# Need some much needed advice



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

I need some advice on how to improve my pictures, please point out all flaws and how i can improve upon it.


I used the d3200 18-55vr on M mode with a circular polarizer filter.









I put the camera on Matrix metering and i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced
Original:













I tried to even things out in lightroom, but the colours look all weird. I don't like what i did to it, but i also don't know why i don't like it.
Edited:







Any advice or critique is welcome.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 13, 2013)

The first thing is to decide what part of the overall image you actually care about.  In this case, it appears to be the man's face.  Since his face is a very small part of the overall image as you've framed it, you need a lightmeter reading off his face, which can be done using spotmeter mode.  Or, if you had a hand-held incident light meter, you'd hold it up to his face to determine how much light is falling on his face.  The matrix metering looks at the whole image, and adjusts the exposure for a balance of the various bits and pieces in the image.  The sky is a large part of the image, and it is bright, so the camera (not knowing what YOU are interested in) is trying to adjust the exposure to made the overall image equivalent to medium grey.  Therefore, his face is underexposed. 

Same thinking needs to be applied to the white balance.  If the light source on the subject is different from the rest of the image (he appears to be lit primarily by the sky above, which is usually quite blue), you either dial in the nearest WB setting (shade), or put a white object into the picture which you can then reference as a "white" object in LR or whatever software you're using.  That will then correct the overall light to give the "white" object a neutral tint.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

What if i used spot metering? Would that help? I guess it would. Hmm - i will look into purchasing one of those light meter.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

Do the colours look weird to you? It looks artificial.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 13, 2013)

I would have spot metered in this situation. You probably needed some type of fill light as well.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 13, 2013)

The main value of a hand-held meter is that it measure the amount of light falling on a scene (or object), independent of the reflectance or tone of the object.  So let us assume we have a large dark object (say a dog) surrounded by bright objects (say, sand on a beach).  You could take an incident light meter reading of the scene and get something like  1/100 at f/16 at ISO 100 (this happens to be the sunny-16 exposure rule).  If you took a spot-meter reading off the dog, chances are the meter would require an exposure of maybe 1/10 sec because it is trying to get the black of the dog to look medium grey.  If you took a spot-meter reading of the white sand, the chances are you've have a reading requiring 1/500 sec at f/16, because the meter again will be trying to adjust the exposure so that the result is medium grey.  Of course, neither of the two exposures will be correct, because the dog "should" look black, and the sand "should" look white.  If you're using only the reflected light meter (which all camera meters are), you would need to adjust the exposure compensation to "tell" the camera that the reading off the dog should be 3 stops darker than what it is trying to do.  If you were using the spotmeter reading off the sand, you want to keep the sand white (not gray), and you will need to dial in an exposure compensation of about +2 to have the sand show up as white.  Using an incident light meter, you don't have to fool around with exposure compensation, because it doesn't care about the actual reflectance of the objects in the scene.

However, these are just tools to allow you do get a "proper" image.  Don't forget as well, that the camera has a limited dynamic range.  My own camera (Canon T1i) has an apparent range of -4 and +3  (it takes 4 stops to change a medium grey object to solid black, and 3 stops to change it to solid white), and whatever detail I want to see in the image must fit into that range (that is, without using additional tools like HDR, tone-mapping, blending, etc.).  So in my case I take a spot-meter reading off a highlight where I want detail, and assuming it is a white object, I'll increase the exposure by 2 stops to give me the "correct" exposure.  If the important stuff is in the shadows, then I take a reading off the shadow detail and reduce the exposure by 3 stops.  If the dynamic range of the scene exceeds 7 stops, then I have to use blending or HDR techniques to squish the dynamic range into one the image can show.

There are times when there are different light sources and they interact.  You could have something in direct sunlight, with a portion reflected off a nearby object, and a portion partly in shade and lit only by the overhead sky.  So there are at least three light sources that I need to take into account when figuring out the exposure.  The simplest way is just to use the incident light meter to read the light at each relevant point, and then make a decision on how to bias the exposure setting.  If I can't get there with an incident light meter, then I would take spot-meter readings, and adjust for the tonality/reflectance of the objects.  Once I have an appropriate exposure, I'll take a test shot and check the histogram to see where the clipping/blocking appears and how the overall scene is distributed.  From there, I'd adjust.  Once I've dialed in my settings, I generally don't look at the histogram again unless the light changes.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 13, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Do the colours look weird to you? It looks artificial.



The colours can look weird if you don't have some kind of calibrated standard to guide you.  The most common way is to use an exposure target (either grey card or a colour card) in the image, so during post processing you can tell the software what "neutral" or "red" or "white" actually looks like in the image.  Then, it can calculate the corresponding colour shift offsets to make your reference objects the correct colours.  Of course, it is important that the monitor on which you're doing this is calibrated as well.


----------



## KmH (Nov 13, 2013)

You used Matrix metering which averages the light in the entire scene. With Matrix metering you can't do this "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced"
You can only do "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced" when you use Spot metering mode.
The bright sky behind him and him being in hard shadow caused the maximum amount of averaging to be done leaving him badly underexposed.
So part of the problem is the direction of the light in the scene relative to the time of day.

If you had used Center weighted metering, again the entire scene is averaged, but the center 70% or so of the frame is given more 'weight'.
Center-weighted metering is often used for portrait type photos.
When your subject is tall and narrow, turn the camera 90° so the image frame is also tall and narrow (vertical or portrait camera orientation)
The framing you used is the horizontal or landscape camera orientation.

You framed his face so it was in the exact middle of the frame, which weakens a photo by eliminating tension and drama.

With bright sky behind him, the only way you could have balanced the exposure of him with the background would be by using flash.

The top of the fence effectively splits the middle of the image frame, again reducing tension and drama adding to the lack of any compelling point of interest in the photo.

He looks like he did not want his photo taken (crossed arms/facial expression).
He looks like a father that is reluctantly humoring a child that has been pestering him to pose for a photo.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 13, 2013)

You included a great deal of empty but bright sky and so the lightmeter attempted to average everything to middle grey, with the result that the man and his surroundings are deeply unexposed.

The colors look funny because the shadows are getting pumped up as you increase the exposure and the various colors are reacting differently.

Expose for what is important.

Stop buying crap and perseverating about 'the best ways' and just learn to take a basic, decently exposed picture.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> You used Matrix metering which averages the light in the entire scene. With Matrix metering you can't do this "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced"
> You can only do "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced" when you use Spot metering mode.
> The bright sky behind him and him being in hard shadow caused the maximum amount of averaging to be done leaving him badly underexposed.
> So part of the problem is the direction of the light in the scene relative to the time of day.
> ...



Almost right. My father actually wanted his photo taken inside, but i asked him to do it outside. How very observant of you.  I just don't have the basic equipment yet to get proper lighting inside yet. I would have loved to do it in a room with artificial light where i can tell the light what to do.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> You included a great deal of empty but bright sky and so the lightmeter attempted to average everything to middle grey, with the result that the man and his surroundings are deeply unexposed.
> 
> The colors look funny because the shadows are getting pumped up as you increase the exposure and the various colors are reacting differently.
> 
> ...



You sure know a lot, that is why my colours look so weird to me. 


One thing i didn't actually tell anyone on here and forgot to mention is: this was supposed to be a picture of just him. So only he would be cropped out of the picture, the background was never intended to be part of the final product. I just included it so i could learn why my colours look so weird.


----------



## KmH (Nov 13, 2013)

Crop in the camera viewfinder, not post process.
If Your Pictures Aren't Good Enough, You're Not Close Enough | Black Star Rising

Post process cropping thows pixels away.
Fewer pixels means less resolution.
Less resolution means lower quality prints.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> Crop in the camera viewfinder, not post process.
> If Your Pictures Aren't Good Enough, You're Not Close Enough | Black Star Rising
> 
> Post process cropping thows pixels away.
> ...



Just a quick question. Even when i crop a small part of my picture, i still have to resize it because my camera produces images in 24 megapixel. So does it really matter in the end when i still have to resize my picture to a smaller format?


----------



## pgriz (Nov 13, 2013)

For the web, probably not.  but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.


----------



## binga63 (Nov 13, 2013)

hamlet said:


> What if i used spot metering? Would that help? I guess it would. Hmm - i will look into purchasing one of those light meter.


more gear will not make you a better photographer, read and experiment and learn to use properly the things you own at the moment, you have a decent camera, learn to use it, properly


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> For the web, probably not.  but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.



You mean to tell me that when i resize a 24 megapixel picture, it will be compressed into even higher pixel count when its made smaller?


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

binga63 said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > What if i used spot metering? Would that help? I guess it would. Hmm - i will look into purchasing one of those light meter.
> ...



Well that assertion is contestable, but the bulk of the work does rely on the photographers experience. In this case a reflector or a fill light would have made me a "better photographer" as you say.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > For the web, probably not.  but when you go to print, the pixels come in handy.
> ...



Um, no.  Each display device (monitor, projector, printer) has its native resolution.  A computer monitor may have resolutions in the 72-96 pixels/inch range.  An inkjet printer has usually at least 300 pixels per inch, up to over 600 pixels per inch resolution.  Let us assume you have an image that is 6000x4000 pixels.  At the 96 pixels/inch, and assuming you are showing the image at 100%, you'll need a monitor 62.5 inches wide by 41.6 inches high.  On real monitors, you'll only see a small portion of the image at 100%, so you need to downsize the image to fit into the actual monitor space.

If you take the same image and print it on a 300 pixels/inch printer, at 100% resolution, that would give you a print of 20 inches wide by 13.3 inches high.  A printer capable of 600 pixels/inch will give you a print size of 10 inches wide by 6.7 inches high.

By cropping in post, you are reducing the number of pixels that your image contains.  This won't matter much when displayed on a monitor, but will when you want to print full-size.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...



So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

The problem is you used the 18-55mm VR.  It's a cheap kit lens and you need a $8,000 Pro lens to take good pictures.  You need to get rid of your low-quality lens and camera body and get a D4 and quality glass.  If you don't have the money to spend, you can go third party and be amazed with the value.  But expect to spend around $10,000 to figure out how to use spot metering.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

Braineack said:


> The problem is you used the 18-55mm VR.  It's a cheap kit lens and you need a $8,000 Pro lens to take good pictures.  You need to get rid of your low-quality lens and camera body and get a D4 and quality glass.  If you don't have the money to spend, you can go third party and be amazed with the value.  But expect to spend around $10,000 to figure out how to use spot metering.



What a bargain. I think i'll pay a visit to the United states and buy my gear there.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

Braineack said:


> You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.



As soon as i've covered the basics. This glass is a bit frustrating because i can't do a lot with it, but its not responsible for the problem in my OP.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > You used Matrix metering which averages the light in the entire scene. With Matrix metering you can't do this "i used the face to get the exposure meter balanced"
> ...



You had perfect lighting you just didnt use it by positioning your subject in the right location

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## pgriz (Nov 14, 2013)

> So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?



Well, editing and resizing are two different things.  You can edit and still retain the same resolution (in terms of pixels).  Why don't you actually try this experiment - get an image that displays well on the monitor (say at a size of 900x600), and then print it full size on an A4 sheet.  Then print the same image at full resolution (that is before you resized it) and compare the two.  You'll have your answer.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.
> ...




no, you needed an f/0.9 in this case.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

gsgary said:


> You had perfect lighting you just didnt use it by positioning your subject in the right location
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



Perfect is a bit of an exaggeration, but you are probably right about that. I'm still learning, still trying to figure things out.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> > So when it is printed in its unedited form will it retain its original quality?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, editing and resizing are two different things.  You can edit and still retain the same resolution (in terms of pixels).  Why don't you actually try this experiment - get an image that displays well on the monitor (say at a size of 900x600), and then print it full size on an A4 sheet.  Then print the same image at full resolution (that is before you resized it) and compare the two.  You'll have your answer.



That's a good idea. But i still don't understand how the original 6000x4000 can fit on an A4? But i will try.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

Braineack said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



The last time i checked f1.2 was nikons biggest aperture lens.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > hamlet said:
> ...



F1 if you get a Nikon rangefinder

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 14, 2013)

Braineack said:


> You should. stop wasting your time with inferior glass.




and, as I've mentioned many times before to the OP

*practice, practice, practice*

The exposure triangle takes time to learn on your camera.  Just reading about something will give you knowledge but *NOT *experience.

*practice, practice, practice*


and there's so much more to learn than just the exposure triangle.

having a low light lens f/1.8 is great.  But you can't just take a family portrait at night and expect it to be great.  You lose DOF.  You have to learn the give and take of the exposure triangle and other technology that you are using.

You have to learn about lighting - Kmh I'm sure has given you many links to websites, books, etc that you must read to gain the knowledge.  Then you must experiment with to gain the experience.

Having your dad in the backyard with the light to his back has many issues.
You need to identify those before you take the shoot
and compensate for it
a f/1.8 or f/0.95 lens won't help you without the experience and knowledge.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

Who needs to learn how to shoot when you can get ED glass?


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

Well put astro, you could learn a thing or two from him braineack.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

but inferior glass!


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

I agree, no amount of skill can ever gap that bridge. Experience and good gear go hand-in-hand. Someone who lacks either one will put out inferior work when compared to an equal who doesn't have the same limitations.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 14, 2013)

it's quite humbling.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

It sure is.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I agree, no amount of skill can ever gap that bridge. Experience and good gear go hand-in-hand. Someone who lacks either one will put out inferior work when compared to an equal who doesn't have the same limitations.



that is just bull$h!t.
someone with experience and knowledge will use whatever comes along to create something.
yes, great equipment will help if the end result requires the characteristics that the equipment has but good work doesn't always mean perfect exposure and perfect focus.

Again, all of this knowledge and BS is completely irrelevant if you, the OP, can't yet take a decent picture.


----------



## weags77 (Nov 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> that is just bull$h!t.
> someone with experience and knowledge will use whatever comes along to create something.
> yes, great equipment will help if the end result requires the characteristics that the equipment has but good work doesn't always mean perfect exposure and perfect focus.
> 
> Again, all of this knowledge and BS is completely irrelevant if you, the OP, can't yet take a decent picture.



Well said.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, no amount of skill can ever gap that bridge. Experience and good gear go hand-in-hand. Someone who lacks either one will put out inferior work when compared to an equal who doesn't have the same limitations.
> ...



I am already aware of my own shortcomings and have never kept it a secret. But if a comment like that coming from a novice who started photographing a few weeks ago bothered the great Lew Lorton, then you must know its true somewhere in your mind.


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 14, 2013)

Just trying to get you to take more pictures instead of cramming your head with information that you haven't used yet.

You have all these threads filled with 'stuff' and you aren't assimilating it.
I'm not 'great' just content to say what I think.


----------



## pgriz (Nov 14, 2013)

I think the point is that except under specific marginal conditions where good gear makes the difference between getting "something" and "nothing", the rest of the time the gear is much less important than the knowledge and skill of the photographer.  Braineac was jerking your chain a little, I suspect.  If you follow some of the other threads that are currently roiling the internet waves, there is a lot of discussion about whether technical quality trumps artistic creativity and expression.  At least in my point of view, good technique and knowledge of the tools help fulfill the potential in artistic expression, but good technical execution does not in itself make the resulting image either interesting or engaging.  On the other hand, you CAN get very moving and expressive images even if the technical quality is lacking.  I think people should learn the technical stuff, internalize it, and then move on to the much harder task of making interesting, meaningful and insightful images.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

@Lew

I appreciate that you care enough to voice your opinion. I should  probably practice more than i am now, but i am learning a great deal.  Like now i know why my colours look so weird thanks to you, or why my subject turned  out so dark thanks to pgriz. Its a slow process for me.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> I think the point is that except under specific marginal conditions where good gear makes the difference between getting "something" and "nothing", the rest of the time the gear is much less important than the knowledge and skill of the photographer.  Braineac was jerking your chain a little, I suspect.  If you follow some of the other threads that are currently roiling the internet waves, there is a lot of discussion about whether technical quality trumps artistic creativity and expression.  At least in my point of view, good technique and knowledge of the tools help fulfill the potential in artistic expression, but good technical execution does not in itself make the resulting image either interesting or engaging.  On the other hand, you CAN get very moving and expressive images even if the technical quality is lacking.  I think people should learn the technical stuff, internalize it, and then move on to the much harder task of making interesting, meaningful and insightful images.



If i start worrying about making meaningful or insightful pictures, then i'll crawl into bed and forget the whole thing. All i can do is do what i enjoy. Taking pictures. If i happen to take a good picture or not during my time, then that is fine too. All i care about is enjoying myself.


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> that is just bull$h!t.
> someone with experience and knowledge will use whatever comes along to create something.
> yes, great equipment will help if the end result requires the characteristics that the equipment has but good work doesn't always mean perfect exposure and perfect focus.
> 
> Again, all of this knowledge and BS is completely irrelevant if you, the OP, can't yet take a decent picture.



There's enough of what we preach on the web


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> @Lew
> 
> I appreciate that you care enough to voice your opinion. I should  probably practice more than i am now, but i am learning a great deal.  Like now i know why my colours look so weird thanks to you, or why my subject turned  out so dark thanks to pgriz. Its a slow process for me.



You need a Buzz Lightyear camera !!
to infinite and beyond  !!


----------



## weags77 (Nov 14, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> There's enough of what we preach on the web
> YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnUavVTTjb8



He cheated. He used THE top of the line Family Jewels FUQ690 flash.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2013)

hamlet said:


> I need some advice on how to improve my pictures, please point out all flaws and how i can improve upon it.
> Any advice or critique is welcome.



My advice would be to spend ten Euro and buy a copy of this book. John Hedgecoe&#39;s Complete Photography Course: John Hedgecoe: 9780671475017: Amazon.com: Books

Guaranteed, within six months your photo skills and your photos will be better--that is, if you read the book, and learn even 1/100th of what it can teach you.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> My advice would be to spend ten Euro and buy a copy of this book. John Hedgecoe&#39;s Complete Photography Course: John Hedgecoe: 9780671475017: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Guaranteed, within six months your photo skills and your photos will be better--that is, if you read the book, and learn even 1/100th of what it can teach you.



OR

he skips the book and keeps telling others what lenses they should buy based on zero experience.


----------



## hamlet (Nov 15, 2013)

Let me play the worlds smallest violin for you. :violin:


----------



## hamlet (Nov 15, 2013)

Derrel said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > I need some advice on how to improve my pictures, please point out all flaws and how i can improve upon it.
> ...



Thank you Derrel. I found it on amazon.uk, amazon.us won't deliver it to me for some reason.


----------

