'.
Center-weighted metering is often used for portrait type photos.
When your subject is tall and narrow, turn the camera 90° so the image frame is also tall and narrow (vertical or portrait camera orientation)
The framing you used is the horizontal or landscape camera orientation.

You framed his face so it was in the exact middle of the frame, which weakens a photo by eliminating tension and drama.

With bright sky behind him, the only way you could have balanced the exposure of him with the background would be by using flash.

The top of the fence effectively splits the middle of the image frame, again reducing tension and drama adding to the lack of any compelling point of interest in the photo.

He looks like he did not want his photo taken (crossed arms/facial expression).
He looks like a father that is reluctantly humoring a child that has been pestering him to pose for a photo.

Almost right. My father actually wanted his photo taken inside, but i asked him to do it outside. How very observant of you. I just don't have the basic equipment yet to get proper lighting inside yet. I would have loved to do it in a room with artificial light where i can tell the light what to do.

You had perfect lighting you just didnt use it by positioning your subject in the right location

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[pgriz]

So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?

Well, editing and resizing are two different things. You can edit and still retain the same resolution (in terms of pixels). Why don't you actually try this experiment - get an image that displays well on the monitor (say at a size of 900x600), and then print it full size on an A4 sheet. Then print the same image at full resolution (that is before you resized it) and compare the two. You'll have your answer.

 

[Braineack]

You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.

As soon as i've covered the basics. This glass is a bit frustrating because i can't do a lot with it, but its not responsible for the problem in my OP.

no, you needed an f/0.9 in this case.

 

[hamlet]

You had perfect lighting you just didnt use it by positioning your subject in the right location

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

Perfect is a bit of an exaggeration, but you are probably right about that. I'm still learning, still trying to figure things out.

 

[hamlet]

So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?

Well, editing and resizing are two different things. You can edit and still retain the same resolution (in terms of pixels). Why don't you actually try this experiment - get an image that displays well on the monitor (say at a size of 900x600), and then print it full size on an A4 sheet. Then print the same image at full resolution (that is before you resized it) and compare the two. You'll have your answer.

That's a good idea. But i still don't understand how the original 6000x4000 can fit on an A4? But i will try.

 

[hamlet]

You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.

As soon as i've covered the basics. This glass is a bit frustrating because i can't do a lot with it, but its not responsible for the problem in my OP.

no, you needed an f/0.9 in this case.

The last time i checked f1.2 was nikons biggest aperture lens.