Is it the camera or is it me

[shimself]

We went to the Bambouserai in Anduze France a couple of weeks ago (absolutely fantastic), and were very disappointed with the quality of the images as attached

Is it me - is it the camera, is it the jpeg overcompressed? - is it just get a better camera?

Thanks

[mknittle]

We need more information to be able to help.. what camera what lens. settings etc.

[RBSinTo]

We went to the Bambouserai in Anduze France a couple of weks ago, and were very disappointed with the quality of the images as attached

Is it me - is it the camera - is it just get a better camera?

Thanks

There are no attached images to view, but something very important I was told many years ago when I began photographing was this: When a a wise, old photographer was asked by a newbie what were the most important pieces of photographic gear he could possess, the old man replied by saying "This" as he pointed to the lens on his camera, "But mostly this" said as he pointed to his own head.
Even mediocre gear in the hands of a knowledgeable photographer will produce good pictures, while the very best equipment in the hands of someone without any photographic knowledge or expertise will usually not.
But post some photos, and give us information on the equipment and the exposure settings you used, and we'll try to give you some good advice.

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC. There is no image visible on your post. You might wish to read the following thread on how to post an image on this forum.

HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

Would you also please click the "My Profile" button on the top of this page and at least fill in your name and where you are from. We tend to be a fairly informal group here and go on a first name basis.

Without seeing your image, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer to your question, but having seen this type of question before many times, it's usually the photographer, not the camera when it comes to image issues.

[Shadowman]

It looks like the camera is the Casio EX-ZR850. Would help to know which mode you chose, the camera appears to only have an AUTO/preset mode.

http://support.casio.com/storage/en/..._150219_EN.pdf

[Manfred M]

Thanks for getting the image up. It definitely looks oversaturated. I also noticed that your camera's white balance is set to manual, rather than using an appropriate preset or auto white balance. The exposure looks good.

I don't know your camera at all (Casio EX-ZR850) so don't know what adjustments you can make to the default settings. The specs definitely suggest that you can change the white balance I'd have to find the manual on line to see if the saturation can be dialed back at all.



I played around with it in Photoshop for a few seconds to take back the saturation a bit to see if this is more what you think might be the problem.

[Dave Humphries]

Hello,

Warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

Could you do us a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field (Paris?),
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.


I'd say that scene was over-exposed in addition to the camera being set to use too much saturation (colour).

As you can see, all is not lost, some post processing, such as Manfred's example, shows what can be achieved.


The EXIF data on the shot reveals:
Lens at 14.3mm (80mm FF equivalent angle of view)
1/200s, f/5.4, iso 80, Auto exposure, no compensation applied.
"Best shot" on.
"Enhancement = Underwater" is also shown, but I see no reference to such a mode in the manual, so this may be falsely decoded data in my EXIF viewer.

Hope that helps, Dave

[Steaphany]

"Enhancement = Underwater" is also shown

Is leading me to think the camera is trying to compensate for aquatic lighting conditions, where the Red portion of the spectrum is often severely attenuated. Proper lighting or lighting compensation to photograph corals and similar under water scenes usually needs a boost to the Reds, which looks like what your photo exhibits.

[RBSinTo]

Hello,

Warm welcome to the CiC forums from me.

Could you do us a favour please?
Could you click Settings (right at the top),
then Edit Profile (on left)
and put your first name in the Real Name field
and where you are (roughly) in the Location field (Paris?),
then click the Save Changes button below and to right,
this helps everyone give you more personal and relevant answers - thanks in advance.


I'd say that scene was over-exposed in addition to the camera being set to use too much saturation (colour).

As you can see, all is not lost, some post processing, such as Manfred's example, shows what can be achieved.


The EXIF data on the shot reveals:
Lens at 14.3mm (80mm FF equivalent angle of view)
1/200s, f/5.4, iso 80, Auto exposure, no compensation applied.
"Best shot" on.
"Enhancement = Underwater" is also shown, but I see no reference to such a mode in the manual, so this may be falsely decoded data in my EXIF viewer.

Hope that helps, Dave

My first thought when I saw the picture, but because my monitor here at work has never been calibrated (as apparently I'm supposed to use it for work and not for fooling around on photo sites during the work day) I was going to refrain from commenting on the exposure until I got home.
However from the EXIF data it is apparent that the shot is over-exposed by more than 1 stop.
But when people put themselves in the "hands" of the camera and don't know about basics such as the f16 rule of exposure, this is the result.
And when there are no do-overs the disappointment can be quite great.

[Manfred M]

Overexposed? The histogram shows no blocked shadow areas or blown highlights.



I find the shot a touch bright, but the histogram looks good, but I agree the shot looks too bright, so turning down the mid values helps this image.

With EXIF I don't see anything showing "underwater", but that being said, that could be the problem. The reds disappear very quickly underwater, so this could explain the high level of red saturation if the camera boosted the red (and possibly yellow) values. Again, underwater, the yellows are the next colour to disappear with depth, after the reds.
"

[Stagecoach]

I suspect the time of day and harsh light also has a significant affect on this image.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Manfred,

Overexposed? The histogram shows no blocked shadow areas or blown highlights.

Yes - on the original image, my FireFox histogram viewer shows this:



Red channel looks blown to me.


Hi Steaphany,

On the "underwater" thing - I'm not convinced that bit of data is valid, despite it apparently explaining the predominance of red.
I word searched the camera's pdf manual and found no trace of "underwater" and all occurrences of "water" were irrelevant. I recently discovered that sometimes the EXIF viewer I use, while in many respects excellent, can occasionally seem to 'make things up'.

Other EXIF data just spotted:
"Sharpness: Hard"
"Contrast: High"
"Saturation: High"

Although it says White Balance was manual, I couldn't find a definitive value for it, apart from this:
"Light Source: Daylight" which may not be related.

I'm not familiar enough with Casio EXIF data to be more certain.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred,



Yes - on the original image, my FireFox histogram viewer shows this:



Red channel looks blown to me.

Dave experience tells me to never 100% trust what a web browser is showing and by extension the histogram from a web broswer. That's why, whenever possible, I try to download the image rather than look at what is shown on the browser screen. When I do that, the histogram (and the image) look different than what we see in the browser.



Yes, the red is just starting to blow out, but there is still a white gap at the 255 value and that tells me we don't have a total blow out.

[shimself]

Thanks for all the advice so far.

I have profiled myself

I normally use imageview which shows the headline exif data but not all the info - not white balance and definitely not underwater. I found a website so I can now see what you are seeing.
The camera has a load of "scene" settings, which I played with, this one could be ""hard sharpness and high saturation enhance red hues" the accompanying image being a red maple leaf, which on the face of it sounds like a good choice . There isn't one called "underwater". I can't do it now but I'll have a play and see if that's it. It seems odd that the exif doesnt seem to include the "scene".

I get that I should have used RAW which is possible- no idea why I didn't - happily my OH has her new DSLR now after we were burgled so there is a quality camera back in the house (pentax K50 replacing a K200D)

I would like to remark that I made the same post on dpreview which got just 2 comments, so hurrah for this site. One person kindly did some good post processing and suggested the lighting was too flat, which I don't really understand, I can see shadows off to one side.

[IzzieK]

Well...since you have already generated a lot of comments here, I will just want to welcome you to CiC too. I hope you enjoy your stay here and participate in any or some of our members' posts too, make friends. I always think of this site as a learning channel (I don't watch too much tv I suppose...) and a place one can completely relax and be in sync with people of the same interests as you. Hope you do too.

As to your question:

Is it me - is it the camera, is it the jpeg overcompressed? - is it just get a better camera?

I used to ask myself the same question before...I found out it is my attitude that kept me from going forward. Better camera will help but not necessary. The best camera is what you have at the moment.

[DanK]

When I open the image in the Lytebox to increase its size, save it, and open the saved image in photoshop, I get a histogram that shows substantial clipping in the red channel and a bit in the green.

[barrydoig]

I agree with this comment. It seems that it is not you or the camera but rather the fact that you chose to shoot at midday on a bright sunny day. You probably had no choice, but a dull day earlier or later in the day would have given you better results