Another try off camera

[BobC]

Had the oppertunity to take some photos of some friends. Here is what i thought was the best. They wanted their dogs in the photos as well which i did do. But working with dogs that can't sit still and me just learing trying to figure things out things went ok but not great. Other than the water mark its SOOC.
Is pose and compoition ok. My thought was to crop off some of the negative space on the left.
The lighting is it to dark. I don't know if its my monitor or what but brightness seems to be an issue for me. Alot of them came out darker than i wanted.
Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 34 mm
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Auto, Fired, Return not detected
ISO Speed: 200

[Benji]

Great pose and wonderful expressions!

It is underexposed by two stops. I got an "R" reading in Info in Photoshop of 177 on the brightest highlight on both faces, Correct exposure is about 240. Each stop of light equals 32 so if you add 64 to the 177 reading you get 241. Either boost the output of your flash units, move them closer to the subjects, raise the ISO or open the aperture up. Also the lighting looks rather flat. Any attempt to "fix it in Photoshop" will result in a garish looking image that will not print up well. It may look "OK" on the computer screen but it will not on photographic paper.

Benji

[BobC]

Thanks Benji. When i first take the shot it looks good to me but then later looking at it larger in more detail i think its dark. Don't have a meter yet so trying to adjust based on appearance. I think its looking flat because one light is off camera and the other is on camera. I tried to difuse it the best i could.
How do you find the exposure number in Photoshop. Didn't know you could do that.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks Benji. When i first take the shot it looks good to me but then later looking at it larger in more detail i think its dark. Don't have a meter yet so trying to adjust based on appearance. I think its looking flat because one light is off camera and the other is on camera. I tried to difuse it the best i could.
How do you find the exposure number in Photoshop. Didn't know you could do that.

Bob,

Open the image in Photoshop then go to Window>Info then take the Eyedropper Tool and place it onto the brightest diffused highlight on the face. The readout will be in the top left corner in the popup box and will say R: and the figure.

As I said in my posting 240 (brightest diffused highlight on the skin) is what my lab tells me with print best (and it does.) Each stop has a numeric value of 32, so it is quite simple to figure how many stops underexposed you are.

benji

[Benji]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks Benji. When i first take the shot it looks good to me but then later looking at it larger in more detail i think its dark. Don't have a meter yet so trying to adjust based on appearance. I think its looking flat because one light is off camera and the other is on camera. I tried to difuse it the best i could.
How do you find the exposure number in Photoshop. Didn't know you could do that.

Bob,

Open the image in Photoshop then go to Window>Info then take the Eyedropper Tool and place it onto the brightest diffused highlight on the face. The readout will be in the top left corner in the popup box and will say R: and the figure.

As I said in my posting 240 (brightest diffused highlight on the skin) is what my lab tells me with print best (and it does.) Each stop has a numeric value of 32, so it is quite simple to figure how many stops underexposed you are. Large areas of black should never read below 32 and I've discovered that an "R" reading of around 50 is best, otherwise your blacks will just be a huge blob of black nothingness.

benji

[BobC]

Thanks Benji, thats a great tip. Gives me a numeric value i can look at to dtermine if i have sufficient light.

In your previous post you indicated i could do 4 different things to increase my exposure. I would think uping the ISO would be last choice. Moving light closer or upper power would be second choices and open the aperture third.

[ttosifa]

Originally Posted by BobC

In your previous post you indicated i could do 4 different things to increase my exposure. I would think uping the ISO would be last choice. Moving light closer or upper power would be second choices and open the aperture third.

In my opinion, options should never be labeled as first, second,..., last. They should all be considered in light of their advantages and disadvantages. Moving the lights closer changes the quality of light (more falloff) and might or might not be desirable. Increasing the power depends on recycle times and whether you can increase power. Changing the aperture changes the composition of the image. And moving from ISO 200 to ISO 800 is virtually irrelevant on a D700 or a D3, assuming a proper exposure. There are tradeoffs, and which option is best for you depends on what you want to accomplish.

EDIT: Even for a camera that doesn't have the D3's low-light capabilities, changing the ISO will also change the composition of the image by introducing noise. Noise can be attractive in some images.

[BobC]

maybe first, second and third are not the right terms. As you said ISO can give you noise and i have the D50 so i avoid uping the ISO becasue of it. Maybe a better term is progrssion. I would think there is a progression of thoughts that goes throug your head to help determine which is the setting or combination of changes you will make