A little help for my daughter

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That's not a `very dark` picture, in my opinion. There is a
backlighting issue, that could have been improved by turning the flash
on (preferably dialled down a stop or two if that's possible, or
angling the camera diffreently to exclude some of the intensely white
building that is affecting the metering.

It's possible she has changed a setting that *would* give dark
pictures, but that example would not make me think the camera was at
fault. If you are convinced the camera is misbehaving, the model
number would help a bit to know what sort of settings might be
adjustable..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:24:53 -0500, "Eric Miller"
<millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>The image looks pretty good to me. The white church in direct sunlight in
>the background has probably caused the camera to underexpose the people in
>the foreground. Automatic exposure can be fooled and it looks like she
>fooled it. The photo could have used a little fill flash, but the Sony
>probably doesn't have a flash shoe or a powerful enough on-board flash to
>have helped in this situation.
>

Thanks for the comments, but this is one of several pictures
(40-some); most of which are equally dark. However, I ran through
them and noticed that there is always something much lighter than the
foreground subject in the background. The building you identified as
a church, in this case. Sometimes just some white lattice of a fence
and some times a building. Evidently, the camera is metering the
entire frame and not the foreground subject.

The shots where there is no dominant background light area seem to be
fine. These shots were taken in a public garden here in town, and I
downloaded her shots to my computer so I could mix my shots with hers
to come up with a good mix of Mother's Day photos.

I'll have to have my daughter run through her manual and see if the
camera can be set to spot metering rather than average metering. I'm
not sure what settings are possible with her camera.

I haven't had the problem with my camera since I adjust with Photoshop
7 and just bring the picture up to the right levels. I can do that
with hers (this one included), but she doesn't have the program.




>
>
>"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:7sn281lcetacbn3figbfu4cecbtghdla84@4ax.com...
>> My daughter has a Sony Cybershot that has all of a sudden started
>> turning out very dark pictures. She doesn't live here in town, and I
>> have a Canon, I can't experiment around with her camera to figure out
>> what the problem is.
>>
>> The image at http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen1.jpg
>> was taken in normal sunlight in a somewhat shady location with the
>> Auto setting. There's a screenshot of the EXIF data at
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen2.jpg.
>>
>> I can correct this image with Photoshop7, but she can't. Does she
>> have something set incorrectly that's turning out such dark pictures?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper
>> Orlando FL
>

--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:24:53 -0500, "Eric Miller"
> <millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The image looks pretty good to me. The white church in direct sunlight in
>>the background has probably caused the camera to underexpose the people in
>>the foreground. Automatic exposure can be fooled and it looks like she
>>fooled it. The photo could have used a little fill flash, but the Sony
>>probably doesn't have a flash shoe or a powerful enough on-board flash to
>>have helped in this situation.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments, but this is one of several pictures
> (40-some); most of which are equally dark. However, I ran through
> them and noticed that there is always something much lighter than the
> foreground subject in the background. The building you identified as
> a church, in this case. Sometimes just some white lattice of a fence
> and some times a building. Evidently, the camera is metering the
> entire frame and not the foreground subject.
>
> The shots where there is no dominant background light area seem to be
> fine. These shots were taken in a public garden here in town, and I
> downloaded her shots to my computer so I could mix my shots with hers
> to come up with a good mix of Mother's Day photos.
>
> I'll have to have my daughter run through her manual and see if the
> camera can be set to spot metering rather than average metering. I'm
> not sure what settings are possible with her camera.
>
> I haven't had the problem with my camera since I adjust with Photoshop
> 7 and just bring the picture up to the right levels. I can do that
> with hers (this one included), but she doesn't have the program.
>


She might consider purchase of Photoshop Elements 3.0 which will correct
the pictures easily, and costs only about $80 at Wal-Mart, and other
discount places.
Well worth the money, delivering about 80% of the functionality of PS CS
for much less money.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:05:28 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 05:17:19 GMT, Tony Cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:24:53 -0500, "Eric Miller"
>><millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The image looks pretty good to me. The white church in direct sunlight in
>>>the background has probably caused the camera to underexpose the people in
>>>the foreground. Automatic exposure can be fooled and it looks like she
>>>fooled it. The photo could have used a little fill flash, but the Sony
>>>probably doesn't have a flash shoe or a powerful enough on-board flash to
>>>have helped in this situation.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the comments, but this is one of several pictures
>>(40-some); most of which are equally dark. However, I ran through
>>them and noticed that there is always something much lighter than the
>>foreground subject in the background. The building you identified as
>>a church, in this case. Sometimes just some white lattice of a fence
>>and some times a building. Evidently, the camera is metering the
>>entire frame and not the foreground subject.
>>
>>The shots where there is no dominant background light area seem to be
>>fine. These shots were taken in a public garden here in town, and I
>>downloaded her shots to my computer so I could mix my shots with hers
>>to come up with a good mix of Mother's Day photos.
>>
>>I'll have to have my daughter run through her manual and see if the
>>camera can be set to spot metering rather than average metering. I'm
>>not sure what settings are possible with her camera.
>
> FWIW, the settings screenshot shows:
>
>ExposureProgram -- normal program
> and
>MeteringMode -- Center weighted average
>
> ... either of which might be worth investigating.
>
> It also shows the flash did not fire. Any chance she might
>have disabled the flash?

It was a bright, sunny day and she was standing in a sunny spot. I've
suggested to her, for pix like this, to force the flash for fill-in.
She's going to try some experimental shots using the same conditions
but forcing flash.

>>>"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7sn281lcetacbn3figbfu4cecbtghdla84@4ax.com...
>>>> My daughter has a Sony Cybershot that has all of a sudden started
>>>> turning out very dark pictures. She doesn't live here in town, and I
>>>> have a Canon, I can't experiment around with her camera to figure out
>>>> what the problem is.
>>>>
>>>> The image at http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen1.jpg
>>>> was taken in normal sunlight in a somewhat shady location with the
>>>> Auto setting. There's a screenshot of the EXIF data at
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen2.jpg.
>>>>
>>>> I can correct this image with Photoshop7, but she can't. Does she
>>>> have something set incorrectly that's turning out such dark pictures?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Cooper
>>>> Orlando FL
>>>

--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 06:52:59 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:05:28 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 05:17:19 GMT, Tony Cooper
>><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 May 2005 21:24:53 -0500, "Eric Miller"
>>><millerericnospam@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The image looks pretty good to me. The white church in direct sunlight in
>>>>the background has probably caused the camera to underexpose the people in
>>>>the foreground. Automatic exposure can be fooled and it looks like she
>>>>fooled it. The photo could have used a little fill flash, but the Sony
>>>>probably doesn't have a flash shoe or a powerful enough on-board flash to
>>>>have helped in this situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the comments, but this is one of several pictures
>>>(40-some); most of which are equally dark. However, I ran through
>>>them and noticed that there is always something much lighter than the
>>>foreground subject in the background. The building you identified as
>>>a church, in this case. Sometimes just some white lattice of a fence
>>>and some times a building. Evidently, the camera is metering the
>>>entire frame and not the foreground subject.
>>>
>>>The shots where there is no dominant background light area seem to be
>>>fine. These shots were taken in a public garden here in town, and I
>>>downloaded her shots to my computer so I could mix my shots with hers
>>>to come up with a good mix of Mother's Day photos.
>>>
>>>I'll have to have my daughter run through her manual and see if the
>>>camera can be set to spot metering rather than average metering. I'm
>>>not sure what settings are possible with her camera.
>>
>> FWIW, the settings screenshot shows:
>>
>>ExposureProgram -- normal program
>> and
>>MeteringMode -- Center weighted average
>>
>> ... either of which might be worth investigating.
>>
>> It also shows the flash did not fire. Any chance she might
>>have disabled the flash?
>
>It was a bright, sunny day and she was standing in a sunny spot.

Her position doesn't mean anything -- she could have been
shooting out of a metal box. But, judging by the people in the
foreground, they appear to be in what;s called open sghade, which
would suggest the need for a different setting,perhaps even at the
expense of the bright background, which, in fact may already be
compromised..

> I've
>suggested to her, for pix like this, to force the flash for fill-in.
>She's going to try some experimental shots using the same conditions
>but forcing flash.
>
>>>>"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:7sn281lcetacbn3figbfu4cecbtghdla84@4ax.com...
>>>>> My daughter has a Sony Cybershot that has all of a sudden started
>>>>> turning out very dark pictures. She doesn't live here in town, and I
>>>>> have a Canon, I can't experiment around with her camera to figure out
>>>>> what the problem is.
>>>>>
>>>>> The image at http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen1.jpg
>>>>> was taken in normal sunlight in a somewhat shady location with the
>>>>> Auto setting. There's a screenshot of the EXIF data at
>>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~tony_cooper213/screen2.jpg.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can correct this image with Photoshop7, but she can't. Does she
>>>>> have something set incorrectly that's turning out such dark pictures?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tony Cooper
>>>>> Orlando FL
>>>>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
: On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:33:58 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

: >>It was a bright, sunny day and she was standing in a sunny spot.
: >
: > Her position doesn't mean anything -- she could have been
: >shooting out of a metal box. But, judging by the people in the
: >foreground, they appear to be in what;s called open sghade, which
: >would suggest the need for a different setting,perhaps even at the
: >expense of the bright background, which, in fact may already be
: >compromised..


: Please give me a better explanation. In the old 35mm days, we held a
: light meter near the subject and metered the light at the subject.
: With digital, the meter is in the camera. If the subject is in the
: shade, and the camera is aimed from a sunny spot, would not the meter
: react to the light coming in the camera? Average that out with the
: light coming off the subject?

Let me see if I can sort all this out. The comment about "she is in a
sunny place" may have been taken to mean that the photographer was in the
sun. The reply was that it does not matter where the photographer is, but
the location of the subject does matter. So this may have been a
misunderstanding of a statement.

Now as to the metering, some cameras are locked on an overall average
brightness to set the f-stop and shutter speed. If there is any very
bright object in the entire frame, this will cause the entire image to be
underexposed to compensate. From a comment made earlier in this thread I
think that the photo in question was set to "center weighted" so the
camera will give more attention to the center of the image when
calculating exposure, but it still does notice a very bright background.
It just does not "weigh" it quite as high in the calculation as an overall
average. This will help if the background is slightly brighter, but can
still be overwhelmed by a strongly bright background object. Also if the
subject is off center the weighting will be reading whatever is in the
center as its main focus. Lastly if the camera can be set to "spot
metering" the only spot that is concidered in the exposure calculation is
the designated "spot" in many cameras this is locked to the center of the
image. Some cameras allow the photog to choose between several "spots" to
allow the subject to be off center. This would be the best choice in a
bright (or extra dark) background situation. If the camera is set to spot
and the subject is not in that spot, try centering the subject, half
pressing the button which locks the exposure (and focus) and then while
holding the half press, re aim the camera to compose the desired image.

BTW I mentioned an overly dark background. This is the flip side of the
too bright background. For example a photo of someone in a well lit area
(not requiring a flash) but with a dark background (like at night) the
camera may overexpose the subject because of the averaging or weighting
taking the large dark area into account. This is why, when a flash is
active, the camera assumes a set amount of light will be present when the
flash goes off and so objects beyond the flash or too close to the flash
may be over or under exposed due to this assumption. That's why I have to
laugh at all the flash pictures taken at night sporting events, as the
flash will only illuminate the heads of the crowd immediately infront of
the photographer, and the rest of the photo will likely be unusable.

: Isn't that why a photo like this requires fill-in flash? Because the
: average light (between camera and subject) is brighter than the light
: at the subject?

Using a fill flash is an attempt to light the subject to the intensity (or
nearly so) of the brightest part of the background. If the background is
even brighter, it may help but will probably not totally solve the
problem. The light on the photographer has nothing to do with the exposure
calculation. Only the brightness of the various portions of the image are
concidered. So the subject should be positioned so that the subject is lit
at or slightly brighter than the rest of the image to assure a more
accurate exposure reading.

: As for the positioning or setting, that's portrait photography.
: That's a contrived setting that takes advantage of conditions. In a
: series of candids, if there's one scene we want to capture, we can
: move around and shoot the same subject under different conditions. In
: this case, moving the camera so the white building in the background
: is not in the frame, but trees or less reflective surface are because
: of position or angle. In this case, moving the photographer changes
: setting.

: But, in that series of candids we often have one shot at the setting
: and fewer options of change. In this case, possibly one shot as taken
: and one shot with forced flash. Sometimes, though, it's just a case
: of swinging the camera around and tripping the lens and hoping this is
: a good one.

True. That is one of the disadvantages of candids. You can't always be
prepaired for a quick shot. A few ways to reduce the problems of
background. First zooming in on the subject so that it fills more of the
image and will thus be more prominent in the exposure calculations. Also
if your camera has the setting for it, keeping your camera on spot
metering, and centering the subject so that the subject is what is being
read can allow the snap shot to be more likely to be correctly metered.

: To me, the whole advantage of digital is the ability to shoot 50 shots
: instead of 25 without increasing cost. That, and the advantage of
: programs like Adobe Photoshop that can tweak the marginal ones.
: The disadvantage is that I'm relying on volume to come up with three
: good shots out of the 50 and thinking less about each and how to
: ensure it comes out better. Digital makes me lazy.

I know the feeling. I agree that taking more images at no additional cost
is a big plus. And being able to do my "darkroom" functions in a bedroom
without special lights, smelly chemicals or running water is a plus.

: In this case, it's my daughter's photography and not mine. She never
: went through the old 35mm stage where thought was required. Now, it's
: point and shoot and shoot again and again. She does have the
: advantage of bundled programs and free programs like Irfanview that
: allow cropping and composition without lab facilities.

Maybe helping her to recognize difficult situations that may give her poor
images that can not be corrected in "post production" can help her to
develop an "eye" for what to try for. There will still be pictures that do
not turn out from time to time, but recognizing what to try to avoid may
mean that a higher percentage of photos will turn out good.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:33:58 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
>
>>>It was a bright, sunny day and she was standing in a sunny spot.
>>
>> Her position doesn't mean anything -- she could have been
>>shooting out of a metal box. But, judging by the people in the
>>foreground, they appear to be in what;s called open sghade, which
>>would suggest the need for a different setting,perhaps even at the
>>expense of the bright background, which, in fact may already be
>>compromised..
>
>
>
> Please give me a better explanation. In the old 35mm days, we held a
> light meter near the subject and metered the light at the subject.
> With digital, the meter is in the camera. If the subject is in the
> shade, and the camera is aimed from a sunny spot, would not the meter
> react to the light coming in the camera? Average that out with the
> light coming off the subject?
>
> Isn't that why a photo like this requires fill-in flash? Because the
> average light (between camera and subject) is brighter than the light
> at the subject?
>
> As for the positioning or setting, that's portrait photography.
> That's a contrived setting that takes advantage of conditions. In a
> series of candids, if there's one scene we want to capture, we can
> move around and shoot the same subject under different conditions. In
> this case, moving the camera so the white building in the background
> is not in the frame, but trees or less reflective surface are because
> of position or angle. In this case, moving the photographer changes
> setting.
>
> But, in that series of candids we often have one shot at the setting
> and fewer options of change. In this case, possibly one shot as taken
> and one shot with forced flash. Sometimes, though, it's just a case
> of swinging the camera around and tripping the lens and hoping this is
> a good one.
>
> To me, the whole advantage of digital is the ability to shoot 50 shots
> instead of 25 without increasing cost. That, and the advantage of
> programs like Adobe Photoshop that can tweak the marginal ones.
> The disadvantage is that I'm relying on volume to come up with three
> good shots out of the 50 and thinking less about each and how to
> ensure it comes out better. Digital makes me lazy.
>
> In this case, it's my daughter's photography and not mine. She never
> went through the old 35mm stage where thought was required. Now, it's
> point and shoot and shoot again and again. She does have the
> advantage of bundled programs and free programs like Irfanview that
> allow cropping and composition without lab facilities.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
I disagree about digital making one lazy. It makes one a better
photographer IF he uses the feedback available. Taking 100 shots to get
1 good one just indicates that one is either very incompetent, or very
picky. I rarely take more than two shots of a scene, film or digital.
For one thing, I like candids, and the conditions change too rapidly for
many shots, so I have to do the best I can with what is available. Many
times I move my shooting position to aid in framing, composition,
lighting, or background. Sometimes this isn't feasible, and I use zoom,
cropping, and/or other PS editing features to improve the product.

The number of pictures one takes to get a good one depends largely on
the ability to consider all the variations and come up with a good
compromise. There is no 'laziness' in a guy willing to try 100 times to
get a good shot. Competence, maybe, but not laziness.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 07:02:22 +0000 (UTC), Randy Berbaum
> <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>: On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:33:58 GMT, kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>>
>>: >>It was a bright, sunny day and she was standing in a sunny spot.
>>: >
>>: > Her position doesn't mean anything -- she could have been
>>: >shooting out of a metal box. But, judging by the people in the
>>: >foreground, they appear to be in what;s called open sghade, which
>>: >would suggest the need for a different setting,perhaps even at the
>>: >expense of the bright background, which, in fact may already be
>>: >compromised..
>>
>>
>>: Please give me a better explanation. In the old 35mm days, we held a
>>: light meter near the subject and metered the light at the subject.
>>: With digital, the meter is in the camera. If the subject is in the
>>: shade, and the camera is aimed from a sunny spot, would not the meter
>>: react to the light coming in the camera? Average that out with the
>>: light coming off the subject?
>>
>>Let me see if I can sort all this out. The comment about "she is in a
>>sunny place" may have been taken to mean that the photographer was in the
>>sun. The reply was that it does not matter where the photographer is, but
>>the location of the subject does matter. So this may have been a
>>misunderstanding of a statement.
>
>
> Yes, my comment had to do with my daughter (the picture taker) being a
> few yards away from the subject. Daughter was in full sun, and
> subject in shade. My (very weak) logic process is saying that the
> camera is metering the average light available. I'm trying to figure
> out if the camera is able to determine just the light available in the
> immediate area of the subject or doing some sort of averaging based on
> what's coming into the system from the lens.

I think you are assuming that the metering sensor is on the outside of
the camera, exposed to the direct sun. This is unlikely to be the case.
Some cameras use the sensor that images the picture for metering, and
others use separate photocells. These may be inside, or on the front,
of the camera, but are usually sufficiently recessed, or hooded, to
prevent just being in the sun from greatly affecting the metering.
Most P&S cameras will meter the light coming in from a center spot,
others just average the whole scene. In any case, if there is a way to
do it, one should avoid shots where the subject is in shade if there are
light colored things in the frame which are lit by direct sun. Very few
cameras will handle that problem. Fortunately with digital pictures,
the problem can usually be corrected in a photo editor with minimal
addition of noise to the darker areas. Note that no editor can correct
a 'blown out' light area, so if you use the 'meter the spot on the
darker subject, and lock' method, be aware that directly sun-lit objects
may be 'just white'.

>
> Part of my inability to work this out in my mind is the effect of the
> white wall in the far background. If the camera can sense this extra
> whiteness (which is the result of reflected light from the sun and not
> really the color of the wall), then shouldn't the camera also sense
> this extra light immediately in front of the lens?

All light the camera sees is usually reflected in a day scene. That is
one reason doing night shots requires some changed thinking. And, yes,
the camera WILL sense this extra light, and it may be what is causing
your dark subjects.

>
> Please don't take this an argument about the other points raised about
> how to improve the picture taking. All I'm trying to do here is gain
> a little understanding of the process and why it does what it does.
>
> My first camera was that old, traditional Brownie that managed more
> good shots with black and white film - percentage-wise - than modern
> cameras come up with. I have recently been sorting out old family
> photos and thinking - with amazement - how really *good* some of those
> pictures are. I have some pix that I took in the 40s when I was ten
> years old or less that are sharp, well-lighted, and in sharp focus.
> All I did was point and push down the plunger.

I doubt the shots were better, you were just less sophisticated in your
evaluations, and expectations.
Yes, shots taken in the sun, and with 126 film, and fixed focus lens are
sharp, and well-lighted. I also have some I could show you where the
corners of the picture are so blurry I can't tell what they were of...
Some of the old cameras didn't have very good optics...

>
> My next camera was one of those "modern" devices with a viewfinder
> that you looked down at and everything appeared to be upside-down. I
> don't think I ever took a decent picture with it. The camera, if
> tilted a bit, produced half-pictures.
>
> I have a print somewhere of a picture that I took in the pits at the
> Indianapolis 500 mile race of my favorite race driver at the time (Sam
> Hanks). I remember him sitting in the race car with his goggles off
> and that reverse raccoon look from a face streaked with grease
> everywhere but where the goggles protected him. I clearly remember
> the weary, disappointed look on his face just before he climbed out of
> a car that had dropped out because of mechanical problems. The photo
> shows a clear image of the car, the driver's upper body, and a white
> blur where the face would have been. An early disappointment that I
> still remember.
>
> Then I got a 35mm camera and a light meter. Taking a photo was a
> major project with the set-up time involved. Meter it from here,
> meter it from there, set the f-stop and speed, and shoot. Good
> pictures sometimes, but too often the subject was gone or too bored
> with the process to display any candidness.
>
> Then the 35mm SLR with built-in meters and even an "automatic"
> setting. Better pictures, but the start of carrying around a suitcase
> of lenses and filters and a tripod. I think I still have grooves in
> my shoulders from the weight of the backpack containing all that gear
> for my first trip to Europe. Good pictures, though.
>
> Now I own a camera the size of a package of cigarettes with more
> features in the menu functions than I'm able to figure out. I've
> become lazy and shoot volume and depend on computer editing.
>
> I've owned three digitals. The Nikon I owned prior to the one I own
> now was thrown in the trash. It had a mechanical problem, and Nikon
> service wanted more to fix the camera than a brand-new one (with even
> more features) cost. Cameras have reached the point where it's not
> economical to have one fixed. You just pitch and replace.
>
> Sorry to ramble, but it strikes me that the equipment has improved but
> the operation has become so complex that the operator needs to know
> very little, think very little, and can even ignore the basics of
> composition because it can all be changed later with keyboard strokes.
>
> The bag of 35mm SLR stuff remains in the closet. There's no longer
> even the thrill of waiting a week to open the package of prints to see
> if one came out even close to the image hoped for.
>
> Now we (the great unwashed of the amateur candid photographer) worry
> about which is the best AA battery to buy, which printer produces the
> best prints, which inks work best, and whether or not a card reader is
> a worthwhile accessory. No one talks about composition in a newsgroup
> like this, but a thread can go 50 posts about how many megapixels per
> buck is the best buy.
>
>
Some of us do mention composition. Of course we are ignored, mostly, by
many who don't know what it means. I think there is a real gulf between
those who have been taking pictures for 50 years and those who are new
to the craft/art. It makes the situation worse because with the advent
of digital, many old timers are now novices, as far as digital goes, and
need to learn a lot in order to catch up. These people alread KNOW
about composition, but then DO need to know what a NIMH battery is
better than an alkaline, and that a Lithium-Ion battery needs a special
charger.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:22:58 GMT, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Part of my inability to work this out in my mind is the effect of the
> white wall in the far background. If the camera can sense this extra
> whiteness (which is the result of reflected light from the sun and not
> really the color of the wall), then shouldn't the camera also sense
> this extra light immediately in front of the lens?

By "immediately in front of the lens" I assume that you mean the
light reflected from an object that is fairly close to the lens.
It's not the distance that has anything to do with determining the
proper exposure. If enough little white objects were placed around
the same foreground subject, the camera would be blocked from seeing
the white wall in the background, but would calculate the same
incorrect exposure.

Look at it this way. If you had no foreground subject at all and
wanted to take a picture of the white wall, the picture would be
improperly exposed because the camera "assumes" that it is seeing a
typical scene that has a mix of light and dark objects. So it
thinks the wall is of this average brightness and reduces the
exposure. The wall in the picture doesn't appear to be white, but
shows up as a shade of gray. The converse would happen if the wall
was black. The camera would again think it was seeing an average
gray scene and increase the exposure beyond what was required. The
resulting picture would show not a black wall, but again, a wall
that is a shade of gray.

If the wall was made up of alternating black and white stones,
then the cameras assumptions would work. In the resulting image,
the black stones would appear to be black and the white stones would
be white. The best exposure would be made by the camera when the
number of black and white stones were approximately equal. The
farther from equality you get, the worse the exposure, until the
worst conditions are reached. 100% black or 100% white stones. The
problem with your daughter's pictures seem to be due to the
foreground subject being overwhelmed by the white wall behind it.

There are ways to compensate for this. It could be done if the
camera has either a manual mode or the ability to use an EV
adjustment. I assume that the camera doesn't have the ability to
take the exposure from the center, or some other area of the frame.
If your daughter's camera can do this it would help. Yet another
way would be to use a flash, if it is powerful enough and if the
foreground subject is close enough. Your daughter might also be
able to prefocus on the base of the foreground subject (such as
feet, it the subject is people). That might exclude enough of the
wall from the exposure calculation to produce a better exposure.
The photographer could also move, or reposition the foreground
subject so as to exclude much or all of the wall from the picture.
This obviously won't work very well if the wall is a desired part of
the picture. A last method might be to get much closer to the
subject, or to use the zoom to make the foreground subject a much
greater percentage of the overall picture, reducing the contribution
to the exposure by the wall.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

: The number of pictures one takes to get a good one depends largely on
: the ability to consider all the variations and come up with a good
: compromise. There is no 'laziness' in a guy willing to try 100 times to
: get a good shot. Competence, maybe, but not laziness.

I agree that 100 shots is a bit much. And I agree that the majority of my
photos are 1 or 2 trys at most to get what I am trying for. But there have
been occasions when I have taken many shots of a single subject to see
which variable gives the emotional or "wow" impact I am hoping for. For
example I once took about a dozen photos of a building (ok it was a castle
at Disney World). I tried setting exposure to the lit portions of the
structure, to the shadowed side of the wall, portrait orientation,
ladscape orientation, extra wide angle to capture more of the
surroundings, etc. Each of the images was "good" but I found that each
image seemed to have a different emotional impact. All the images were of
the same subject, within moments of each other, but the impact of the
finished products were very different.

So some times excessive shooting is due to incomplete education or
laziness of the photographer. But other times it can be creative
exploration and experimentation.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL