6 replies to this topic

[Tony]

Lens: AF Nikkor 55~200mm Lens Camera: Nikon D200 Photo Location: Paris ISO: 500 Shutter Speed: 1/60s Aperture: F11

 

Focal Length 200mm, Manual Exposure Mode, No flash and used Multi-Segment Metering.

Thanks for viewing.

TT

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Nikon Shooter]

The use of a bare flash kills the charms this shot has,
try to use some kind — any kind — of diffusion, Tony.

[Tony]

The use of a bare flash kills the charms this shot has,
try to use some kind — any kind — of diffusion, Tony.

If you will read my description, I did not use a flash, bare or otherwise.  I didn't realize that I had killed anything.  Others seem to like it.

 

thnx, Tony

[Nikon Shooter]

If you will read my description, I did not use a flash, bare or otherwise.  I didn't realize that I had killed anything.  Others seem to like it.

 

 

Mea maxima culpa. Tony, I did not read your description.

The light is so harsh… I thought you did. Sorry again.

[Tony]

Mea maxima culpa. Tony, I did not read your description.

The light is so harsh… I thought you did. Sorry again.

Your apology is very much appreciated.  I am confused that you find the exposure harsh.  Everyone else claims it needs more pop.  I disagree with them also.  I believe the white in dead center may cause the appearance of being a bit over exposed, however, I am not thoroughly convinced.

 

thanks again, Tony

[Nikon Shooter]

Your apology is very much appreciated.

Very kind of you Sir!
 

I am confused that you find the exposure harsh.  Everyone else claims it needs more pop.  I disagree with them also.

Exposure can never be qualified as harsh but may be very well applied
to the quality of light.

My point is the harshness of the light… the same as with a bare flash
where the very hard shadows are the result of a small light source and
that, IMO, is killing the charm.

The remedy to harsh light is a larger light source: a diffuser.

 

I believe the white in dead center may cause the appearance of being a bit over exposed, however, I am not thoroughly convinced.

 

I opened your jpg image in my RAW converter to find answers to some 
questions and you are right about the whites. I can read 230/255 red,
241/255 green, 253/255 blue, for a total luminance value of 239/255.
The relative high value of the blue is due to the high reflectance coeffi-
cient of the white reflecting the blue sky a bit more than the others. You
made a good decision regarding the highlights. As for the pop…

 

[Tony]

Very kind of you Sir!
 

Exposure can never be qualified as harsh but may be very well applied
to the quality of light.

My point is the harshness of the light… the same as with a bare flash
where the very hard shadows are the result of a small light source and
that, IMO, is killing the charm.

The remedy to harsh light is a larger light source: a diffuser.

 

 

I opened your jpg image in my RAW converter to find answers to some 
questions and you are right about the whites. I can read 230/255 red,
241/255 green, 253/255 blue, for a total luminance value of 239/255.
The relative high value of the blue is due to the high reflectance coeffi-
cient of the white reflecting the blue sky a bit more than the others. You
made a good decision regarding the highlights. As for the pop…

 

Thanks very much for taking the time to be of assistance.  Cheeeerrrrrssss!!  Tony