# Manual Shooting Issues



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

I'm new to shooting full manual and there is without a doubt a lot of trial and error, but I was wondering how I could improve...

I tend to have an issue determining my scene and exposure. I try not to shoot anything that is backlit because I understand it will turn out like crap. 
On sunnier days, I move Exp. Comp. down usually to about -0.7 to -1.3. 
I'll often reduce aperture, and accordingly have to slow down shutter speed.
As far as ISO. I have a tendency towards trying to keep it down to as low as possible. More often than not I have it set to 200 max.

I just recently downloaded Lightroom (in place of using VSCO) and I can clearly see a lot of photos I take are overexposed by what I understand of the histograms (there is a lot of clipping). Often where the subject is not caught properly at all; where I miss the crucial data that I am trying to capture.

It's a bit of a struggle and I have been feeling discouraged with all of these things that I am not grasping properly together.

I feel that perhaps I'm marching down the wrong path for my skill level perhaps and that there may be some things that are a priority for me to learn before mastery of the three pillars (shutter, ap, iso).

I used a Nikon D3300.
35mm Prime f/1.8g
70-300mm ED VR.

Eager to hear suggestions and ask again questions..


----------



## snowbear (Jul 25, 2017)

Back in the day of "manual only" you had to learn exposure before anything else.
The metering mode you use will affect your exposure, as well.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

snowbear said:


> Back in the day of "manual only" you had to learn exposure before anything else.
> The metering mode you use will affect your exposure, as well.



I forgot to mention metering. I have gotten away from Matrix because it doesn't tend to read scenes well for me. I try to stick with center-weighted and spot.


----------



## snowbear (Jul 25, 2017)

Try posting some examples with full EXIF.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

snowbear said:


> Try posting some examples with full EXIF.



How do I move it from RAW format in Lightroom to what I'd be assuming Dropbox...?


----------



## snowbear (Jul 25, 2017)

Export as a JPEG.  The original stays as it is and LR makes a copy.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

snowbear said:


> Export as a JPEG.  The original stays as it is and LR makes a copy.



Okay they are in Dropbox now I think...
How do I make the EXIF from there?


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > Try posting some examples with full EXIF.
> ...



Dropbox will allow you to upload a raw file. You can then post a link here to the raw file. Let's see some raw files.

Lightroom will process your raw (NEF) files -- it does provide analytical feedback about your raw file exposure.

Let's start by seeing some raw files.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > snowbear said:
> ...



You'll have to forgive me guys...quite new to this stuff. 
I do have raw files uploaded to Lightroom right now, they are still there, how do I proceed in that way because the export I have in Dropbox is now JPEG.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

Using your camera on full manual -- why? It's a lot faster and easier to use the camera in one of it's semi-auto modes like Aperture priority or Program mode. Use manual when you're using off camera flash or an external light meter.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



Upload an NEF file to Dropbox. If you upload a JPEG then we'll be seeing the processing work. Better to see the actual raw (NEF) file. Dropbox will let you create a link to the file and you can post that link here.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
> Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef



Got em. Hang on and I'll be right back.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
> ...



The dog picture was okay-ish...

I would like to add a couple more, these two are going to be the one's I wanted to properly capture today but had difficulty obtaining the result I wanted:

Dropbox - DSC_0213.nef
Dropbox - DSC_0245.nef


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
> Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef



Let's start with the barn. Here's a histogram of your raw file:




 

When Lightroom or any other processing software shows you a histogram they are not showing you a histogram of the raw file. They are showing you a histogram of their processed JPEG.
.
Your camera has a 12 bit ADC (analog to digital converter). 2 ^12 = 4096. Note how close your green channels are to the 4096 threshold. 4096 is your sensors clipping threshold. You have here basically a perfect raw file exposure. The goal is to get as close to the clipping threshold as possible without actually touching it. You're there.

The JPEG your camera made sucks, but no problem, we can do much better.

Now look at the histogram graphs and note the spike just before the right end of the graphs -- that's the sky.

Hang on and we'll process that file.

P.S. The software I used to get that histogram is called RawDigger.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



OK -- got em. I'm going to change computers  -- take a few minutes and since we started let's do the barn and then I'll look at these.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
> Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef



All the above two files need is some Lightroom post-processing tweaks, and they will be fine. And--hey, try some back-lighted scenes! They will not automatically turn out poorly. I  am **positive"" that Ysarex's adjustments will show two very nicely-done post-processing efforts. I guarantee it!


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

OK -- back and here's a basically normal process on the barn.






I didn't crop it -- just made basic tone and color adjustments. I used LR since that's what you're using and if you like I can step you through what I did.

Your raw file is as I said excellent and this degree of processing is pretty straight forward -- maybe a little heavy handed with the sky.

Joe

P.S. And here's that photo again with an inset histogram.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

Derrel said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Dropbox - DSC_0083.nef
> ...



Thanks for the vote of confidence.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> OK -- back and here's a basically normal process on the barn.
> 
> View attachment 144037
> 
> ...



Wow, impressive.
I'll tell you, when I look at these original pictures I took, I do not consider them so.

Maybe more particularly the photo I had shown you of the Tower above the river.
The metal of that structure doesn't seem right at all...

Perhaps I'm a tough critic on myself?
I envision what it is I'm trying to capture--the reason I pulled my car over at the barn to take a picture was because I thought of the tones of redness in the field matching the barn. I felt maybe I'd even exaggerate those tones to come close to matching up the barn and that's what would make the photo special.

Certainly, if you are willing to tell me how you had accomplished that I would be more than grateful to hear it!


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

Looked at the second set of raw files and they are both just fine. The one with the tower could tolerate a smidge more exposure - 1/3 stop, which is pretty meaningless and the stream with the bridge in the background is textbook nailed for the exposure.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > OK -- back and here's a basically normal process on the barn.
> ...



You're looking at the JPEGs created by the camera. They are not a good indication of the potential in your raw files.

Now, the barn photo is by the way backlit. You had a hazy blue sky in that photo and the sun is entirely behind a cloud. That makes the sky a functional backlight. It's not extreme backlighting but it's enough to send the camera JPEG engine into fits. But your raw file recorded ample information and most importantly it does not clip the highlights in the scene. You recorded data all the way through from the sky to detail inside the barn door. Once you have the data it's yours to do whatever you want with it.

Back again soon.

Joe



darkblue-x said:


> Perhaps I'm a tough critic on myself?
> I envision what it is I'm trying to capture--the reason I pulled over at the barn was because I thought of the tones of redness in the field matching the barn. I felt maybe I'd even exaggerate those tones to come close to matching up the barn and that's what would make the photo special.
> 
> Certainly, if you are willing to tell me how you had accomplished that I would be more than grateful to hear it!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 25, 2017)

A FINE job on the barn photo from Ysarex! I peeked at the .NEF and knew he'd do it justice.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 25, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> I envision what it is I'm trying to capture--the reason I pulled my car over at the barn to take a picture was because I thought of the tones of redness in the field matching the barn. I felt maybe I'd even exaggerate those tones to come close to matching up the barn and that's what would make the photo special.



So I read that and went back to LR and just made a few changes:



 

That's not realistic and I leaned on it for effect. My tendency with a photo leans toward realism, but nothing says you can't do the above. If you saw that version first would you know or suspect it was manipulated?

Here's what's going to happen: as you learn to process images and your skill increases you'll take that back with you when you shoot and you'll start to see it all in a seamless piece. You've started already since you thought you could do this with the barn. Now hang on and I'll take a look at the tower photo.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 25, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > I envision what it is I'm trying to capture--the reason I pulled my car over at the barn to take a picture was because I thought of the tones of redness in the field matching the barn. I felt maybe I'd even exaggerate those tones to come close to matching up the barn and that's what would make the photo special.
> ...



Ah yes, you are more on the pure photography side.

No, I would definitely feel the enhancement of that image for sure looking at it.
I think the direction I'm leaning to is actually of both good photography paired with digital imaging.
I like the concept of exaggerating and otherwise enhancing my photos to the image that I visualize. I tend towards darker and moody photos, perhaps I would be entering the realm of being considered an aspiring photographer/digital artist...

I tend to be given crap about posting my Instagram link, it's merely because this is my portfolio of images to give you a better idea of what I do...
Take a look if you'd like, it'll give you a better idea of the kind of art I've been producing (post-process on all of these are VSCO though not LR yet)
Chris Du-maw (@thehalifaxchris) • Instagram photos and videos


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



Before I retired I had a secretary (more like office manager) -- she worked down the hall. And every so often I go down the office with a photo print to tack up on the board. Always start by handing it to Rose first for approval and she never failed to look at the photo and then before passing judgement ask questioningly, "Photoshop?" It mattered to her. In other words was she being fooled. A lot of time has passed and the culture has changed, but there's still this hanging on sense embedded in the culture that a photo captures what we saw. This is what I tell my students: Do whatever you can get away with such that it's not apparent that you did it, but if you're going to get caught then make it obvious and put your hand on it solidly.

Here's your tower image processed with some extra punch.



 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

Now let's walk through the barn image. Open that photo in LR and get to the Develop module. Always start with the Lens Corrections tab and check the box Enable Profile Corrections. You made also need to check the box for CA, I did for you barn. Then head back to the Basics tab.

Say hey when you got that far.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Now let's walk through the barn image. Open that photo in LR and get to the Develop module. Always start with the Lens Corrections tab and check the box Enable Profile Corrections. You made also need to check the box for CA, I did for you barn. Then head back to the Basics tab.
> 
> Say hey when you got that far.
> 
> Joe



Okay, I'm there


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

Next step is WB. You had the camera set to auto WB and that means your color in the photo is off. Ideally you want to start shooting a reference target (talk later) but for now let's use the roof of the barn. Go to the Basics tab and click on the eyedropper. In the image click on the roof of the barn and the color will change. I got temp = 5900 and tint = 19.

Next step go ahead and click auto and let Adobe take a crack at it -- we'll fix it from there.

Adobe always raises the exposure value too high. I reset it to .2

Next white and black clipping points -- the white and black sliders. Always do this next and keep coming back to it. You start with white and black clipping points and you end checking them last step.

Hold down the alt/option key and grab the white slider. The screen will turn mostly black. Move the slider to find the brightest part of the image. It will show out of the black. Adjust the slider until it disappears. In other words move the slide just to the point where the entire image turns black.

Joe

Do that and I'll start typing the next step.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Next step is WB. You had the camera set to auto WB and that means your color in the photo is off. Ideally you want to start shooting a reference target (talk later) but for now let's use the roof of the barn. Go to the Basics tab and click on the eyedropper. In the image click on the roof of the barn and the color will change. I got temp = 5900 and tint = 19.
> 
> Next step go ahead and click auto and let Adobe take a crack at it -- we'll fix it from there.
> 
> ...



The eyedropper? I have LR CC 2015, I don't know if I have that option...
Would it at all be alright with you to continue this tomorrow? My laptop battery is about to drop...


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Next step is WB. You had the camera set to auto WB and that means your color in the photo is off. Ideally you want to start shooting a reference target (talk later) but for now let's use the roof of the barn. Go to the Basics tab and click on the eyedropper. In the image click on the roof of the barn and the color will change. I got temp = 5900 and tint = 19.
> ...



Sure -- you're looking for the WB eyedropper under the basic tab -- you have it. I'll be around in the morning and I'll check this thread.

Take Care,
Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Hey Joe, sorry for the delay, I am back if you are still willing to give me the tutorial. Just let me know whenever is convenient for you, I am up to the last point that you had given me with the ALT white slider, it brought me to +25 for this particular picture.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



Hi, I'm here but I'm leaving for a short time. Got to run an errand with the wife. It's 7:15 pm here right now. I should be back and will respond to this thread in under two hours. Some where between 8:30 and 9:00 pm I should be back. If you're still here we can do that.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Alright great! We shall continue then.


----------



## Bebulamar (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> I'm new to shooting full manual and there is without a doubt a lot of trial and error, but I was wondering how I could improve...
> 
> I tend to have an issue determining my scene and exposure. I try not to shoot anything that is backlit because I understand it will turn out like crap.
> On sunnier days, I move Exp. Comp. down usually to about -0.7 to -1.3.
> ...



If when you started out you started with manual mode then everything would be easier. You started out in auto mode and now things seem too difficult.
First of all stop using the Exp. Comp. and do shoot things that are backlit. Use the meter and set it for 0 indication on the exposure bar to start. Do this for a while and see which type of scene will come out right and which won't. After that we will continue to discuss.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



OK, first by the numbers: white balance, white and black clipping points. As I noted go ahead and click auto and let LR take it's crack at it. It will always raise the exposure value too high. Whatever it does, cut it in half.

You've done the white clipping point (and WB?). Black clipping point works just like the white one. Hold the alt key and this time the screen goes white. As you pull the black slider you'll see color come and go. Get to the point where the screen is completely white. That means you have no black in the photo. GET BLACK!! This is one of those rules. All rules have exceptions and you can break all the rules except probably this one. A good photo reaches black. So hold the alt key and pull the Black slider until you see some color start to show in the barn door right side. It will start showing blue -- push a little harder till a smidge of black appears.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


Would that be at -34 in this particular instance?


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

The other adjustments on the Basics tab: Contrast, Highlights 


darkblue-x said:


> Would that be at -3
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> ...



Yes it would BUT -- BIG BUT: We'll re-evaluate the white and black clipping points as we go. Other adjustments we make will alter those and we'll re-tweak them back. We start by setting white and black clipping points and we finish by re-checking them and doing a final tweak as needed.

Next the Contrast, Highlights and Shadows values. These are more to taste and they are also influenced by other changes we make. Right now take the Highlights all the way down to -100, Shadows in the low 30s and Contrast in the mid teens. Still on the Basics tab raise the Clarity value to 20. Clarity is micro-contrast and you'll need to work back and forth between Clarity and Contrast. Recommendation: take it easy on Clarity.

Saturation for now leave alone. Vibrance doesn't belong there it's a special effect and should be placed under Effects and then never used.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> The other adjustments on the Basics tab: Contrast, Highlights
> 
> 
> darkblue-x said:
> ...


Okay, I'm there.
Side question: When you said that about clarity, does that only apply to this photo, or are you recommending to always go easy on clarity?


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

Now you need to get some tone and color in the sky. Pulling the Highlights to -100 helped but it's not enough. You're looking for the toolbar above the drop down tabs. There's a row of icons. The middle one is a rectangle with a gradation of grey. Click on that. It's the linear gradation tool. You'll see a whole new set of sliders appear. If they're all at zero change one to anything (it won't work if something isn't changed). Go to the photo, click in the sky closer to the trees than the top of the photo and drag it down to the roof of the barn.

Play with it. You can reposition it, expand and contract it and rotate it. Grab the center node and you can move the whole thing. Set the exposure value to -1.4 and you'll have some sky. Undo anything else you set.

Then set the temp value to -22 and the sky will shift color.

When I finally got it in position I had the center node down into the trees about 1/2 way from the tree tops to the barn top and bottom line marking the end of the gradient just above the bottom of the window on the barn.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The other adjustments on the Basics tab: Contrast, Highlights
> ...



Always go easy on Clarity. Micro-contrast can really help a photo but it gets ugly fast when it's overdone. It will halo and start throwing artifacts. So use but soft-pedal it. You find yourself setting Clarity above 50 it should raise a flag.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

You turn the gradient tool off by clicking on the icon again -- think toggle with those tools.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

When you have the gradient tool active note the options bar just below the icons. You see Mask:      New    Edit   Brush.

You're going to add a second gradient by clicking on New and then dragging a gradient up over the grass. My node for this gradient is about 1/6th into the grass down from the fence and the top line stops between the barn door and barn window.

Set the exposure to -.8, Contrast to 20, Temp to 50 and Tint to 45. Note that we're using the Temp/Tint values to change the color just under the gradient.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

This is why you're using LR. In the early years a raw converter allowed use to get a good overall conversion of the raw file but did not provide this kind of discreet local adjustment. This is the big change we've experienced in the last decade. The better raw converters are now giving us the ability to parametrically edit our raw files and make discreet local changes to tone response and color. That then often permits us to complete the edit we want to do entirely in the parametric editor -- big advantage.

Now go back to the Basics panel and check the white and black clipping points and reset them.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

If you go back to the gradient tool you'll see two white dots on the screen representing the gradient nodes. You can click on either to activate and tweak that gradient.

In addition to the linear gradient we just used you also have a radial gradient and a free hand brush (the two icons on either side of the linear gradient). Between the three you can mask and isolate any region of you photo to make dicreet local changes. Take some time soon to explore the options for using those tools and the type of changes you can make with them. This is your real LR power.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

Close the Basics tab and open the HSL tab. That's Hue, Saturation, and Luminance. Select Hue and set the value for Orange to -35 and the value of Yellow to -40. Then select Saturation and set the value of Orange up to 30. There's the rest of your grass color.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

Open the Effects tab and find the option for Post crop vignette. Most photos benefit for a slight corner darkening. Try -5 with a midpoint of 25.

Joe


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> This is why you're using LR. In the early years a raw converter allowed use to get a good overall conversion of the raw file but did not provide this kind of discreet local adjustment. This is the big change we've experienced in the last decade. The better raw converters are now giving us the ability to parametrically edit our raw files and make discreet local changes to tone response and color. That then often permits us to complete the edit we want to do entirely in the parametric editor -- big advantage.
> 
> Now go back to the Basics panel and check the white and black clipping points and reset them.
> 
> Joe


whites +24
blacks -23


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Open the Effects tab and find the option for Post crop vignette. Most photos benefit for a slight corner darkening. Try -5 with a midpoint of 25.
> 
> Joe


Okay, I'm there.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > This is why you're using LR. In the early years a raw converter allowed use to get a good overall conversion of the raw file but did not provide this kind of discreet local adjustment. This is the big change we've experienced in the last decade. The better raw converters are now giving us the ability to parametrically edit our raw files and make discreet local changes to tone response and color. That then often permits us to complete the edit we want to do entirely in the parametric editor -- big advantage.
> ...



Yep, I had whites 21 and blacks -29 -- photos need black!

Now you can go to File and Export a JPEG. Go to the Library module and find the photo. Right click on it and select Create Virtual Copy. All your edits will transfer. You can now create a different version -- maybe B&W if you like. Your raw file is never altered and you have total re-edit access to everything you did including as many versions as you'd like. This is best-in-class workflow. Only one other software app competes right now with LR in this regard and that's Capture One. ACDSee is getting close.

Your exposures were good. If you really take raw shooting seriously and work to get that under good control then your working definition of good exposure is a little different than if shooting JPEGs. Shooting JPEGs we expose to get normal brightness in the JPEG. Shooting raw we push to get maximum exposure to the sensor so that diffuse highlights are placed just below the sensor threshold. Being able to see the raw file histogram is important. We like RawDigger, but you can get a raw histogram from Raw Therapee for free. RawDigger is $25.00. 

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 26, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Open the Effects tab and find the option for Post crop vignette. Most photos benefit for a slight corner darkening. Try -5 with a midpoint of 25.
> ...



You should have a file close to the second version of your barn I posted. That's all I did.

Joe

Calling it a night -- be around tomorrow.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 26, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


I can't thank you enough for walking me through all of that!

Couple of questions: how many times did we go back to readjust the black and whites? I had gone back the one time you had said and toggled the alt key to make the screen black on the whites, and then same for blacks but toggling just to get a spec of black. It left me at the same numbers I had mentioned earlier. Not sure if that may negatively affect the photo to a noticeable degree.
Here's my version after following your instructions: Dropbox - DSC_0083.jpg


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 26, 2017)

I think you're a better photographer than you think. The exposures looked pretty good to me; actually I think this last version is getting overdone. I mean, it is nature, how much beyond what it actually looks like do you want to take it? how vibrant is the color in real life? Not that you can't make it less realistic and get creative, but it is a scene that is naturally occurring (well, much of it, not the barn itself! lol). 

You might want to think about composition; you have more than one with a subject centered, which can work but often doesn't make for the best balance in a composition. Walk around some, change your vantage point, and see what other photos you can get from the same subject or scene. I also think the photo of the barn (great subject and nice photo of it) could be better if you could have gotten closer (although maybe that wasn't an option) to fill the frame more. I like the idea of cattails in the foreground, framing the barn, but as it is you've got one sticking up on one side and one that's dark lower right, and to me they end up being visually distracting. I'd think about if something adds to the photo, and if or where it should be in the frame. That's where you could change the vantage point and 'move' the cattails to where they look best as you're framing shots, where they look best in the composition(s). 

Hope you keep enjoying taking photos, the more you practice the better you'll get. You seem on the right track. 

(And I shoot all manual, most of the time; you may figure out what works best for you. I find it gives me the control I want over the camera settings.)


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 27, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > darkblue-x said:
> ...



Your photo looks good. Next step process some of your other photos and post them up for critique. White and black clipping points look good, overall tone response and color look good. The clipping points: There are exceptions to all rules but there are also rules and the rules are really good guides. You never want to become slavish about the rules but you're lost and flailing around without them. A photo typically looks it's best when it takes full advantage of the available tonal range (white to black) that's why we fuss over the white and black clipping points. If you clip diffuse highlights (eg. white clouds) you lose color and detail and end up with a hole in your photo. That rarely looks good and so if we can avoid that we avoid that -- white clipping point. At the same time we want the photo to have appropriate highlights so we don't want the white clipping point too low either. A photo that doesn't reach black looks weak and insipid. Black is the foundation the photo is built upon. But too much black also creates empty holes in your photo. I like the astronomical analogy: black holes suck up everything around them and white holes go super-nova all over your photo. So we stay on top of a precision placement for those two elements.

The other adjustments you make to the photo can cause the white and black clipping points to shift. So as we work on the photo and for example use a gradient to darken the sky we go back to re-check. How many times doesn't matter. But unless our photo is one of those exceptions to the rule we want to at least start with the rule out the gate. You noted an interest in being able to push photos past the point of faithful realism. That's great, it's entirely appropriate for you to use manipulative processing as an expressive tool. But you'll find that you're ability to do that and to develop a style that fits what you want will in fact be enhanced by a methodology of first taking the photo to a standard condition of normalcy.

Your Instagram link (since you asked): In the past you used a set of canned filters you got off the Internet. I like the cooking analogy here: food from a can all tastes the same. It has too much salt as a preservative. It picks up a nasty metallic flavor from the can. It's all overcooked in the canning process. You know it when you taste it and you know it's a let down compared to what it could be. As the first screen of your Instagram page filled in for me my first reaction was to identify the canned filters you were using. Get the canned crap out of your recipes, learn to cook with fresh ingredients, and develop your own spice palette -- you eat better. Applies to our photos just like it applies to dinner.

Joe



darkblue-x said:


> Here's my version after following your instructions: Dropbox - DSC_0083.jpg


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 27, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> I think you're a better photographer than you think. The exposures looked pretty good to me; actually I think this last version is getting overdone. I mean, it is nature, how much beyond what it actually looks like do you want to take it? how vibrant is the color in real life? Not that you can't make it less realistic and get creative, but it is a scene that is naturally occurring (well, much of it, not the barn itself! lol).
> 
> You might want to think about composition; you have more than one with a subject centered, which can work but often doesn't make for the best balance in a composition. Walk around some, change your vantage point, and see what other photos you can get from the same subject or scene. I also think the photo of the barn (great subject and nice photo of it) could be better if you could have gotten closer (although maybe that wasn't an option) to fill the frame more. I like the idea of cattails in the foreground, framing the barn, but as it is you've got one sticking up on one side and one that's dark lower right, and to me they end up being visually distracting. I'd think about if something adds to the photo, and if or where it should be in the frame. That's where you could change the vantage point and 'move' the cattails to where they look best as you're framing shots, where they look best in the composition(s).
> 
> ...



I appreciate the words. Perhaps I am a tough critic of myself.
I feel like I do often have the photographers eye for composition, perhaps some of the shots I had shown were more centered subjects but that's definitely something to consider. I didn't really overly notice the issue with the cattails being distracting. I think you're right...Now that I take a look at it. I took this photo from many different angles, perhaps another one would have been more suitable.


----------



## darkblue-x (Jul 27, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> darkblue-x said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...


I definitely intend to follow your instructions and am registering what you are saying.
Lightroom editing has been done today on another photograph if you care to take a look, it's the same one I had given you of the dog.
Original: Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef
Edit: Dropbox - DSC_006822.jpg


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 28, 2017)

darkblue-x said:


> I definitely intend to follow your instructions and am registering what you are saying.
> Lightroom editing has been done today on another photograph if you care to take a look, it's the same one I had given you of the dog.
> Original: Dropbox - DSC_0068.nef
> Edit: Dropbox - DSC_006822.jpg



Start some new threads and get the rest of the board involved commenting on your images.

Here's my take on your dog photo:




 

Here's a link to the XMP file. LR saves your parametric edits in a text file -- you can open it and read through it. You can also use it to see what I did. Dupe your original NEF and put it in a separate temp folder. Then copy the XMP file to that folder. Open the NEF in LR and it will read the XMP file and show you all of my editing.

XMP file

Joe


----------

