Pictures are not Smooth and Popping

[480sparky41 40]

Underexposed?

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR="class: lookatme"]
[TH]Exposure[/TH]
[TD]0.013 sec (1/80)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: lookatme"]
[TH]Aperture[/TH]
[TD]f/4.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: lookatme"]
[TH]Focal Length[/TH]
[TD]18 mm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]ISO Speed[/TH]
[TD]200[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

1/80, f/4.5 doesn't sound underexposed.

So, you were there, right?

Did I ever claim I was?

 

[Derrel]

EV Chart 200 ASA - Larchmedia

f/4.5 at 1/80 second is about one EV value below "dreary" on this chart of ISO 200 Exposure Value settings.

I opened his original image, shot indoors. Looking at the bright highlights on the floor, I pulled the exposure downward in Lightroom, to where the highlights looked properly placed. I'd estimate from that that the original in-camera exposure was underexposed from 2.55 EV to 3.35 EV.

Notice the woman's eyes...utterly DETAIL-free...raccoon-eyes-city. A shot made against the light. Hence my original question, "Was the shot wayyyy underexposed?"

Because, based on experience indoors, and based on years of digital experience, a baseline region ISO exposure that has such horrific noise is often the result of gross under-exposure. The idea that "f/4.5 at 1/80 second at ISO 200" indoors does not sound underexposed seems like a rather bizarre comment.

To me, f/4.8 at 1/80 at ISO 200 indoors, in backlighting, with raccoon eyes supreme, is what I sometimes call an "UTLSOOIT shot."

Pronounced like oot-llllll-so-it" (UnderexposedTheLiving$hitOutOfIt)

 

[Solarflare]

Well, if 1/80 at f/4 and ISO 200 would actually be okay for indoor shooting, then why did I get my 35mm f1.8 for my old D5100 for indoor situations, anyway ? I already had a 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 VR with the camera, after all ...

 

[cjdesu6]

Thank you for your responses,

So I understand that you want to shoot at the person's eye level, but if I am utilize a 28-35mm lens, around 8 ft. away from subject and want to get a head to toe picture

Should I have to kneel to get the picture (not at subject's eye level). Or should I be standing and tilting the camera down. (28-35mm lens, around 8 ft. away from subject)

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

So did anybody figure out why the photo is so noisy when shot at 200 ISO ?

John

 

[cptkid]

So did anybody figure out why the photo is so noisy when shot at 200 ISO ?

John

Most likely the image was underexposed as derrel explained above and the OP recovered shadow details and introduced a load of noise.

Out of interest OP. Can you post the original image SOOC without any adjustments?

 

[cjdesu6]

Ok I think I know what happened so I have the camera set to Matrix Metering (I believe it's evaluative on Canon) and the camera decided to underexpose the shot. I then in post processing increased the exposure level and that brought in the noise. When shooting full body shots is it better to set the camera on Spot metering (Partial-Canon)

 

[cptkid]

Ok I think I know what happened so I have the camera set to Matrix Metering (I believe it's evaluative on Canon) and the camera decided to underexpose the shot. I then in post processing increased the exposure level and that brought in the noise. When shooting full body shots is it better to set the camera on Spot metering (Partial-Canon)

Spot meter on the subjects face.

 

[cjdesu6]

This picture (EXIF ) is tack sharp and the colors are extremely vivid versus this picture (EXIF ) for course his equipment costs around 5,000 but is this due to the equipment or post processing.

 

[amolitor]

The bad one is underexposed. You're shooting into the light, so the meter is fooled, trying to get an overall "good" exposure. It didn't figure out that it should have overexposed the background in order to correctly expose the girl, so the girl came out dark.

 

[Scatterbrained]

This picture (EXIF ) is tack sharp and the colors are extremely vivid versus this picture (EXIF ) for course his equipment costs around 5,000 but is this due to the equipment or post processing.

That first shot was done at 200mm and f/2.8. I think it's safe to say the gear and proper exposure had a lot to do with it. While I'd assume the image has had some processing done, it's impossible to say how much beyond sharpening and contrast/curves plus some vibrance. Getting the light right, being able to recognize when the light is good or not, goes a long way.