Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Critique Please

  1. #1
    bisso7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bellefontaine, OH, USA
    Posts
    56
    Real Name
    Jeff

    Critique Please

    Hi Everyone:

    I need some input on these, please. As you can see, the first photo is over-exposed. I then recomposed and shot a second, similar to the first but gave a -1/3 or -2/3 (don't remember which) EC value. Metering mode is Evaluative on both shots. Settings are as follows:

    Canon T3, Kit lens, Aperture Priority
    f/5.6
    1/320
    ISO 200
    FL 55mm

    Critique Please


    Photo 2:
    f/5.6
    1/1600
    ISO 200
    EC -2/3
    FL 55mm

    Critique Please


    At least a couple of items I do not like about these that I don't quite understand. Despite my having the maximum aperture set at f/5.6, I expected a more blurred effect of the background than what the photos show. Also, I don't understand why, in the second photo, the camera selected such a high shutter speed. I was actually wanting more of a blurred effect in the water rather than such a sharp still effect.

    I am also wanting some input on whether I made the right choice with the EC value, in comparison to photo 1. Thank you...

  2. #2
    Markvetnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    639
    Real Name
    Mark

    Re: Critique Please

    F5.6 on a short focal length lens will often not give you the nice bokeh you are looking for. Search the net for a hyperfocal distance calculator and also remember that the further your background is behind the subject the more out of focus it will be at any given aperture.
    A jump from the 1/320 to 1/1600 suggests EC of greater than 2 stops. I'm assuming you didn't inadvertently change the ISO to 400? You will struggle to blur water in direct sunlight wihout overexposing the whole picture unless you use a ND filter to slow down the shutter speed.

    Photo 1 is very over exposed and photo 2 looks about right to me so I'd ay yuor choice was right. Only problem with the second photo is that the white water may end up looking a bit gray, but hard to say on these small photos.

  3. #3
    bisso7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bellefontaine, OH, USA
    Posts
    56
    Real Name
    Jeff

    Re: Critique Please

    Quote Originally Posted by Markvetnz View Post
    Photo 1 is very over exposed and photo 2 looks about right to me so I'd ay yuor choice was right. Only problem with the second photo is that the white water may end up looking a bit gray, but hard to say on these small photos.
    I thought by clicking on the tiny photos that you would be able to enlarge it. Guess not. Therefore, I'm reposting the photos in a larger format for better critiquing purposes. :-)

    Critique Please


    Critique Please


    I was aware of furthering the distance between the subject and my background, but just didn't think about it at the moment of composing the shot. I was trying to remember so many things at the moment! LOL. Hoping you all can see these much better, now....Thanks for the input, Mark.

  4. #4
    bisso7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bellefontaine, OH, USA
    Posts
    56
    Real Name
    Jeff

    Re: Critique Please

    Quote Originally Posted by Markvetnz View Post
    I'm assuming you didn't inadvertently change the ISO to 400? You will struggle to blur water in direct sunlight wihout overexposing the whole picture unless you use a ND filter to slow down the shutter speed.
    Btw, I did not change the ISO to 400--200 on both shots. Not really sure what a "ND filter" is. I just love this learning process. LOL

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    18,881

    Re: Critique Please

    Jeff,

    An ND filter is a neutral density filter. It's purpose is to block light getting into the camera without affecting color, which explains the term, "neutral." ND filters are available in various levels of density. If you have a polarizer filter, this also acts as a neutral density filter. If I remember correctly, it reduces the light about 1 1/2 stops.

    As you continue to work with depth of field, keep in mind that there are three factors: focal length, distance between subject and camera, and aperture. If you change any factor, the depth of field will change. Also keep in mind that though f/5.6 is the largest aperture on your lens, some lenses have much larger apertures. (Some of those lenses are very expensive, especially if they are about 85mm or more and/or are zooms, and some are relatively inexpensive, especially if they are about 50mm or less and are prime lenses.)

  6. #6
    JPS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    1,475
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Critique Please

    Hi Jeff,
    perhaps it would have been worth switching over to 'Manual' mode then you would have had full control over the Aperture and shutter speed. This woud at least allowed you to slow the shutter speed down a bit a give the water the blurred effect you were aiming at. Then set the camera to bracketed exposure, see if you got the desired results.
    I must say the second picture dosen't look too bad, but I know what it's like when the results are not exactly what you were after for this particular shoot.

    PP version perhaps? Maybe not.

    Critique Please
    Last edited by JPS; 24th June 2012 at 01:19 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    18,881

    Re: Critique Please

    Jeff: I just realized that nobody has addressed your question about why the shutter speed is so much faster than you expected in the second image. Considering that you used exposure compensation of -2/3, you were probably expecting a shutter speed of about 1/535. There could be a few explanations of why it's 1/1600.

    The first one is that you changed your composition. Even though you were using Evaluative metering, which might understandably make you think the metering shouldn't change because the overall scene remained the same, the average luminosity might have been different enough to result in different metering. Another possibility is that the light actually changed a bit; perhaps a cloud passed overhead and blocked some of the light from the sun. A third possibility might have to do with the auto focus method you were using (if you were using it) and how your camera's metering system responds to the focus point(s) being used. I don't use Canon equipment, but there are lots of articles about how Nikon's evaluative metering (they call it matrix metering) is affected in certain camera bodies by the luminosity of the area where a single auto focus point lands. That's especially true in reasonably bright, contrasty scenes such as yours. Yet another explanation could involve a combination of all of the above factors.
    Last edited by Mike Buckley; 24th June 2012 at 04:00 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •