Photo of Historical Center
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Hi , Cheap sony and panasonic Hifi
Next: LI-50B
From: mmyvusenet on 24 Apr 2010 23:54 Hello: Took this photo today in the Historical Center of Lima: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4549198813/ Thanks for your technical comments about photography. -- MMYV http://www.mmyv.com
From: LOL! on 25 Apr 2010 00:18 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:54:00 -0500, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Hello: > >Took this photo today in the Historical Center of Lima: > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4549198813/ > >Thanks for your technical comments about photography. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Vance on 25 Apr 2010 13:27 On Apr 24, 8:54 pm, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvuse...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Hello: > > Took this photo today in the Historical Center of Lima: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4549198813/ > > Thanks for your technical comments about photography. > > -- > MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com Your composition is improving. You're much better than you were in the beginning. Paul mentions the crop being awkward. Maybe yes and maybe no. If you wanted to emphasize the wedding activity and the people, then showing them full length or from just above the knees might have been better. Showing them from the back is legitimate where the subject is the activity and not the people. Also, I can imagine that there was a pro shooting and they are going to get the shot of the Bride and Groom coming and going - not you. You didn't use to include people at all in the past and you seem to like emphasizing the physical context for these ceremonies, so this could be a good crop for your intent. There is perspective is distortion because the sensor plane is not parallel to the subject plane vertically. You probably tipped the camera up to catch more of the church and this would be the result. I don't know anything about the software you used for processing, but, if it has correction for this type of problem, it could be corrected nicely (I think). Your White Balance is set for tungsten. I suspect that the lighting in the church is high output flourescent with a color temperature a lot higher than the 2850 (or so) the Canon will give you set to tungsten and that would create the very blue cast. Today, everybody, Catholic Church included, is saving money by switching to fluorescent lights where applicable. It never hurts to check what type of artificial light is being used and setting your camera to that. Exposure for a shot lit like this can be a problem. Your camera came up with a decent compromise on the metering, but, with all the direct light sources in the frame it is a little underexposed. You might try using 'Center Weighted' metering under similar lighting conditions next time and see if that gets you a little closer. Bryan Peterson's 'Understanding Exposure' is a pretty good book and might be available in Spanish. Something to keep in mind when shooting subjects where the viewer has a very clear idea of how things should look, you need to get those right. In this shot, because of the lighting, the best overall lighting for the picture is going to underexpose the wedding dress and make it a shade of gray. If the dress were some other color, even a clearly tinted white, the under exposure wouldn't be as noticeable because the viewer doesn't have the same, or maybe any expectation, for the actual color. With a virginal white wedding gown, the gown has to be white. I don't think your software has the ability to do local enhancements like that (making the gown white), so you may want to consider something like Photoshop Elements. Also, skin tones have to be natural looking. I didn't say accurate, which is a different thing all together. Vance
From: mmyvusenet on 25 Apr 2010 18:02 "Vance" <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje de noticias:e6a870ee-10fe-4e47-a0bc-66ce84d37ce1(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 24, 8:54 pm, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvuse...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Hello: >> >> Took this photo today in the Historical Center of Lima: >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4549198813/ >> >> Thanks for your technical comments about photography. >> >> -- >> MMYVhttp://www.mmyv.com > > Your composition is improving. You're much better than you were in > the beginning. > > Paul mentions the crop being awkward. Maybe yes and maybe no. If you > wanted to emphasize the wedding activity and the people, then showing > them full length or from just above the knees might have been better. > Showing them from the back is legitimate where the subject is the > activity and not the people. Also, I can imagine that there was a pro > shooting and they are going to get the shot of the Bride and Groom > coming and going - not you. You didn't use to include people at all > in the past and you seem to like emphasizing the physical context for > these ceremonies, so this could be a good crop for your intent. > > There is perspective is distortion because the sensor plane is not > parallel to the subject plane vertically. You probably tipped the > camera up to catch more of the church and this would be the result. I > don't know anything about the software you used for processing, but, > if it has correction for this type of problem, it could be corrected > nicely (I think). > > Your White Balance is set for tungsten. I suspect that the lighting > in the church is high output flourescent with a color temperature a > lot higher than the 2850 (or so) the Canon will give you set to > tungsten and that would create the very blue cast. Today, everybody, > Catholic Church included, is saving money by switching to fluorescent > lights where applicable. It never hurts to check what type of > artificial light is being used and setting your camera to that. > > Exposure for a shot lit like this can be a problem. Your camera came > up with a decent compromise on the metering, but, with all the direct > light sources in the frame it is a little underexposed. You might try > using 'Center Weighted' metering under similar lighting conditions > next time and see if that gets you a little closer. Bryan Peterson's > 'Understanding Exposure' is a pretty good book and might be available > in Spanish. > > Something to keep in mind when shooting subjects where the viewer has > a very clear idea of how things should look, you need to get those > right. In this shot, because of the lighting, the best overall > lighting for the picture is going to underexpose the wedding dress and > make it a shade of gray. If the dress were some other color, even a > clearly tinted white, the under exposure wouldn't be as noticeable > because the viewer doesn't have the same, or maybe any expectation, > for the actual color. With a virginal white wedding gown, the gown > has to be white. I don't think your software has the ability to do > local enhancements like that (making the gown white), so you may want > to consider something like Photoshop Elements. Also, skin tones have > to be natural looking. I didn't say accurate, which is a different > thing all together. > > Vance Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting answers, I also did another photo I'm showing in the group. -- MMYV http://www.mmyv.com
From: rwalker on 26 Apr 2010 14:42
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:48 -0500, "mmyvusenet" <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > >Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting answers, I also >did another photo I'm showing in the group. > >-- >MMYV >http://www.mmyv.com > I like this next one in your album: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4551019563/in/photostream/ The interplay between the two violinists in the foreground is an attention grabber. |