Wallpapers from Indy

[Squid31]

Hey guys,

Just messing around with some new stuff here. Give me an honest idea of how the colors look in these photos. I changed some camera settings for this race, and I'm not sure if I'm going to keep them or not. My monitor is not calibrated right now, so I'm not sure if these are colors are close to the real deal or not.

Thanks.
[added by oldguy- just a warning for dialups they seem to be pretty good size files :fft: ]

http://squidphoto.homeip.net/indy/_F8B7355.jpg
http://squidphoto.homeip.net/indy/_F8B7636.jpg
http://squidphoto.homeip.net/indy/_F8B8188.jpg
http://squidphoto.homeip.net/indy/_F8B8367.jpg
http://squidphoto.homeip.net/indy/_F8B8370.jpg

 

[oldguy]

Color on the first is kind of washed out ;) nice choice of shot composition
Number 2 looks good and I like the way you are under the bike but still caught his eyes
Number 3 seems kind of dark and my first thought was Bubba is a cyclops- looks like one big eye in the center of his goggles
Number 4 again looks great and I like the way you caught his victory
Number 5 is pretty good also
Wish I could shoot half the talent you show us

 

[Philip]

They look great squid! :cool:

 

[Chili]

My monitor is not calibrated right now

Guess I should get my butt in gear and ship your calibrator back huh? : :ohmy: I;m not sure I still have your mailing addy so send me an e-mail when you get a chance.

 

[Squid31]

No worries Doug. I've got a lot going on right now so I'm in no hurry. I'll send over my address sometime soon.

So how do these look as far as color goes on your calibrated screen?

 

[Chili]

So how do these look as far as color goes on your calibrated screen?

Uhh I'll let you know as soon as I get my lazy ass to open the box and calibrate them, I'm a bit of a procrastinator. :fft: I've got 2 days off at the end of this week so it will be done then, but for now the shots look great to me without calibration.

 

[trial_07]

Same as usual. EXCELLENT :cool:

 

[will pattison]

phat, as usual. colors look great. all i can say is that for the bw conversion i would probably go more contrasty, but that's totally subjective.

wp.

 

[Squid31]

I just had a look at them on my monitor here at work (was profiled a while back, but I think it's messed up now. Damn auto adjuster). Looks like I have my brightness set WAY too high at home. You should see these on my screen at home, they look really good, but here they look kind of dark. Oh well, I'll get it sorted out.

 

[Okiewan]

FWIW, they look spot on here. (Mac, 24" flat, calibrated)
Good stuff!

 

[shifter48]

Looked at the histogram and your darks are really pushed to the left...do you set this on purpose??? Also looks alittle on the sharp side on the highlights.
Great captures and color...I'm just interested on the dark settings you picked and your thoughts on sharpening...I'm just getting into shooting and PP my son's Kart pics and his friends MX with a D200, 70-200 2.8 VR, and 28-70 2.8.

Thanks
Gregg

 

[Okiewan]

Looked at the histogram and your darks are really pushed to the left...do you set this on purpose???

I'll comment, assuming you are talking about levels in photoshop:

Anytime a shot contains that much dark area (ie; poorly lit SX races) the histogram will be heavy on the black side (unless of course the frame is completely filled with the flash-lit subject). Example, take a pic of a golf ball on a black background.) The histogram shows the spectrum from dark to light. Even if they are that way, these images exposure are spot on.


Here is an example using one of my shots.

 

[shifter48]

Thanks wasn't for sure...just trying to learn

Gregg

 

[will pattison]

yeah....what okie said. when you first posted that they were pushed to the right, i was like "what?" just to make sure i looked at them also, and as expected, it's stacked to the left...which i now see you editted! anyhow, histogram is just a count of how many pixels there are of any given color. you would have similar chart if you started measuring and recording the weight of each pebble in a bucket of gravel.

wp.

 

[shifter48]

I've read so much about exposure as to push to the right or left either to the left for the darks or to the right for the highlights..is there a correct thinking on this???
I did do a duh on the right and left in the post...was hopeing noone saw it. You're quick!!!!

Gregg

 

[jason33]

great pics-
but good god what wall are they for?????? i think i could see into his brain in the fist or second pic-!!! lolol
i would have to resize them to fit but nice big pics

 

[will pattison]

i'm not an expert, but as i understand it, the rule is:

"expose to the right."

that's about as cryptic as something yoda would say to luke.

it's also said that you should:

"shoot for the highlights, process for the shadows."

this is also arcane, esoteric, and generally befuddling...until you ask!

what it means, as i know it:

histograms should have more pixels on the left if you are shooting for the highlights, just like squid's.

whaaaaat??? :whoa:

shoot "for" the highlights means AVOID them. or, in terms mere humans can understand....set your exposure such that you have no blown highlights.

you can do that by underexposing a bit, and since shadow detail is easier to recover than blown highlight detail, you can process to fix.

so...why don't they just say:

better to underexpose than overexpose???

:bang:

wp.

 

[Chili]

better to underexpose than overexpose???

Better to get it right :laugh: The above quote is pretty much the rule I've always gone by, you can save an underexposed photo in post, blown highlights are gone forever, there is no detail to save.

 

[shifter48]

What about exposeing to cut down noise?? Still go left young man?

Gregg

 

[will pattison]

well, the experts may have more to say, and i may be about to learn something new, but the only thing i know about exposing to reduce noise is to just open my trench coat very, very quickly. shuts them up every time!

:nod:

seriously, to me, exposing for noise means just running the lowest iso i can.

wp.

 

[Okiewan]

Prof Will tells it like it is....

 

[shifter48]

I find shooting at night or in dim light and a flash I get more noise in the dark areas if exposure isn't right...even at ISO 320..

Gregg

 

[will pattison]

iso 320???

what camera are you using?

wp.

 

[Okiewan]

Maybe he meant 3200?

 

[shifter48]

I'm useing a D200 and I mean 320...If Okie will set me up to post now, I'll send an extreme sample to show what a bad exposure at night can cause...I don't have problems with noise under normal conditions but when shooting night shots with a flash and something goes wrong like low batteries on my sb800 then there's problems, I've blown the shot anyway but noise is inhanced, so there must be and explantion to it...I've heard to expose for the dark side and useflash for the fill in manusl mode....Gregg