Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Photos without flash - advice wanted

Subject: [OM] Re: Photos without flash - advice wanted
From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:19:44 -0500
Chuck, Moose:
Thanks for the reply.

Honestly, it didn't occur to me that the original scan (Costco, from 
negative) could have been bad.  There are a couple of sunset photos on 
the same CD and the highlights also appear blown out. I just assumed 
that it was my error.  I will look at the negatives, and perhaps get one 
or two reprinted to see how they turn out. 

In terms of getting better prints, I'm more interested in simply 
capturing some of these types of events, even if the setting is not 
ideal for photos.  If some don't turn out well then, so be it.  However, 
I would like at least some to be worth printing to show family.....

I suppose that one day I might buy my own scanner.  However, I take 
photos (from time to time) for pleasure and to record places I visit.  I 
would have to decide whether the cost of a good scanner would be 
justified.  I also have a large number of slides (mostly Kodakchrome, 
though I have Agfa, Perutz and some others brands) going back 30 years 
that I may want to do something with.  I haven't looked for quite a 
while, and maybe some are starting to degrade.
 
Chuck, it's usually difficult to go and meter directly - at least I am 
perhaps too shy to do so.  I am actually guite surprised by the speed 
from your "Black Cat exposure guide".  Using auto, I expect to find 
myself with the lens wide open (i.e., usually F2 or 2.5/2.8 for the 
lenses I'm likely to be using) and 1/100 if I'm lucky.  It's obvious 
that I should take the time to bracket some exposures and see what 
happens.  Manual exposure is obviously the way to go.  I just need 
another business trip to an exotic locale......

I will play with PS Elements to see what I can do with levels and other 
adjustments. I also have an older version of Corel Photopaint, which has 
quite extensive tools to adjust images.  I probably should take a course 
to see what is really possible. The things that one can adjust are quite 
extensive.

Moose's comments on scanning (principally) raise a question I had been 
wanting to post to the list, but never got around to.   I have been 
getting my pictures on CD, often without prints from Costco - 
convenience and price. This way I can do some limited adjusting/cropping 
and only print the ones I really like.  The questions I have are:

-  Just how good are the scans from labs like those in Costco? Are the 
results limited by the equipment or by the operator?
-  Is it worth looking for "professional" labs to scan negatives, when 
the photos are out of the ordinary (e.g., lots taken that need the 
levels adjusted)?

Again, the photos are for my enjoyment and not for commercial purposes.

Thanks to you both for the comments.

Martin


Chuck Norcutt wrote:

>Martin Walters wrote:
>  
>
>>On my last trip, I thought that I would simply get my photos on CD and 
>>address the colour issue post-processing (OM2N, auto mode, Kodak 400, 
>>100/2 probably wide open). The entertainers were well lit and the 
>>lighting was static (ie, there weren't floods moving or changing colours).
>>
>>To my surprise this time, I found that all such photos (the "best" one 
>>can be seen at: 
>>http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx/album?.dir=/6754&.src=ph 
>>) had blown-out highlights. The entertainers were dressed in white 
>>blouses/shirts, which obviously didn't help.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm sure someone else with more specific experience may have some better 
>suggestions but I'll address a few points.
>
>The main point is that we are starting off begging the question of 
>whether your negatives are really blown.  The scans on CD may be blown 
>but that's not the same.  You really need to take a close look at the 
>negatives to be sure.  Then, if the negatives are not blown, you need to 
>ask to what ends you're willing to go to get better prints.
>
>  
>
>>So, the questions I have are:
>>
>>a) how should I meter such scenes to preserve the highlights? and
>>    
>>
>
>The best solution would be to walk up and meter the exact lighting with 
>a gray card if you could.  Lacking that you have to guesstimate. 
>Someone else may have a better suggestion but my "rules of thumb" card 
>(Black Cat exposure guide) for a stage lit with spots or colored lights 
>indicates 1/500 - 1/1000 second using ISO 400 film at f/2.  Probably 
>faster than you guessed.
>
>
>  
>
>>b) can “levels” in PS (Elements 2, in my case) correct the yellow cast 
>>of such photos?
>>    
>>
>
>Sure, but I'll bet Elements 2 has some simpler to use and more automated 
>tools for fixing color balance that will get it 95% correct.  Do a 
>search on the help file.  Be careful with the white balance.  If you fix 
>it completely you may ruin the mood produced by the lighting.
>
>  
>
>>Some thoughts on a):
>>- use spot metering for highlights (if I had an OM4t);
>>- use manual mode rather than auto, and meter on the highlights;
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, I would shoot manual mode.  That way you know what the exposure is. 
>  If it's wrong this time you know how to fix it next time.
>
>  
>
>>- use auto but compensate, say -½ or -1 stop.
>>
>>Of course, if all else fails, I should take a flash!
>>    
>>
>
>No, I wouldn't try flash, at least with the sample image you supplied. 
>The image is bright enough that you don't need flash to illuminate the 
>area.  The only thing the flash can accomplish is to reduce the dynamic 
>range of the scene by filling the shadows which is hard to do without 
>exaccerbating the already difficult dynamic range problem.  In such a 
>large stage area as the sample photo covers it would take a couple of 
>powerful studio flashes to produce enought light to make much difference 
>to the shadows.  Concentrate on making sure the highlights are not blown 
>on the negative and then figure out how to make the best print from what 
>you've got.  With enough flash power you could overpower all the other 
>lights and negate their contribution but that's not desirable either.
>
>If you're going digital so you can fix the color balance yourself you 
>may require two scans to be able to pick up both the highlights and the 
>shadows and remap to a lower dynamic range.  Alternatively you may be 
>able to scan just to keep the highlights in check and let the shadows 
>fall where they may.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
>
>  
>



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz