Nikon DSLR "Picture Of The Day"

[XaiLo]

Turo, you and me both, I am going to be in Orlando next month but I don't think I'll make to the down to the Keys... good looking image.

[truflip]

The waters of Key west, gotta love 'em! Makes me wish I was swimming there right now..[/url]

man, that reminds me of the philippines when i was still a kid.
my uncle took me swimming by a reef one time and i still remember that like it was just two days ago. THANKS for sharing a great photo!

sorry to go off topic a little bit...
to reply to the other posters.. yea, the blue tinge is around the clipped highlights which is the rice, sauce cup and some of the read bowl on the left. it could be CA i guess but I don't know. ALways thought those were apparently only in high contrasts (i.e. black against white or vice versa)

And thanks DPR, glad you still even like this one, lol!
I dislike it (mainly cause of the clipping)

I didn't lighten the shot at all. No post processing. This was SOOC and posted.
THat's to tell you that even at -1, this D80 can somehow manage to clip these highlights
As VR mentioned, I too sit around -7, -1 EV. Most of the time though, I don't have any issues.

My flash shots are actually way bright. I have to set the flash power to -0.3
Anyway, here's another shot in the woods late in the afternoon.
Very even light source from what I could tell. We were basically just in the shadow of the trees.

heres what I mean:


this shot's exif is:
50mm @ 1.8
1/100sec, ISO320, Matrix/Pattern Metering
It was shot using Av with -0.7EV

here's the location:



I reduced the exposure in photoshop on the 2nd shot to match how it looked in real life.

[TNB]

I was sort of bored last night so I figured I had to take a photo of something, anything. Well this was the outcome.

D200
10.5mm

[jemr]

Once again, was under exposed. I wanted to go for an ambient lighting, but had to brighten it up after. Somehow it looks great on my camera, but when I upload it to my computer, it's always under exposed...

Once again all constructive criticism is welcomed!

[Rooz]

jemr, rather than check on the lcd, check the histogram. that will give you a far better indication on exposure.

[LBGChris]

Once again, was under exposed. I wanted to go for an ambient lighting, but had to brighten it up after. Somehow it looks great on my camera, but when I upload it to my computer, it's always under exposed...

Once again all constructive criticism is welcomed!

Definitely way too underexposed. Post all of your EXIF data for that image here. If nothing else, at least take your photos in RAW format so that you can edit the exposure without effecting your image quality. You should be shooting at a low shutter speed for that image. Consider getting an SB400 if you're going to continually do close-ups like that.

Cool flower though, keep taking em!

[Visual Reality]

jemr, if it looked bright on your LCD than your LCD brightness is too high.

Go into your menu options on your camera and turn down the LCD brightness to get a picture that is more accurate.

[Rooz]

Anyway, here's another shot in the woods late in the afternoon.
Very even light source from what I could tell. We were basically just in the shadow of the trees.

heres what I mean:


this shot's exif is:
50mm @ 1.8
1/100sec, ISO320, Matrix/Pattern Metering
It was shot using Av with -0.7EV

pure white in the top, (or therabouts), and pure black hair, (or thereabouts.). so whats the problem here ? dslr doesnt have a good enuf dynamic range to nail that perfectly for every shade.

there is also a lightsource, (dappled light thru the tress), hitting her face and the top part of her jacket blowing the white. if the camera had exposed for that super bright white on top of her jacket, there would be no detail at all in her hair and it would completely blend into the background.

the other issue is that iso320 exaggerates that cos your making your sensor even more sensitive to light. so anything light is not only going to blow a little cos of the metering, but is going to be even worse cos of the sensitivity.

so you probably have 1.3 stops too much sensitivity to bright whites and due to that direct light source on the top part of her jacket, another 2 stops out...thats 3.3 stops. i'd say thats pretty much exactly what you blew the white by.

so think about this...drop 3.3 stops and you probably expose that white perfectly but you underexpose everything else. if that makes sense.

[Visual Reality]

Well Rooz I don't think he should drop his ISO, as that means dropping his shutter speed...and at 1/100 already, he is entering into motion blur territory. He could have tried 1/60...but again...with a living subject, even something ever so slight (breathing, blinking, hair blowing, body swaying) can reduce the sharpness of the shot.

Though everything you say is correct. More ISO can oversensitize the sensor and make it easier to blow the highlights...I'm not sure you could do any better here, honestly. I think it's a good shot.

[Rooz]

.I'm not sure you could do any better here, honestly. I think it's a good shot.

i didnt say it wasn't a good shot. i totally agree with you...i think its an excellent shot ! i'm just pointing out WHY the camera exposed like it did since flip was frustrated with it. ie: it is not a fault. also trying to explain the metering difficulties you can have with so many different light shades, (and in particular when one of them is a high contrast light), and even more difficulties in exposing it right due to dynamic range. (i would never have posted that shot saying there was an issue with it, cos i dont think there are any issues.)

you are right about the iso too. but again, thats the compromise to be made. do you risk making the cam oversensitive to highlights by upping the iso in exchange for a higher shutter speed to avoid motion blur ? i would say, absolutely.

if i had taken that shot and manually metered i would have done the exact same thing as the matrix did. sacrifice the top highlights to get the rest of the frame well balanced.