Old 02-22-2007, 04:26 AM   #1
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default Questions--help with rejections

Hi guys!!
I have here two rejected photos, each rejected for bad contrast and overexposure. Please give me input as to how this may be corrected. I cannot see anything wrong as they appear to me. All criticisms and suggestions appreciated.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=340963
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=340993
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 04:45 AM   #2
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Hmmm. For the first one, it looks a little flat (low contrast) and bright (overexposed). Try lowering the Gamma or go to the Shadow/Highlights function and lower the highlights. Perhaps bump up the saturation to make the color pop a little.

For the second, the sky is blown out. Other than that, it looks decent. Try the Shadow/Highlight and see if that helps the sky issue...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 04:46 AM   #3
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amtrakboy
Hi guys!!
I have here two rejected photos, each rejected for bad contrast and overexposure. Please give me input as to how this may be corrected. I cannot see anything wrong as they appear to me. All criticisms and suggestions appreciated.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=340963
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=340993
I would say both are a bit overexposed, no arguement there. They might be fixable in an editing program, and while you are there, perhaps you can add a little color saturation as well. They do not look like they are past the point of no return in terms of salvaging. Are you shooting manual or auto?
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 04:57 AM   #4
amtrakboy
Senior Member
 
amtrakboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 255
Default Camera settings

I was shooting these pics in Shutter Priority mode, at 1/400, ISO 100, f/7.1.
amtrakboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 12:16 PM   #5
jfusaro
Senior Member
 
jfusaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boone County, Kentucky
Posts: 109
Default

this won't help for these two photos... but, in situations with such intense sunlight, as in both photos, i would recommend adding a polarizing filter to your tool kit.

when shooting with a d-slr, opt for the multi-coated variety. a little more $$$, but worth it, in the long run.
__________________
best regards,

jeffrey fusaro
jfusaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 12:39 PM   #6
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I think the advice to give is straightforward. The first one especially, overexposed and bad contrast. Solution is to reduce the exposure (or reduce brightness) and increase the contrast. Don't need to go to the shadows/highlights or other stuff yet. Just start with the basics.

BTW, one thing that really took my shots from pathetic to decent was simply, for every single shot, the first thing I do is to reduce brightness and increase contrast. Usually a -5/+5 (they are in the same dropdown menu). Improves things maybe 90% of the time!

Also, Ween, I always get confused between different software. What is Gamma, and what is the equivalent in photoshop?

As for the polarizer, just remember that for an autofocus body, it must be a circular polarizer. Those are also the one's commonly available but I thought I'd mention it as there are still linear polarizers out there, which throws off the autofocus.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 03:14 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

My opinion is that if you expose the shot corectly, you won't need a filter in most cases. I actually cannot remember the last time I used one. My main reasoning for this is that it makes little sense to me to put a 40 dollar piece of glass in front of an 800 dollar piece of glass or even on my kit lens.

Everyone has their own opinions on this and mine has changed. In the past, I never left home without about six different filters.

Also, since you're half way there, I'd recommemd shooting on full manual. While I was getting used to it, I would shoot on Aperture Priority until I finally came to the conclusion that if a shot was going to be mucked up, I'd rather it be my fault -- and learn from what I did wrong -- than letting the camera think for itself.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 03:24 PM   #8
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Also, Ween, I always get confused between different software. What is Gamma, and what is the equivalent in photoshop?
Gamma is Gamma in Photoshop. Image>Adjustments>Exposure. There you can adjust the Exposure (I'll use this slider as opposed to the Brightness/Contrast sliders if a shot is underexposed or needs to be a tad brighter) and the Gamma (I'll use this slider to get rid of the 'haze' that covers a shot; it's another way to increase contrast).

Like Joe, I'd suggest shooting full manual. I'd rather blame myself for a screwed up exposure rather than the camera. Sometimes those headlights can trick the camera into thinking differently and you get a bad exposure. Same deal with shooting with snow on the ground. I find I have to manually overexpose by ~2/3s of a stop to get a correct exposure (if the camera was doing it, most snow shots would come out underexposed)...
__________________

Last edited by Ween; 02-23-2007 at 05:53 PM. Reason: changed auto to manual...
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 03:30 PM   #9
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

Good point about the headlights. Do you metering before the train gets there whether you shoot full manual or not.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 04:35 PM   #10
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
Gamma is Gamma in Photoshop. Image>Adjustments>Exposure. There you can adjust the Exposure (I'll use this slider as opposed to the Brightness/Contrast sliders if a shot is underexposed or needs to be a tad brighter) and the Gamma (I'll use this slider to get rid of the 'haze' that covers a shot; it's another way to increase contrast).
Hmm, I thought that was a PaintShopPro thing. I didn't realize there was such a major thing PS did that PS Elements does not. I know PS does things like HDR that don't exist in PSE and does a lot in 16-bit that PSE does only in 8-bit. I'll have to poke around on the web and learn about Gamma and see what the rough equivalent in PS Elements is.

One way to get rid of haze is to do the contrast/sharpening technique whose name escapes me at the moment. But you do an Unsharp Mask but with completely different values, 20/60/0 instead of 75/0.6/0. And it clears up haze. I have found the effect to be too strong for my tastes, so when I do it I put it in a separate layer and reduce the opacity to 50% or whatever looks good.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 04:49 PM   #11
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
One way to get rid of haze is to do the contrast/sharpening technique whose name escapes me at the moment. But you do an Unsharp Mask but with completely different values, 20/60/0 instead of 75/0.6/0. And it clears up haze.
I think it's called Local Color Contrast, but yeah, it's something like 20%/Radius 40/Threshold 0. It does look a little strong at times, but supposedly it looks good when printing.

Another way to kill haze that was shown to me is create a Threshold layer, slide the slider to the left to see where the darkest part of the image is, selecting the eyedropper tool on the darkest part, deleting the layer, opening curves and selecting the black eyedropper deal, then clicking on the darkest part that you marked with the eyedropper from the threshold layer. Sounds complicated, but it's a 10 second process. You can do the same thing with the white dropper in curves by clicking on something that's supposed to be white. The only problem I can see with this is you are losing some data on the dark end. I don't use this technique too much on my train shots, but it's done magic on some recent in-flight airplane shots I've taken...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 06:45 PM   #12
jfusaro
Senior Member
 
jfusaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boone County, Kentucky
Posts: 109
Default

amtrakboy--

sorry. i didn't mean to hijack the thread that you started.

hopefully the discussion is helpful.



joe, chris & janusz--

i copied this quote from the HOYA website. it is a description of their circular polarizing filter.


CIRCULAR PL - Color and contrast enhancement
Light rays which are reflected by any surface can become polarised so polarising filters are used to select which light rays enter your camera lens. CIRCULAR PL filters allow you to remove unwanted reflections from non-metallic surfaces such as water, glass etc. They also enable colors to become more saturated and appear clearer with better contrast. This effect is often used to increase the contrast and saturation in blue skies and white clouds. HOYA's polarising filters do not affect the overall color balance of a shot.


would this filter not accomplish the same task as the post processing that you are talking about?

it seems to me, that it would be more efficient to do this work up front, at the time of exposure, than during post processing. maybe i'm just used to 'old school' on some stuff.

one thing that a polarizer will do that NO adjustment on the computer can do is remove reflections from shiny surfaces - like glass and water.

looking at the second image that started this thread, it seems that there are a lot reflections that hurt the image quality. i think the circular polarizer would have improved both images.

just my $0.02... again.
__________________
best regards,

jeffrey fusaro
jfusaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 09:14 PM   #13
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
would this filter not accomplish the same task as the post processing that you are talking about?
Perhaps, but why spend the money on a decent polarizer that produces a result can be accomplished for free with editting software?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 02:44 PM   #14
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
My opinion is that if you expose the shot corectly, you won't need a filter in most cases.
Not true. There is NO exposure setting on your camera that is going to achieve the same effect as what a circular polarizer (CP) filter creates.



Quote:
My main reasoning for this is that it makes little sense to me to put a 40 dollar piece of glass in front of an 800 dollar piece of glass or even on my kit lens.
Then put a $100-200 piece of glass in front of that $800 lens.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween

Like Joe, I'd suggest shooting full auto. I'd rather blame myself for a screwed up exposure rather than the camera.
Oops...don't you mean full manual?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
Perhaps, but why spend the money on a decent polarizer that produces a result can be accomplished for free with editting software?
The result a CP filter creates can NOT be duplicated in Photoshop or any other editing software. An ND grad filter, on the other hand, can be replicated quite well.

Have you even used a CP filter, and if so, how do you suggest the effect it creates be duplicated "for free" with an editing software? I'd LOVE to see a before and after picture that you edited in Photoshop which achieved a similar result.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 03:17 PM   #15
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default

yeh, the polarizer removes glare... to say that I never take mine off would be not quite true, but almost... It also darkens the sky at some sun angles, A LOT!...dont think you could do as well afterward with the software.. ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 03:27 PM   #16
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdM
yeh, the polarizer removes glare... to say that I never take mine off would be not quite true, but almost... It also darkens the sky at some sun angles, A LOT!...dont think you could do as well afterward with the software.. ed
Yes, it definitely brings out the rich blue in the sky, providing you are at the correct angle from the sun. It also helps to enhance cloud texture and contrast. The only negative about using a CP filter when shooting trains is that you lose an f stop or two.

You could, to some degree, replicate some of the effects a CP filter has on a sky, but removing glare from water, glass and metal surfaces would prove to be impossible (ESPECIALLY water).

Last edited by JimThias; 02-23-2007 at 10:10 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 06:04 PM   #17
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Jim & EdM,

I was talking about the shot in question regarding a polarizer. In this particular shot, having a CP on the lens wouldn't have achieved any better result than having a proper exposure to begin with. It's overexposed and bland. Post processing can help with both by adjusting the expose down and bringing out the saturation.

In this shot, there is no glare from glass, metal or water, so those arguments for a CP are not valid here. But just to be clear, I'm not saying a CP doesn't work. In fact, I'd like to try a decent one someday as I've liked the results from examples I've seen...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 07:46 PM   #18
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default

Actually , it would have. It probably would have reduced some of the glare on the winshields [to the point that maybe you could tell whether the engineer wuz snoozing ] , darkened the blue sky, ( it would have selectively darkened some of the sky mostly where the sky was at a 90 degree angle to the sun, so that the entire sky was not the same uniform boring level) and, ready for this??.. since it costs about 2 stops, woulda corrected the overexposure .. (sorry, could not let that one go by).. try it, you'll love it.. the problem is that $$$$$ to the point that I only have one on my best lens, (a canon "L") which I almost never use because of ITS cost, . You hafta have one on, then rotate it and notice the differance as glare is removed, then you will become a believer... Ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..

Last edited by EdM; 02-23-2007 at 08:09 PM.
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2007, 10:12 PM   #19
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

You beat me to it, Ed. Yes, a CP filter definitely COULD have improved the exposure quality of this shot quite a bit.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 12:05 AM   #20
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
since it costs about 2 stops, woulda corrected the overexposure
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
You beat me to it, Ed. Yes, a CP filter definitely COULD have improved the exposure quality of this shot quite a bit.
Well so would having the shutter speed and aperature set correctly for the conditions in the first place, would it not?!?
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 02:14 AM   #21
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,898
Default

If this thread has done anything for AmtrakBoy, I hope he's learned that we all have different approaches to photography. As soon as one person comes in and says you should do such and such, another person will come right behind him and say, no, do the exact opposite. At some point, you just have to figure out what works best for you.

And for me, no filters seem to be working pretty well. Even a 100 hundred or two hundred dollar filter on an 800 dollar lens means you have a much cheaper piece of glass in front of the actual glass yu should be worried about.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 04:05 AM   #22
EdM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 52
Default Well so would having the shutter speed and aperature set correctly for the conditions

of coarse!!!, that was just my sense of humor getting out of control again.. . The bottom line is that a polarizing filter is sumpin that once used, kinda endears itself to you. Usta be that a skylite filter was used to protect the lens (and cut down the UV which usta fool infernal light meters), and ALL my lenses have one of those puppys on them, but if I ever have any spare cash (right!) they all would have polarizing filters also, for outside shots anyway, glare is not USUALLY that much of a problem inside.. the problem with them is that some less expensive lenses rotate and the polarizer then can become just another thing to "get wrong", although if not adjusted properly that will be transparent (undetectable). i.e. it can make the shot better, unlikely to make it worse...
Use one, you will change sides... Ed
__________________
spinner of many antennas as well as tall tales and some outright lies..

Last edited by EdM; 02-24-2007 at 04:25 AM.
EdM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 04:21 AM   #23
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

Keep in mind, however, that polarizing filters tend to ghost train headlights when shooting at tight angles. That's why I ditched my polarizer on my SLR, because I prefer a tighter shooting angle, and I was tired of getting this phenomenon. Like others have said, it really depends on you the photographer.
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 06:47 PM   #24
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
If this thread has done anything for AmtrakBoy, I hope he's learned that we all have different approaches to photography. As soon as one person comes in and says you should do such and such, another person will come right behind him and say, no, do the exact opposite. At some point, you just have to figure out what works best for you.
I agree. However, I was just curious as to how ween was going to go about achieving the same effect in an editing program as he would using a CP filter. And I was also curious as to how you thought the proper exposure setting on a camera could produce the same effect as using a CP filter. Those curiosities are what inspired me to chime in here.

Quote:
And for me, no filters seem to be working pretty well. Even a 100 hundred or two hundred dollar filter on an 800 dollar lens means you have a much cheaper piece of glass in front of the actual glass yu should be worried about.
That's kind of an odd way of looking at it. So, what you're saying, a filter isn't worth it unless it's the same price as the lens?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2007, 07:54 PM   #25
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
That's kind of an odd way of looking at it. So, what you're saying, a filter isn't worth it unless it's the same price as the lens?
No, he's probably referring to the weakest link idea, that the polarizer's glass is of lesser quality than the lens' glass. It would be akin to putting the kit lens on the new EOS 1D mk III; you'd be handicapping the potential of the big investment...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.