The fix me up thread idea was a lot of fun. I scoured my images for one where I'd made multiple mistakes (stop laughing, there weren't *that* many to choose from). I have tried many things to make this shot look good and I think it's a great candidate for the fix me up attempts. This image here is was processed from its original raw with nothing done to it. I converted it to 8-bit SRGB. So it's essentially in the exact form the camera captured it.
This one was pretty tough. I re exposed to the +, USM, black mask overlay, and then 3 different shades of blue mask overlay from horizon up in thirds. I'm sure others will do better.
My pictures also look almost like this. I still cant figure out the mistakes I am making. Can someone please point out the mistakes in the picture. Why does the pic look so dull ? Why is not sharp? I even tried using a good tripod but still my images are not sharp.
Camera - Rebel XT
Lens - 70-200L
The picture is of an low contrast subject mainly due to the conditions when it was taken - it is not unsharp, only in the sense that all digital images tend to need sharpening when they come from the camera unless you have set in-camera sharpening as a parameter - not recommended unless you cannot post process them. Perceived sharpness is also a function of contrast - indeed sharpening is effectively done when post processing by increasing contrast between adjacent pixels at edges in the image..
Good lighting plus accurate exposure and focussing followed by good processing is the key to good images. The sort of processing we have done here is way beyond what would be normally required. Bear in mind that vast improvements though they may be - they are still not what you would want on your wall!
ssuresh98 wrote:
My pictures also look almost like this. I still cant figure out the mistakes I am making. Can someone please point out the mistakes in the picture. Why does the pic look so dull ? Why is not sharp? I even tried using a good tripod but still my images are not sharp.
Camera - Rebel XT
Lens - 70-200L
The biggest mistakes I made with this picture were the following:
1. The metering is way off. It's exposed much too far to the left leaving detail in the highlights muted. This also leads to a histogram that has all of it's information lumped away from the left (255) and right (0) values, which means contrast is very low. I should have exposed to the right as far as the camera would allow. This was shot with a Canon 5D
2. I took the photo with a telephoto lens, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens to be exact, with a 2x TC on it. The TC cut down on the quality of the picture and the extreme distance allowed a lot of pollutants in the air to mar the picture. Since there was so much air between me and the subject, I captured all the crap in the air into the picture.
3. Bad luck. #2 wasn't entirely my fault. It was a picture of opportunity and it was the closest high spot I could see that would allow me to capture the skyline. The bad luck part is that this was on a day when the air quality just wasn't very good in LA.
4. The composition is poor. I had more room to zoom and should have taken advantage of it. I shot this at 255mm and I could have zoomed out to 400mm since I had that 2x TC on there. I think a 300-350mm zoom would have been a better composition.
To fix this photo one will have to adjust levels, apply contrast, crop the composition and get the haze out of the picture. This last part is the toughest part. The sky isn't cooperating much either by being dull so some sky replacement would be nice as we saw in one example that was posted. There's plenty of other things that photographers can do to this picture according to personal taste as well.
paulhodson wrote:
Good lighting plus accurate exposure and focussing followed by good processing is the key to good images. The sort of processing we have done here is way beyond what would be normally required. Bear in mind that vast improvements though they may be - they are still not what you would want on your wall!
Yup, this picture is not one that is headed for anyone's wall. This is a "challenge day" photo to see how far each person can recover this picture: A contest and a way to get us all to interract. I only kept it because it's as much a momento of a vacation to remember than a good photo.
ssuresh98 wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions Paul. Does every photo shot in RAW have to be postprocessed?
Yes - the RAW file itself is not an image even - merely a collection of data that has to be converted (usually to a jpeg or tiff) to be used. In fact the Raw file stays unchanged and is the equivalent of a film negative - and about as useful unless you do something to it.
But in fact if you leave the parameters in the camera set to neutral or equivalent when shooting jpegs then these also need processing to produce quality images.
Typically using Photoshop you convert the RAW image using the built in converter ACR and then further process it in Photoshop itself.
To your question - what is wrong? - I think mostly that there was too much air pollution
You should post your picture you are unhappy with for comment. Because your problem could be different than the problems with this post. ie you might be shooting with too high an aperature.
Here are some generic tips:
1) This picture likely would have been better with a circular polarizer to get the details in the clouds
2) Use a tripod cranked down (so it does not vibrate as much and does not catch the wind), use a remote shutter release (to avoid vibration) and turn off the image stabilizer when on tripod (causes seeking ==>noise). If you want to go even further set the mirror to stay up.
3) Check the exposure on histogram and increase decrease to get no clipping of histogram
4) Check for blinking areas in histogram view and reduce exposure to eliminate
5) Shoot at f8 - usually the sharpest spot on lens, beyond f8 defraction causes distortion. Don't go beyond f11 on 1.6 (20d, rebel) or f16 on 1.0x camera (5d) because of defraction. If you are using a wide angle, f8 is likely focused from 10' to infinity. Focus on infinity since distortion is likely to more noticable on buildings (which require detail) than foreground
6) Use a nd graduated filter to reduce the exposure of the sky and allow proper exposure everywhere. Alternately use autobracketing and hdr but this is lots of work.
7) Ultimately, I am not sure this particular photo can be fixed to the point that you would be happy to print it because it was just a bad day/hour for shooting with haze. On these kind of days shoot macro or portrait.
8) There are two different dimensions to lighting - specular vs diffused, and angle. Direct sun light (here) flattens the image. Diffused (clouding day) gives you a less flattened image. Shooting this picture early in the morning would really improve it. Direct light flattens the picture. Side lighting brings out the details. Again early morning would improve the lighting in this picture. The other kind of light is backlit where the sun is behind the building that gives a silhouet but this is not possible from this angle.
I do have a question about Los Angeles. Where do you go to shot a city scene like that? I only have a 70-300 lens with my Canon 40D and it seems to be not enough zoom for a shot like this. Where did you go? Griffith Park is closed, Mullholland is too far. Can you give me any suggestion for a good place here in LA? Thank you very much!
SzZsu wrote:
I do have a question about Los Angeles. Where do you go to shot a city scene like that? I only have a 70-300 lens with my Canon 40D and it seems to be not enough zoom for a shot like this. Where did you go? Griffith Park is closed, Mullholland is too far. Can you give me any suggestion for a good place here in LA? Thank you very much!
I don't remember the name of the park I went to but it was west of Hollywood. In fact the Hollywood sign was just off to our left in this shot and slightly behind us. I think we were above and a bit west of Beverly Hills. It was a very, very high end area we went through to get to the spot where this picture was shot. I took this at 255mm on a 5D, so that's a real 255mm, not cropped.
