Why is my photo terrible?

[SageMark]

I think he needs a better phogograph with his equipment to determine Good Photo vs Impressionist Drawing. It's just a bad example for determinations, of course it's all gonna be sorted here. If not, then why are we here? And look at where we are.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Do you have more than this one image to look at?

 

[SageMark]

Why is my photo terrible? That's the title of this thread, and it's a fail.

 

[jockohomo]

Do you have more than this one image to look at?

Yes, here are a couple more I took today.

I wasn't thrilled with the sharpness or focus...they both seem a little off.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/2255/animalsw.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3808/tastingroom.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/i/tastingroom.jpg/
Especially the sheep...it was shot at f-11 1/200
The winery was shot at f-16 1/250

Do you see any problems that would suggest the camera has issues? That was my big concern when I saw the noise in the first photo I posted.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Why is my photo terrible? That's the title of this thread, and it's a fail.

Your sig links are fail as well.


Jocko, I don't see the same issue in the latter two links, so i chalk it up to noise.

Get the book "Understanding Exposure".

 

[jockohomo]

Why is my photo terrible? That's the title of this thread, and it's a fail.

Your sig links are fail as well.


Jocko, I don't see the same issue in the latter two links, so i chalk it up to noise.

Get the book "Understanding Exposure".

Okay, thanks a lot for your help and for being a normal human. I mean that.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Okay, thanks a lot for your help and for being a normal human. I mean that.

I run hot and cold.

I hope it helped.

 

[Tulsa]

Okay, thanks a lot for your help and for being a normal human. I mean that.

You caught him at a good time!:lmao:

Most people get pissed off by him, but he is very helpful.

 

[jockohomo]

Okay, thanks a lot for your help and for being a normal human. I mean that.

You caught him at a good time!:lmao:

Most people get pissed off by him, but he is very helpful.

Most people get pissed off by me, too. I was here what, a minute before someone picked a fight? He was pretty awesome/reasonable, and he is from Ohio, which is where Devo (i.e. Jocko Homo) hail from. :thumbup:

 

[SageMark]

Why is my photo terrible? That's the title of this thread, and it's a fail.

Your sig links are fail as well.


Jocko, I don't see the same issue in the latter two links, so i chalk it up to noise.

Get the book "Understanding Exposure".

I didn't post a thread asking you to c&c my sig links did I, And ask them why they failed? Ass.

 

[clanthar]

Hi All,

Sorry I missed the Ass and forgive me if I'm late to the party, but I think I can help:

Camera is fine -- the other two photos you posted don't indicate any problems with the camera.

I did a real quick down and dirty edit on this one to illustrate what's at the root of the problem. It's the scene lighting. Look at the inset histogram. You see data that suggests there are two photos here. THERE ARE TWO PHOTOS HERE, and you've squeezed them into the space of one photo. On top of that your camera meter wasn't sure what to do and in classic Canon style it got conservative and protected your highlights -- good thing.

It was suggested earlier that the highlights are blown; no way, it's quite the contrary.

The gap in the histogram that I've marked as problem is the space between earth and sky. When that space is a gap like you see here, you've got trouble. Notice that the entire "earth" section of the photo doesn't even get past the halfway mark. The photo is solidly sidelit with a backlight sky. In a case like this you've got three choices:

1. The camera can expose for the sky and underexpose the foreground.
2. The camera can expose for the foreground and blow the sky.
3. The camera can try and stab for the middle and screw up both ends.

1. You lose.
2. You lose.
3. You lose, but you might salvage something in post if the camera holds the sky.

The noise you're seeing in the photo is as Bitter first called it: underexposure. The camera had no choice.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[jockohomo]

1. You lose.
2. You lose.
3. You lose, but you might salvage something in post if the camera holds the sky.

The noise you're seeing in the photo is as Bitter first called it: underexposure. The camera had no choice.

Take Care,
Joe

That's Joe. That was enlightening.

I guess a 4th option would be HDR? Isn't this the type of lighting where it excels or am I wrong?

Also, do you have a larger version of the file you touched up? I'd be curious to see it.

Thanks again.

 

[Rekd]

1. You lose.
2. You lose.
3. You lose, but you might salvage something in post if the camera holds the sky.

The noise you're seeing in the photo is as Bitter first called it: underexposure. The camera had no choice.

Take Care,
Joe

That's Joe. That was enlightening.

I guess a 4th option would be HDR? Isn't this the type of lighting where it excels or am I wrong?

Also, do you have a larger version of the file you touched up? I'd be curious to see it.

Thanks again.

Methinks you'd be better off learning how to do it. And how to use img tags. :twak:

 

[clanthar]

1. You lose.
2. You lose.
3. You lose, but you might salvage something in post if the camera holds the sky.

The noise you're seeing in the photo is as Bitter first called it: underexposure. The camera had no choice.

Take Care,
Joe

That's Joe. That was enlightening.

I guess a 4th option would be HDR? Isn't this the type of lighting where it excels or am I wrong?

Also, do you have a larger version of the file you touched up? I'd be curious to see it.

Thanks again.

HDR is an option yes -- the technique is ideally suited to extreme contrast lighting. Another option is to learn to extract all the info in your RAW capture. If you're shooting a 5D it captures 14 bit in RAW.

But before going there the real issue your photo raises is seeing the light. There's a critical lesson embedded in this photo (forgive me I'm a teacher). The contrast range due to lighting can and does often exceed the limits of our technology to manage a successful capture/process/photo. If you don't see that condition before pressing the shutter two bad things happen:

1. You get frustrated when you don't know why you got a bad photo.
2. You miss the chance you may have had to intervene and fix it.

Your poor camera didn't know what to do with that extreme contrast range.

Sorry I didn't keep the 1024 pixel edit, as I said it was a down and dirty because it's late -- I was due to be in bed 30 minutes ago and I'm going there now. If you like, email me tomorrow (clanthar@hotmail.com) and I'll be happy to do a more careful job and show you how to do it.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Okay, thanks a lot for your help and for being a normal human. I mean that.

You caught him at a good time!:lmao:

Most people get pissed off by him, but he is very helpful.

Most people get pissed off by me, too. I was here what, a minute before someone picked a fight? He was pretty awesome/reasonable, and he is from Ohio, which is where Devo (i.e. Jocko Homo) hail from. :thumbup:

...and The Cramps!

Lux Interior, RIP