I've learned not to trust my LCD. I'm talking, of course, about the LCD on the backs of dSLRs.So often, what you see on the back of your camera looks great. But remember, that little LCD screen is back lit. The images are going to appear brighter than they actually are. The factory defaults on most dSLRs are showing you a brighter image than the image you've captured. That's why I keep my LCD's brightness level turned down a bit. Often, when you do this, the displayed image looks a little dull and the colors a bit muted but what you see will probably be closer to what you're going to get. In fact, with the brightness turned down you might be surprised when you load your images onto a hard drive and view them on your computer's monitor: The images might look better than you thought.
Since I don't trust my LCD screen, I rely on a meter and the histogram to tell me where my exposure is at. If you're serious about photography, a light meter is one of your most valuable tools. Also, learning to read histograms might be one of the best investments of your time you can make, i.e., the time you invest in learning about digital photography.
Here's a good starting point for your quest to understand histograms, assuming you accept the challenge and embark on the quest, Sir Snapper. A simple Google search will yield many more web pages focused on histograms.
As far as light meters go, there' s many to choose from. Their price points vary. I use a Konica Minolta Auto Meter VF:
One of the more no-frills, inexpensive, meters available from many retailers. I've read reviews on this meter that express some concern that it feels a bit fragile but I've beaten the crap out of mine and it hasn't broken and keeps working just fine.The pretty girl at the top is Shawna Lenee from last night's shoot. I shot two sets with Shawna-- One of them on the set depicted in the image and the other on a white cyclorama. No MUA. We didn't want her all glammed up anyway. In spite of that bra-n-panty set, we were looking for more of a girl next door look. Shawna, who is a Buckeye, was a peach to work with. (My second time shooting her.) She was the July, 2008, Penthouse Pet and a runner-up for Penthouse's Pet of the Year.
There's a slight red tint to the image. It drove me nuts during my brief time with the pic in Photoshop. I digitally messed with it for a short while then threw my hands up and said, "Screw it." Yeah. I get surly and impatient in post. "Dammit, Jim! I'm a photographer not a graphic artist!" There are three walls surrounding that set and they are painted red. Hey! There's another tip: Be mindful of the colors that are dominant in the environment you're shooting in, mostly when shooting indoors and with strobes. Those colors have a habit of reflecting and altering skin tones, especially when there's a lot of skin exposed.
Here's another snap of Shawna from last night that's a bit more, uhh... revealing. Not much post on this one. Yeah, I'm lazy.
9 comments:
For the red tint in the top picture, here is two quick things I tried in Photoshop CS3 that worked pretty good (took the red out of the background and the leather chair/couch).
1. This was the quickest. Create a curves level adjustment and hit the auto button. That will drop the red out. If you did it as a layer, compare the original to this to see what you think.
2. or create a levels adjustment layer, choose the middle (grey) eyedropper and click on the background area just above her left arm mid way between her elbow and wrist. That is the closest to 18% grey I could find in the picture.
Since I am not as skilled with the picture taking part, I have had to constantly work on my Photoshop skills. I know ... do it right in the camera, not in photoshop. Oh well ... :)
EJB
Better a red tint than a sickening tint from reflections from a green surface...
It is also important to note, that when shooting raw, the histogram you see, isn't of the raw image but from the jpg preview attached to it.
Good...I am not the only one who hates that little screen on the back sometimes :-) I so don't trust it at all.
Herein, my signature catchphrase which is All You Need To Know about how to read your histogram:
"Left to right is dark to light."
Big bump at left side? Image is very dark. If it's not supposed to be very dark, increase exposure.
Big bump at right side? Image is very light. If it's not supposed to be very light, decrease exposure.
Curve doesn't touch left side? If there are no dark shadows or black objects in image, fine. If there are and the shadows are important, decrease exposure.
Curve doesn't touch right side? If there are no light sources or white objects in image, fine. If there are and maximum brightness is important, increase exposure.
There, done. :)
M
@everyone,
Great comments all!
What I should have mentioned in my post--and I thought about this later on, while in my car on the freeway--was that I should have mentioned doing a custom white balance. Had I done so when shooting Shawna, I wouldn't have had the problem. But then, there's that lazy thing I've got going.
As a rule, I set the WB to whatever the predominant light source might be: Tungsten, daylight, or strobes. I rarely use those other WB presets, e.g., overcast. When I'm so concerned that I feel one of the Big 3 WBs isn't going to work well, lazy or not, I do a custom WB.
Jimmy,
If you use a Whi-Bal or other WB device you can always have a clean reference in post, even with JPG shooting.
Of course, I recommend shooting in RAW. You should also know that the camera histogram isn't accurate either as it is based on the JPEG LCD display as well.
This from your lunch buddy.
For my studio work I shoot into my laptop and I've learned not to trust that either. The only monitor I trust is the one on my desktop. And BTW, I calibrate my monitor. Perhaps that's a topic for another post?
@anon, Generally, I don't shoot RAW. Mostly because of the added storage space required as well--make that moreso--because of the added time of converting before delivering to the client/employer, i.e., work-flow time.
The white reference is a good practice, one that I rarely employ when shooting stills. Curiously, I often provide a white reference when shooting video and since video is so akin to digital photography, it would be a great practice to get into the habit of doing.
@Bob, I don't calibrate because A) I don't have the specialty gear to properly calibrate my monitor and B) the post work I perform is rarely, if ever, used for a final product. 99% of the time 99% of the images I process are used here, on the PGS blog, and nowhere else.
Post a Comment