Lotus Cortina & 1600E

[sstein]

I was out today with my friend in his Lotus Cortina and a Ford 1600E and got these pics. Some I am happy with, some I am not so happy with.

I feel some of the images are just really flat and I dont know if this is because of the background or I have used the wrong apperture / shutter speeds ? Can this be fixed / improved in PS??

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1681.jpg[/url]
A mazda RX8 at crail. I liked this shot, with the shape of the new car and the old building.

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1704.jpg[/url]
The Lotus Cortina gearknob, I just wish my reflection wasnt in it!!!

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1706.jpg[/url] Steering wheel. I was happy with this shot.

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1708.jpg[/url]
Badge Shot

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1710.jpg[/url]
Lotus parked up, unfortunately another car was parked next to us!

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1716.jpg[/url]
I think this could have been a good shot, but it looks a bit flat

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1740b.jpg[/url]
Dont know if the background is too distracting in this shot.

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1743b.jpg[/url]
Was quite happy with this, just wish the car had a bit more of a presence in this shot.

A shot of the 1600E on the road, taken from the passenger seat of the Lotus. I like this one, first time I have tried a shot like this.

[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1762.jpg[/url]
[url]www.speed-shot.co.uk/images/DSC_1764b.jpg[/url]

Comments on how I could have improved the shots would be much appreciated especially with regard to making them seem more 'alive' like some others I see on here.

Cheers

Stuart

>> Edited by sstein on Sunday 16th October 22:24

[simpo two]

They seem pretty good to me. I think the flat shot is because you're at right-angles to the light and there's no real colour or contrast to get a grip on. Colours are always most vibrant when the sun is behind you; as you move round they become almost monochrome.

[sstein]

I think I need more experience with the camera, everything I take seems to be a bit to a quite a bit underexposed. If I use the EV settings upto +0.3, +0.7 etc it seems to burn out the white areas? So I find myself having to fix most pics with PS by using Auto Levels, but sometimes this brightens up the pics but messes up the colours, i.e. too much red, blue etc.

Stuart.

[simpo two]

sstein said:

I think I need more experience with the camera, everything I take seems to be a bit to a quite a bit underexposed. If I use the EV settings upto +0.3, +0.7 etc it seems to burn out the white areas? So I find myself having to fix most pics with PS by using Auto Levels, but sometimes this brightens up the pics but messes up the colours, i.e. too much red, blue etc.

Exposure latitude on most DSLRs is a bitch. It caught me by surprise and is still the single thing I spend most time dealing with - especially at weddings!

If you have bright highlights plus shadows in the same shot, you'll invariably get burnt highlights. Tnere are several ways to tackle it but a simple way is to keep a constant eye on your 'highlights' (D70)or histogram display. Take a shot at 0EV and examine it. If your highlights are burnt, dial in some -EV and try again (or autobracket if you're in a hurry. Keep going until your whites are right

Back home, load the shot into PS and use Levels to bring up the detail in midtones and shadows.

That's just one way; I'm sure everyone has their own methods.

[sstein]

Is their a way in photoshop to reduce the brightness of highlights without reducing the rest of the image?

I've only ever really used Auto-Levels, need to try out levels settings where it brings up the dialog with the sliders. I cant get the hang of that at all.

Stuart

[simpo two]

sstein said:

Is their a way in photoshop to reduce the brightness of highlights without reducing the rest of the image?

You could select them with the magic wand tool and reduce their broghtness - but they will just go light grey and look even worse. The problem is that once the area is burnt out, all detail is lost. The only way (though I stand to be corrected) is to expose for the highlights when you take the picture.

If anyone else has techniques to get round the problem, please post them too. Compositing bracketed shots is is one, but you'll need to bone up on PS first

This leads on to shooting in RAW format, which I use for very important very tricky subjects like formal wedding shots. However, even though this gives you more scope for which to work, there isn't (or I haven't found) a way to adjust exposure in selected areas - it's applied to the whole shot.

[LongQ]

I recently read a post on a rather obscure forum to do with wet scanning (don't ask ...) where a pro photographer was describing some of the benefits of PS LAB mode.

Now, the context of the point in discussion (sharpening) is a little unrelated to burned out highlights EXCEPT that some of his other comments about how useful it is suggested that he uses it for much more than just sharpening since it allows great control over the Luminance channel independently of any colour information.

I don't have PS and Elements 2 seems to have avoided the concept so I can't discover what he was talking about. Has anyone else played with LAB mode? Had any success?

[fergusd]

simpo two said:

This leads on to shooting in RAW format, which I use for very important very tricky subjects like formal wedding shots. However, even though this gives you more scope for which to work, there isn't (or I haven't found) a way to adjust exposure in selected areas - it's applied to the whole shot.

Ok, so I may be completely wrong here . . . but . . . if you convert from raw (24 bit colour) to TIFF (24 bit colour) {both 8 bits per channel} you do not lose data . . . (is that correct ?)

You can then selectively manipulate the exposure (and/or contrast) on any part of the image by simply selecting it and altering levels (or any of the myriad other things that do something similar) . . . you can create mask things too which is IIRC exactly what's happening . . .

Using edge feathering makes this simple enough without very noticable edges . . .

This is fundamentally the technique I've been playing with for monochrome stuff, and I guess it'd work for colour too . . . but I've not experimented . . .

Fd

[simpo two]

No idea Fergus, that's one for the real experts. But logically, to my mind at least, if the pixel values for a highlight is *white* (155?) then there is no detail to retrieve whatever you do.

[fergusd]

Yeah, agree with that bit . . . if you've overloaded the sensor then it's overloded, game over . . . but there is often detail in areas of the image that are not obvious, and selective exposure fiddling can show that . . .

I used to think that digital was worse for exposure lattitude that I now think it is . . . but I think that raw makes a big difference to what is possible post-processing, and that plays a part . . . so much so that I now regret having taken so many pictures in jpeg in the first few months with my camera . . .

Fd

[simpo two]

fergusd said:

I used to think that digital was worse for exposure lattitude that I now think it is . . . but I think that raw makes a big difference to what is possible post-processing, and that plays a part . . . so much so that I now regret having taken so many pictures in jpeg in the first few months with my camera . . .

Don't give up - try Levels.

NB Does anyone know if PS CS has a white balance feature?

[fergusd]

Make any significant changes with jpegs and significant colour banding is all too evident . . . unfortunately . . .

Fd

[_dobbo_]

simpo two said:

fergusd said: I used to think that digital was worse for exposure lattitude that I now think it is . . . but I think that raw makes a big difference to what is possible post-processing, and that plays a part . . . so much so that I now regret having taken so many pictures in jpeg in the first few months with my camera . . . Don't give up - try Levels. NB Does anyone know if PS CS has a white balance feature?

I've got CS and can control white balance in the raw plugin - but not once i'm in PS proper.

[simpo two]

_dobbo_ said:

I've got CS and can control white balance in the raw plugin - but not once i'm in PS proper.

Yes, WB adjustment is a key feature of RAW files. I just wondered if you can do it to JPGs somewhere as well. Autolevels sometimes works, and Colour Balance sometimes works, but they are not really the tools for the job.

[zhastaph]

To echo Simpo's comments, the Histogram and Highlights function on your camera are most definately your friends.

The highlights function will 'flash' areas that are totally overexposed. These are washed out, white and nothing but white - all detail in theses areas is lost and cannot be recovered. There are occasions when this should be the case, such as lightbulbs, v.bright reflections off stuff, the sun etc. So you need to look at the highlights and compare it with the scene, then turn down the exposure as neccessary.


The histogram is something you need to understand. It's a little chart of brightness values in the image. The left hand most values represent black and the right hand most represent white. For each level of brightness between the 2 the height of the line represents how many pixels exist in the image. What you are looking for when it comes to a correctly exposed image is the main bulk of the pixels in the middle of the histogram pettering out to the dark {left} and to the light {right}. If you have an image that is predominantly towards the dark then it is underexposed, likewise one that is predominantly towards the right is overexposed. This is always 100% true and does depend on the scene, eg taking a pic of snow will always appear to be overexposed in the histogram whereas taking a pic of the road surface would appear underexposed.


It's good advice to underexpose rather than overexpose as even in the most underexposed image there is still data that can be recovered, however if it is whited out you're stuffed.


And as for the levels in PS, I presonally don't get on very well with AutoLevels as it almost always seems to fist my colours. Try going into the Levels function, you'll be shown a histogram. Take the right most arrow from the bottom and slide it down towards where the data in the histogram ends - this tells PS to take the histogram in that space and 'stretch' it out. This is a very quick and effective way to take a slightly underexposed image and make it look right.

Hope that helps and isn't too patronising

[simpo two]

Agree with all except:

zhastaph said:

eg taking a pic of snow will always appear to be overexposed in the histogram...

I'll wager it's two stops under

[sstein]

zhastaph said:

To echo Simpo's comments, the Histogram and Highlights function on your camera are most definately your friends. The highlights function will 'flash' areas that are totally overexposed. These are washed out, white and nothing but white - all detail in theses areas is lost and cannot be recovered. There are occasions when this should be the case, such as lightbulbs, v.bright reflections off stuff, the sun etc. So you need to look at the highlights and compare it with the scene, then turn down the exposure as neccessary. The histogram is something you need to understand. It's a little chart of brightness values in the image. The left hand most values represent black and the right hand most represent white. For each level of brightness between the 2 the height of the line represents how many pixels exist in the image. What you are looking for when it comes to a correctly exposed image is the main bulk of the pixels in the middle of the histogram pettering out to the dark {left} and to the light {right}. If you have an image that is predominantly towards the dark then it is underexposed, likewise one that is predominantly towards the right is overexposed. This is always 100% true and does depend on the scene, eg taking a pic of snow will always appear to be overexposed in the histogram whereas taking a pic of the road surface would appear underexposed. It's good advice to underexpose rather than overexpose as even in the most underexposed image there is still data that can be recovered, however if it is whited out you're stuffed. And as for the levels in PS, I presonally don't get on very well with AutoLevels as it almost always seems to fist my colours. Try going into the Levels function, you'll be shown a histogram. Take the right most arrow from the bottom and slide it down towards where the data in the histogram ends - this tells PS to take the histogram in that space and 'stretch' it out. This is a very quick and effective way to take a slightly underexposed image and make it look right. Hope that helps and isn't too patronising

Thanks for the advice, it's not patronising at all. Sometimes people use terms that I'm not familiar with then I dont want to look like a complete idiot and ask them to explain it. I will give this technique a shot and see what I come up with.

Thanks

Stuart