*OFFICIAL* Snapshot of the Day (one image per post please) #1

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Crisp

What was your exposure, iso, etc. set at?

At 700mm and hand-held, plus that quality.... I would definitely trust you as a surgeon!


Great shot.

Thanks.

Well, my hands are indeed pretty steady, BUT image stabilization, ISO 800, f/5.6 and 1/4000th second helped a bunch. I used +1EV to bring out the fur details. The light at 14,000 feet above sea level gives you all kinds of options. My 7D has excellent IQ at ISO 800.

I knew that the shutter speed was up at 1/2000th or higher, but I didn't realize it was 1/4000th until later.

Two fundamental things that I do are, "expose right" to the right of the histogram and don't be afraid of pumping the ISO so that you CAN expose right and still get adequate shutter speeds.

Dave

[Crisp]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Thanks.

Well, my hands are indeed pretty steady, BUT image stabilization, ISO 800, f/5.6 and 1/4000th second helped a bunch. I used +1EV to bring out the fur details. The light at 14,000 feet above sea level gives you all kinds of options. My 7D has excellent IQ at ISO 800.

I knew that the shutter speed was up at 1/2000th or higher, but I didn't realize it was 1/4000th until later.

Two fundamental things that I do are, "expose right" to the right of the histogram and don't be afraid of pumping the ISO so that you CAN expose right and still get adequate shutter speeds.

Dave

I try and keep my humble xsi under iso 800 at all times. You can really see the grains when you get to 800 or higher with the xsi. Maybe not so much in such a bright setting.

[oneintheory]

there's a tremendous difference in ISO performance between the XSi and 5Dii. i'd never hesitate to take my 5Dii to 1600 in almost any circumstance.

[UdubBadger]

^ I totally agree which is why I didn't mind the price tag

[The1]

you're right, the XSI will struggle at 800ISO, however, if you printed an image at that ISO at a normal size, it wouldn't really be noticeable. Computer monitors like to show noise, and it doesn't help that we view the picture 15x bigger on a monitor then we would on a 4x6 sheet.

if you expose to the right like DC says, it tends to make the camera not work as hard and eliminates a bit of the noise. There are also bucket loads more colours in brighter pictures then dark pictures, so there's more room for error in post processing, so if i picture appears to be over exposed, you'd be surprised how perfect the picture can come out after.

so try the 800ISO out a couple more times, but exposer a little bit higher then you normally would, just don't blow out the whites, then you'll never recover colours.

the best thing you can do is turn on "highlight alert" and if it isn't flashing, but things still seem bright, you've got a safe exposure.

you have to depend on post processing more when doing this trick, but many people feel it is worth it. I do it depending on the circumstances of my shooting locations, and i know DC does it on a daily basis.

M6 has been discovering the power of doing this and has been getting great detail with his images.

It's a neat way to sort of side step the shortcomings of high ISO.

Mind you, i do shoot with both the 7D and 5DmkII which both handle ISO fairly well, but what i've learned with them can apply all across the range.

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by The1

you're right, the XSI will struggle at 800ISO, however, if you printed an image at that ISO at a normal size, it wouldn't really be noticeable. Computer monitors like to show noise, and it doesn't help that we view the picture 15x bigger on a monitor then we would on a 4x6 sheet.

if you expose to the right like DC says, it tends to make the camera not work as hard and eliminates a bit of the noise. There are also bucket loads more colours in brighter pictures then dark pictures, so there's more room for error in post processing, so if i picture appears to be over exposed, you'd be surprised how perfect the picture can come out after.

so try the 800ISO out a couple more times, but exposer a little bit higher then you normally would, just don't blow out the whites, then you'll never recover colours.

the best thing you can do is turn on "highlight alert" and if it isn't flashing, but things still seem bright, you've got a safe exposure.

you have to depend on post processing more when doing this trick, but many people feel it is worth it. I do it depending on the circumstances of my shooting locations, and i know DC does it on a daily basis.

M6 has been discovering the power of doing this and has been getting great detail with his images.

It's a neat way to sort of side step the shortcomings of high ISO.

Mind you, i do shoot with both the 7D and 5DmkII which both handle ISO fairly well, but what i've learned with them can apply all across the range.

i beg to differ on the 7D. i had one and it was WAY worse at 800 than the 5Dii was at 1600.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Crisp

I try and keep my humble xsi under iso 800 at all times. You can really see the grains when you get to 800 or higher with the xsi. Maybe not so much in such a bright setting.

The other key is +1EV. When you slightly overexpose in RAW, making certain to not blow out any key highlights, then pull levels down in RAW conversion, you minimize noise and maximize DR. OTOH, if you underexpose (which most people do) and then pull the levels up in RAW conversion, then you add to noise. "Expose Right" is my mantra.

Dave

[The1]

I agree 100% but the 7D still handles it's ISO very well compared to a lot of models, and that's why i didn't say it handles ISO as well as the 5DII The 5DII can handle about 2x as much ISO as the 7D which is a lot.

but compared to the XSI the 7D is light years ahead for ISO handling still.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

i beg to differ on the 7D. i had one and it was WAY worse at 800 than the 5Dii was at 1600.

Show me. You were probably underexposing.

With both at ISO 1600, I start seeing the difference between my 5D2 and 7D, but I'll still shoot the 7D there in a pinch to get the 7D's superior detail resolution.

Above 1600 the 5D2 really opens up a growing gap and the 7D gets very shaky because the quality of its noise can get very nasty and mosaic-like. I'll shoot the 5D2 at predawn at ISO 6400 to get useable shots.

We should all remember, our non-photographer viewers couldn't give a big rats ass about noise. If the subject is good and interesting and the detail is good, then they'll pretty well ignore noise in the non-subject area of an image. Pixel-peeping at 100% and above is useful, but don't get too caught up in amplified noise that's not really going to show except in the largest prints.

Expose Right.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

...

the best thing you can do is turn on "highlight alert" and if it isn't flashing, but things still seem bright, you've got a safe exposure. ...

This is a Key to Exposing Right. I use it ALL THE TIME. We had a corporate golf outing this Wednesday and I was shooting in the rain, so I had ISO 800 +1EV and higher or the 7D, BUT I was still checking my "highlight alert" to make sure I didn't go overboard. Some white hats and white golf shoes were "blinking" at me here and there, but the scenes were largely highlight free. After RAW conversion yesterday, the colors and shadow detail are great.

Another thing to remember is, it's OK to blow out a small highlight, so long as its not important. So, the goal is not to totally eliminate highlight alert blinkies, but keep them out of places that really matter in your shot. For instance, the wing of a white bird should not be blinking at you. OTOH, if only the very tips of the wings are blinking, then you're probably ok and you'll see great feather detail in the whole of the bird.

These rules hold for all digital cameras, cheap to expensive, but to take full advantage of them you'll need to shoot in RAW. The out-of-camera jpegs will look washed out.

Dave

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Show me. You were probably underexposing.

With both at ISO 1600, I start seeing the difference between my 5D2 and 7D, but I'll still shoot the 7D there in a pinch to get the 7D's superior detail resolution.

Above 1600 the 5D2 really opens up a growing gap and the 7D gets very shaky because the quality of its noise can get very nasty and mosaic-like. I'll shoot the 5D2 at predawn at ISO 6400 to get useable shots.

We should all remember, our non-photographer viewers couldn't give a big rats ass about noise. If the subject is good and interesting and the detail is good, then they'll pretty well ignore noise in the non-subject area of an image. Pixel-peeping at 100% and above is useful, but don't get too caught up in amplified noise that's not really going to show except in the largest prints.

Expose Right.

Dave

i don't ever overexpose intentionally. i either expose properly (using histo, not the meter), or slightly under. that has a lot to do with me working with lights, though. if you overexpose with those, it's a lot harder to bring back detail. i'd show you shots from the 7D, but i sold it 8 months ago and that's a few lightroom catalogs back. if i ever get around to it, i'll post it.

[adobeee]

great shots everyone..

an old picture i am relinking..


flashing lights by thomasxlin, on Flickr

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

i don't ever overexpose intentionally. i either expose properly (using histo, not the meter), or slightly under. that has a lot to do with me working with lights, though. if you overexpose with those, it's a lot harder to bring back detail. i'd show you shots from the 7D, but i sold it 8 months ago and that's a few lightroom catalogs back. if i ever get around to it, i'll post it.

Pardon my directness, but that's how I would expose Kodachrome, not digital. They're VERY different in behaviour.

To maximize DR with digital, you Expose Right (to the right of the histogram). The only thing that I consider overexposed is a blown out highlight. It's not only hard to bring any detail back, but you cannot recover ANY detail from a blown out highlight. However, anything that's not blown out has more color and detail in the RAW file than anything that's underexposed. My histogram is generally right up against the right side and I get great details and little noise. I DO pull levels down in RAW conversion, but the details and colors are all there in the file.

My default setting is +1/3EV, which isn't much, but then if the subject is brown or black I'll go up to +1EV in good light and maybe even +2EV in low light. If the subject is white or light, then I start going to -EV. The American Pika a few windows up was at +1EV in bright, bright, mountain-top light.

Shooting to the right will change your whole view and approach to digital photography.

Dave

[The1]

sounds more like you're shooting low or negative EV because you're having to compensate for using too much lighting on your subjects. or you just like dark backgrounds.

test a couple shots at like 1/3rd and 2/3rds positive, then bring back the levels in your post processing, you might get more popping color. If not, no hard one.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by adobeee

great shots everyone..

an old picture i am relinking..

I prefer the original with buildings on either side of the central building. It's also better in a smaller size, I think. You took it from a moving car at a relatively low shutter speed, so the movement is confusing when I look at your reworked version. My eye is hunting for something in focus, or unblurred, but there's no such point. In the original on Flickr, I see the whole scene and read your story about how it was made and I accept the blur. Here, out of context, I'm working hard to find what I'm supposed to look at.

Dave

[adobeee]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I prefer the original with buildings on either side of the central building. It's also better in a smaller size, I think. You took it from a moving car at a relatively low shutter speed, so the movement is confusing when I look at your reworked version. My eye is hunting for something in focus, or unblurred, but there's no such point. In the original on Flickr, I see the whole scene and read your story about how it was made and I accept the blur. Here, out of context, I'm working hard to find what I'm supposed to look at.

Dave

thanks for your feedback! yes it was at a low shutter speed and i was going about 80 km/h

i should have provided the picture in more context..i'll take some more new ones again soon!

[The1]

Originally Posted by adobeee

i was going about 80 km/h
:

ahhh, it's nice to see people using real measurements on here

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

ahhh, it's nice to see people using real measurements on here

[The1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

hehe..... yet, we still often use lbs in Canada..... we are a mixed up country.

[remmib]

Originally Posted by dcstep

My default setting is +1/3EV, which isn't much, but then if the subject is brown or black I'll go up to +1EV in good light and maybe even +2EV in low light. If the subject is white or light, then I start going to -EV. The American Pika a few windows up was at +1EV in bright, bright, mountain-top light.

Shooting to the right will change your whole view and approach to digital photography.

Dave

I agree with you in the expose to right, but shooting white, like snow, I'd use +EV and black, like a black cat or dog, I'd use - EV.

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Pardon my directness, but that's how I would expose Kodachrome, not digital. They're VERY different in behaviour.

To maximize DR with digital, you Expose Right (to the right of the histogram). The only thing that I consider overexposed is a blown out highlight. It's not only hard to bring any detail back, but you cannot recover ANY detail from a blown out highlight. However, anything that's not blown out has more color and detail in the RAW file than anything that's underexposed. My histogram is generally right up against the right side and I get great details and little noise. I DO pull levels down in RAW conversion, but the details and colors are all there in the file.

My default setting is +1/3EV, which isn't much, but then if the subject is brown or black I'll go up to +1EV in good light and maybe even +2EV in low light. If the subject is white or light, then I start going to -EV. The American Pika a few windows up was at +1EV in bright, bright, mountain-top light.

Shooting to the right will change your whole view and approach to digital photography.

Dave

there's more than one way to do things as well. like i said, i prefer to be spot on. in post, i generally bump fill just a touch (to 10, for an average image), boost the blacks a little bit, and use a touch of recovery if need be. it's extremely rare that i need to boost exposure or brightness.

*i will say that i usually overexpose skin just a touch, as it's a bit more flattering than underexposing or properly exposing, especially at f/9 or f/10 where every pore is in focus. overexposing a little bit helps to minimize that.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by remmib

I agree with you in the expose to right, but shooting white, like snow, I'd use +EV and black, like a black cat or dog, I'd use - EV.

Well, yes, IF it's all white, like snow, you need +EV because the sensor is trying to make the white snow grey, but if you have a white bird in a medium to dark scene, particularly with sunlight, then you need -EV or the bird will be blown out.

With a black subject, the size of the subject in the frame will determine what you need to do. If you have frame filling black, then the sensor is adding EV trying to get the scene to a medium grey, so you'll either need 0EV or -EV. In most of my shooting of dark subjects, they're not frame filling.

Still, this does indeed point up another complexity of shooting digital. For some strange reason that I don't fully understand, white balance and EV levels are set based on a medium-grey card; therefore, if the scene is all white, the sensor underexposes, trying to get the scene to grey and the opposite happens if the scene is darker than medium grey.

Dave