Old Homestead

[Todd Suttles]

After much encouragement from people in here yesterday, I went out today to just have fun and shoot like I used to before everything went digital; not worry about all the PP stuff. I tried to focus on just exposure, composition and content. I went to one location with the intent to find images that hopefully would be interesting and make it come alive for the observer. All told, I got 6 that I feel like they fit together and a seventh (color) that was there, but might not belong in the set? When I got home, I just did the best I could with Lr PP. I am asking for honest C&C about how to improve the PP as well as improve the content/ message of each image; also if they work, or don't work, as a story. Don't be shy about being forthright; I want to learn and improve. Thanks in advance if you comment. I appreciate!  -t

All six images are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toddsuttles/sets/72157639817630655/

[Ed Blagden]

After much encouragement from people in here yesterday, I went out today to just have fun and shoot like I used to before everything went digital; not worry about all the PP stuff. I tried to focus on just exposure, composition and content.

Todd

That's a pretty sound approach.  At capture the last thing you should be thinking about is what you are going to be doing in Lightroom.  Just shoot, and only think about subject, composition / focal length, and exposure.  Get these right and PP is easy.  Very little difference in operating a DSLR compared to the old days.

The only slight difference is the correct approach to exposure... if you came from a background of shooting slides then you will have gotten used to exposing for the highlights.  With Digital you expose for the shadows while trying to avoid too much highlight clipping.  This is known as Expose to the Right (ETTR) and basically gives you a somewhat overexposed looking image which you can fix in PP very easily.  The benefit is less noise and more shadow detail.

PP on your images looks fine.  Maybe a bit dark?  My monitor is calibrated to 90cd/m2 so maybe that's why.  I like the second and third images.

[stamper]

Anyone who has a "vision" when shooting an image will sometimes - not always - think about what the final outcome will be with the possibility it can be "improved" in LR.

With Digital you expose for the shadows while trying to avoid too much highlight clipping.


Sorry wrong advice. If you shoot for the shadows then there is a bigger possibility of over exposing. Exposing to the right isn't about shooting for the shadows. The advice about shooting slide for the highlights still holds true for digital. Ed I think you are still thinking like a film shooter?
 
I will add to my first statement by stating one piece of advice.  If you nail the highlights and the shadows are still a little underexposed then you can lighten them in LR. That is one - among - many reasons you should have LR in mind when shooting.

[Ed Blagden]

Anyone who has a "vision" when shooting an image will sometimes - not always - think about what the final outcome will be with the possibility it can be "improved" in LR.

With Digital you expose for the shadows while trying to avoid too much highlight clipping.


Sorry wrong advice. If you shoot for the shadows then there is a bigger possibility of over exposing. Exposing to the right isn't about shooting for the shadows. The advice about shooting slide for the highlights still holds true for digital. Ed I think you are still thinking like a film shooter?
 
I will add to my first statement by stating one piece of advice.  If you nail the highlights and the shadows are still a little underexposed then you can lighten them in LR. That is one - among - many reasons you should have LR in mind when shooting.

Hi Stamper...

Guess I chose my words poorly... what I was trying to say was try to get a histogram which is a bit bunched up to the right, with minimal clipping.  Keep in mind that the camera back histogram is very conservative, so a what looks like a slightly blown out area on the histogram in fact contains detail which can be recovered in LR... just don't go too far. 

When I said "expose for the shadows" I guess I was trying to describe my own personal method, which is to expose for a darker-than-average area of the scene (certainly not a deep shadow), take a test shot, check the histogram, and then rinse and repeat until I have got an optimal histogram.  Then I take the actual shot.  I'm not ashamed of chimping!  The result is a shot which looks a bit overexposed when imported into LR but provided you have not actually blown any highlights the resulting file is much easier to work with than an underexposed file.  Basically you have a lot more data to work with.

[stamper]

I very much agree with your last post except for the .....darker-than-average area of the scene. I shoot for a lightest area in spot meter, lock exposure and add +2 EV which lightens the darks areas and making sure that the lightest area isn't over exposed. In Todd's image I would have chosen the window frame. Some photographers still expose for a mid grey. The problem with that is using a Nikon d600 - which has a good dynamic range - is the difference between mid grey and over exposure is about 2 and 2/3 stops according to my experiments with Raw digger. I am not an expert in it's usage but I have read elsewhere that others concur.

This book written for LR3 explains why you should possibly have LR in mind.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321670094/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0321670094&linkCode=as2&tag=pixelat-20

A very good author imo. Using my method also means faster shutter speeds in low light.

[Ed Blagden]

I very much agree with your last post except for the .....darker-than-average area of the scene. I shoot for a lightest area in spot meter, lock exposure and add +2 EV which lightens the darks areas and making sure that the lightest area isn't over exposed. In Todd's image I would have chosen the window frame. Some photographers still expose for a mid grey. The problem with that is using a Nikon d600 - which has a good dynamic range - is the difference between mid grey and over exposure is about 2 and 2/3 stops according to my experiments with Raw digger. I am not an expert in it's usage but I have read elsewhere that others concur.

This book written for LR3 explains why you should possibly have LR in mind.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321670094/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0321670094&linkCode=as2&tag=pixelat-20

A very good author imo. Using my method also means faster shutter speeds in low light.

Stamper

I think this is an example of two guys arguing about the best way to skin a cat!  I strongly suspect that our different methods yield similar results.

Interested in your thoughts about keeping LR in mind... I suppose I do keep it at the back of my mind since I am aiming for a particular type of histogram, something that may look a bit flat and overexposed "out of the camera" but gives me something I can work with back at the computer... but I certainly don't think beyond that.  And I never worry about WB or anything like that.

[stamper]

Ed your last thoughts I agree with. An exposure that fits into the LR histogram that touches each end is my goal. If the exposure goes a little over or under then that is also fine. How much over or under can be judged by this program.

http://www.rawdigger.com/

At the end of the day there isn't a perfect exposure. Hopefully Todd has go something out of these posts? 

[Ed Blagden]

Ed your last thoughts I agree with. An exposure that fits into the LR histogram that touches each end is my goal. If the exposure goes a little over or under then that is also fine. How much over or under can be judged by this program.

http://www.rawdigger.com/

At the end of the day there isn't a perfect exposure. Hopefully Todd has go something out of these posts? 

I expect we have confused the hell out of him!  Never mind, he is a quick study, as they say in America. 

[stamper]

Looking at Todd's images I don't see how I could give encouragement about his processing because they look fine? I think it is harder to judge B&W rather than colour if PP encouragement is wanted especially if presets have been used.

[Todd Suttles]

At the end of the day there isn't a perfect exposure. Hopefully Todd has go something out of these posts? 

I expect we have confused the hell out of him!  Never mind, he is a quick study, as they say in America. 

Looking at Todd's images I don't see how I could give encouragement about his processing because they look fine? I think it is harder to judge B&W rather than colour if PP encouragement is wanted especially if presets have been used.

LOL, Yes, believe it or not, I am understanding everything. Remembering and applying it will be the test. My rule: no presets used if I want to learn (other than the sharpen - scenic). I use the sharpen scenic preset because I know all need some and every time I start messing with radius and mask and amount I go overboard. It is one of those things I know I don't know yet, and there are other more important issues right now. I think?

[brandtb]

Todd  - great set of these three (not crazy about the others)... and your "mission"...

I tried to focus on just exposure, composition and content. I went to one location with the intent to find images that hopefully would be interesting and make it come alive for the observer

- I think you completed quite well. They definitely have great content which is first and foremost...the most important thing. The issue of tone. For me the dark are too crushed in these... especially the last two. Having extreme contrast and crushed black/darks can wear down the viewer sometimes and that is worth considering...it's just hard on the eyes. The tone in these reminds me of the images (similar subjects)in "Time Wearing Out Memory..."/Susan Daley&Steve Gross that has a harshness that's tiresome. It might be worth looking at these and then looking at several other non-similar examples by say 5-10 renowned B&Wphotographers. Perhaps look at Bernd and Hill Becher for one...not for the subjects per se...but for the tonal quality. Ask yourself what are the differences between the Becher's work and the work of Daley/Gross. Ask yourself, do I prefer one over the other? Why? I think this excercise really might help you assess how to go about processing images like these. I would always shoot multi-meter setting for these...and because there are these dark doorways (and very dark areas under the eaves etc.) I would definitely bracket some...shoot a few a stop to three stops above in case I wanted to add a faint amount of detail in those recesses...maybe a stop under as well.  /B

[Rob C]

LOL, Yes, believe it or not, I am understanding everything. Remembering and applying it will be the test. My rule: no presets used if I want to learn (other than the sharpen - scenic). I use the sharpen scenic preset because I know all need some and every time I start messing with radius and mask and amount I go overboard. It is one of those things I know I don't know yet, and there are other more important issues right now. I think?

Todd, don't use camera pre-settings. Go as neutral as you can make it.

Do your effing about in Photoshop or whatever, and remember that as long as you keep the original file a virgin, you can confidently revisit as often as you like.

If you print, why not use something like this for a starter: 150/1/0. It seems to suit most of my printed stuff, and for the Internet I'd suggest playing around with something like this: 65/0.5/0 which I use most of the time, changing only the 65 part, depending on the subject. You can tell by looking when you over-or under-do things. The Internet is crammed full of experts who will simply give you their own take on photographic life, and end up confusing the hell out of you. Don't listen; try a few basic settings of your own and go with what looks right to you. As I say, it's all visible on the monitor, and if you can't see it looking bad, then don't imagine the rest have far better eyesight. Oh yes, they might all have better opinions - but then we all do. It's a power rush out there.

Rob C

[Todd Suttles]

Todd  - The issue of tone. For me the dark are too crushed in these... especially the last two. Having extreme contrast and crushed black/darks can wear down the viewer sometimes and that is worth considering...it's just hard on the eyes. The tone in these reminds me of the images (similar subjects)in "Time Wearing Out Memory..."/Susan Daley&Steve Gross that has a harshness that's tiresome. It might be worth looking at these and then looking at several other non-similar examples by say 5-10 renowned B&Wphotographers. Perhaps look at Bernd and Hill Becher for one...not for the subjects per se...but for the tonal quality. Ask yourself what are the differences between the Becher's work and the work of Daley/Gross. Ask yourself, do I prefer one over the other? Why? I think this excercise really might help you assess how to go about processing images like these. I would always shoot multi-meter setting for these...and because there are these dark doorways (and very dark areas under the eaves etc.) I would definitely bracket some...shoot a few a stop to three stops above in case I wanted to add a faint amount of detail in those recesses...maybe a stop under as well.  /B

Thanks brandtb, this was very helpful. I will study it more of course. I reworked 2 as an exercise. Perhaps they are a little better? I like them better, they are more interesting I think. For the well building I actually started over with a capture that was 1.3 stops lighter. That gave me issues with the foreground grass but helped the interior a little. As for the window frame shot I had to do some Ps work filling in above the window frame and did not save it separately -ugh. so I will do it later too. Thanks again -t  PS to Ed: I used your sharp formula! Thanks!

[cjogo]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=86168.0;attach=95674

Not sure how you metered for this ? -- Looks a little  dark on my monitor ( unless that was your objective )   I teach with a simple gray card ... Since all meters are calibrated for middle gray.

Anyone who has a "vision" when shooting an image will sometimes - not always - think about what the final outcome will be with the possibility it can be "improved" in LR.

 Don't own LR -- never used it > So not sure how that app helps in the post work .... Best to shoot the best possible exposure FIRST -- save that extra time  > in some app.

[stamper]

Best to shoot the best possible exposure FIRST -

That is good advice that nobody should quibble about. However if somebody wants to render an image for a monitor - seems like most photographers are doing these days - then the exposure should/has to be adjusted to suit. An exposure that suits an illuminated scene might not look good on a monitor, hence the need for LR or something similar.