Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Problems With My Whites And Softeness?  
User currently offlinechriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5180 times:

Ive noticed that recently im having a lot of pictures ruined by the whites being way over bright. i tried dropping the iso to 100 and its still been doing it on quite a few of them, i used to use full manual but because too many were bright i switched to aperture priority but still having the problem. how can i solve this?

also ive been trying some almost head on shots just at a slight side angle, and ive been having a problem with either the tail end of nose etc not in focus. how can i get the whole thing in focus?

thanks
chris

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5163 times:

I don't really understand the first problem. Maybe it's just the conditions at the time/place you're shooting?

The second is more difficult. Typically, I would say the part of the aircraft closest to the viewer (in your case, the nose) should be in focus. If you are intent on getting everything in focus, you will have to close your aperture down. That is to say, increase the F-number. If you're shooting at f/4, you will need to take it down to f/8, for example. Keep in mind that this will reduce the light hitting your sensor, so you will need to adjust ISO/shutter speed accordingly.


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5164 times:

Hi Chris,

It sounds like things are slightly overexposed. A common thing on Canon DSLR's is they slightly overexpose in bright sunlight. Just dial in -1/3 of exposure compensation and that should solve your problem. Dropping the ISO won't solve the problem as the shutter speed will just reduce to compensate.

With regards to the focus, what aperture are you using? You'll need to stop it down to get the required depth of field, also depending on the focal length and distance. Another thing to check is your focus point. Do you use all or just the centre? I'd recommend using centre so you can choose the focal point in the centre of the aircraft to even out the focus / depth of field. If you use all of them so the camera chooses, it normally selects the closest. If the depth of field isn't deep enough, the rear will be out of focus and vice versa if it selects a point towards the rear. You also need a fast shutter speed at this angle to prevent any motion blur.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10258 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5160 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chriswade (Thread starter):
how can i solve this?

Exposure compensation.

Be aware, though, that exposure compensation will do exactly what you would do when shooting manual - reduce the exposure by increasing the shutter speed. It's immaterial whether you do it manually or the camera does it for you.

Quoting chriswade (Thread starter):
how can i get the whole thing in focus?

Are you aware of depth-of-field and what affects it? Stopping down the aperture increases the depth-of-field.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chriswade (Thread starter):
Ive noticed that recently im having a lot of pictures ruined by the whites being way over bright. i tried dropping the iso to 100 and its still been doing it on quite a few of them, i used to use full manual but because too many were bright i switched to aperture priority but still having the problem. how can i solve this?

If you were shooting in manual, why wouldn't you adjust settings to get proper exposure?

Also, some examples would be helpful.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 4):
If you were shooting in manual, why wouldn't you adjust settings to get proper exposure?

This is why I assumed it something different from vanilla overexposure. If it is simply a case of dodgy metering (as Darren said, Canons tend to meter a little hot) then fiddling with exposure compensation is the way to go.


User currently offlinechriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Ok, Usually when theres sun hitting the planes i use F8 iso100 on Aperture priority mode. when i take the pictures they look fantastic on the viewfinder but when i put them on the computer etc some come out really bright white, overpowering. so i can solve this by just using 1/3 exposure comp? can i do that in AV mode? sorry im pretty new to DSLR's.

as for the out of focus im already using F8. should i step upto something like F12 so the whole thing is in focus?


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5133 times:

No, if you're at f/8 and it's not in focus, it won't get better by stopping down.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm being too brief. What happens when you stop down is softness (from diffraction) and if your sensor is dirty, then very apparent dust spots. Neither problem is insurmountable, but it just makes life difficult when processing the images.

Could you perhaps share some shots, as well as list the equipment you're using? It just gives us more to work with, so we can give you more specific help.

[Edited 2013-01-18 13:09:26]

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Chris.

What camera are you using? I'm with the guys above, in that my Canon cameras have all had a tendency to slightly overexpose whites when in good lighting conditions. Generally I use aperture priority and have exposure compensation set to minus one third (fine in A/V mode). But another key factor can be which metering mode you are using. I find evaluative metering mode (which I often use) needs the exposure compensation more than partial metering. That said, evaluative generally gets it right, whereas I have had a few go horribly wrong using partial metering (takes into account less in the viewfinder when calculating exposure) and with a bright fuselage and a lot of contrast - badly underexposed overall photo.

As for depth of field - reduce your aperture and see what impact that has - but bear in mind it depends on your focussing point.

Paul


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Chris,

You can use exposure compensation in any of the semi automatic modes. Give -1/3 a try, I'm sure that will solve your problem. If you're already using f/8, I suspect your problem is either your focal point or shutter speed as mentioned above. An example would be useful to illustrate your problem.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chriswade (Reply 6):
Ok, Usually when theres sun hitting the planes i use F8 iso100 on Aperture priority mode. when i take the pictures they look fantastic on the viewfinder but when i put them on the computer etc some come out really bright white, overpowering

Hmm, I'm curious if this is more a problem with your monitor settings. If the shot looks drastically different than the camera LCD, some adjustments might need to be made. Or it could be the software you're using.

[Edited 2013-01-18 13:27:57]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10258 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
Hmm, I'm curious if this is more a problem with your monitor settings.

Or could be the camera LCD settings. When I got my 50D, I kept thinking my shots were underexposed until I adjusted the LCD brightness.   

Quoting angad84 (Reply 7):
No, if you're at f/8 and it's not in focus, it won't get better by stopping down.

That's not necessarily true. It depends on the focal length and the distance from lens to subject. But at most focal lengths and subject distances, F8 would be fine for a whole airplane.

Chris, if you can provide more info regarding focal length and distance, it would be helpful. Or just go ahead and use a DOF calculator, like this one:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Quoting chriswade (Reply 6):
sorry im pretty new to DSLR's.

Nothing wrong with that. But I'd suggest some reading on both your camera (the manual is generally pretty helpful) and the Exposure Triangle.

I'd also suggest going out and shooting in Manual mode in different lights, different settings, etc. You'll end up with a lot of throwaway shots, but it's a great way to learn.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
Hmm, I'm curious if this is more a problem with your monitor settings. If the shot looks drastically different than the camera LCD, some adjustments might need to be made. Or it could be the software you're using.

I agree with you here. If the camera meters and displays correctly, but it is overexposed on the computer, it could be a result of an incorrectly calibrated monitor. But that should be easy to figure out, by just looking at the histogram.

PS: In the field, I never trust my camera's LCD and always use the camera's histogram to decide if my pictures are properly exposed.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5044 times:

For whites, I always use Bleach, Oxi-Clean, and hot water.

Using a good quality softener like Purex Crystals or Bounce fabric softener works for that problem.

Those two things should solve your problem.

Oh, wait... wrong place?   



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5037 times:

Diffraction shouldn't really be a problem until you get to very narrow apertures, for which there is very little need in our branch of photography. F/8 should offer sufficient depth-of-field so blurry noses may be down to something else. The 'pivoting' action of the fuselage will cause the nose to move more quickly within the frame than the rest of the aircraft; if the shutter's too slow this would cause the front to look soft or blurry.

User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Diffraction shouldn't really be a problem until you get to very narrow apertures, for which there is very little need in our branch of photography. F/8 should offer sufficient depth-of-field so blurry noses may be down to something else. The 'pivoting' action of the fuselage will cause the nose to move more quickly within the frame than the rest of the aircraft; if the shutter's too slow this would cause the front to look soft or blurry.

Well, to be technical, it depends on the camera. Take the 7D for example. Due to its resolution and the small sensor size, diffraction becomes more apparent at wider apertures than say, a 30D. I've read that diffraction becomes noticeable on the 7D at f/7.1, some reports claiming as wide as f/5.6. Of course that's all pixel-peeper speak so in the real world you should be fine at f/8 on a 7D, but yeah...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15):
Well, to be technical, it depends on the camera. Take the 7D for example. Due to its resolution and the small sensor size, diffraction becomes more apparent at wider apertures than say, a 30D. I've read that diffraction becomes noticeable on the 7D at f/7.1, some reports claiming as wide as f/5.6. Of course that's all pixel-peeper speak so in the real world you should be fine at f/8 on a 7D, but yeah...

Yes, if you're downsizing to 1200px, sharpening in Photoshop etc, diffraction becomes a non-issue with most SLRs.

However, with the 50D, I find diffraction to be a noticeable issue (when handling full-res files, for example during printing) above f/13, and full-res files are practically unusable above f/18. Mathematically, the 50D is diffraction limited around f/8, so it makes sense that the effects of diffraction would become apparent around one stop down from there.

It all boils down to how much time you want to spend in post. For me, I throw all the images I have into Lightroom, delete all non-keepers and then spend no more than 2-5 minutes tweaking each image. If you don't mind spending time with masks and selection and all that sort of stuff that necessitates firing up Photoshop, then it doesn't hurt to stop down further than f/8.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11):
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the focal length and the distance from lens to subject. But at most focal lengths and subject distances, F8 would be fine for a whole airplane.

Chris, if you can provide more info regarding focal length and distance, it would be helpful. Or just go ahead and use a DOF calculator, like this one:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Yes vik. I posted and then realized I had not been as clear as I should have been. I edited my post to reflect why, in my opinion, stopping down below f/8 is mostly pointless. I only even go that far down when I'm looking for prop/rotor blur or panning effects (all of which I am awful at anyway!).


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Angad.

I must admit I am slightly out of my depth when it comes to the details of lenses, bodies and diffraction, but I do think it is important to stress that perfectly usable images can be attained for use here with decent lenses stopped right down.

If I can use a couple of my own examples:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman


Taken using the lens stopped down to f/18, and the editing was not exotic in any way. Obviously the purpose here was to blur the props, rather than worrying about depth of field, but the original is perfectly usable.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman


Even more extreme - to ensure motion blur, by selecting the desired shutter speed in shutter priority and allowing the camera to set the aperture - this one was taken using f/25 and, again, though obviously not as crisp as the same image taken at f/8, the quality is perfectly usable (assuming you don't make a hash of the panning, which is usually the case for many of us!).

So I think Chris needs to see what his equipment produces, though I fully agree with the generally accepted view that the 'sweet spot' in terms of overall quality will tend to be far gone by the time you get much over f/11. I also agree that for the bulk of the 'standard' shots we take you shouldn't need to be stopping right down to get acceptable depth of field. Karl makes an important point in Reply 14, and this can impact on the difference between sharpness front and back.

We really need to see some examples Chris.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Paul, like I said, when you're downsizing 10-15MP files to 1200-1600px on the long side, and processing them for sites like A.net, jetphotos, flickr or what-have-you, diffraction is a non-issue.

But if you are shooting to print or some sort of work where the files will be used at close to native resolutions, then diffraction is definitely an issue. It gets very difficult to sell a 36x24-inch print (of anything - aircraft or otherwise) when details are blurred.

Of course, if it's just for sharing online, or personal gratification (hobby), then it hardly matters. Do what makes you happy with the results!  

Cheers,

A


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Selling any sized image would be good enough for me   .

Paul


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

I must admit I'm a terrible pixel peep but images shot at f/11 on a 50D display almost no signs of diffraction. In fact, like Paul I have very detailed shots taken at above f/11 (although only a couple of stops). Diffraction I think can act like a placebo - if you're told it's there at a certain aperture, you'll convince yourself you've found it.

As Ryan says it depends on the camera (more importantly the pixel density and size of the sensor) but also on the lens I guess. The effects of a bad lens used at its longest focal length I dare say can easily mimmick the effects of diffraction. I've heard also that diffraction starts around f/7.1-f/8 on a 7D but I think you'd be very hard-pushed to notice it - even if you pixel-peeped!

The argument for entering the realm of diffraction is that f/8 simply doesn't offer sufficient DOF at times. I never worry about diffraction because a) I never shoot at values at which it becomes an issue, and b) I'd much rather have a generally crsip shot than suffer the ill-effects of too shallow a DOF.

For someone just getting the hang of a DSLR (and Chris is getting the hang of it very quickly and competently) diffraction is probably the least worrying aspect at the moment.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4937 times:

Personally, I have no issue with diffraction on my 50D's and don't worry about. There's much more important things to consider when planning shots like heat haze and lighting. The sweet spot of the lens I use is f/10 and as Paul mentions, if you're wanting motion blur on a sunny day, I'll regulaty go down to f/20. While they aren't as sharp as at f/10, they're still well usable even when printed to A3. I've just sold one to a flight school and it came out pretty good.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Hmmm, I think everyone has different expectations and requirements from their equipment. Aircraft aren't all that I shoot, so I may look for (and find) flaws in a three foot wide print that just aren't relevant at smaller sizes.

"Your mileage may vary" comes to mind


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

Quoting angad84 (Reply 22):
Hmmm, I think everyone has different expectations and requirements from their equipment. Aircraft aren't all that I shoot, so I may look for (and find) flaws in a three foot wide print that just aren't relevant at smaller sizes



With all due respect, this statement suggests that the rest of us are simply 'settling' for second-best, and that we've no idea what quality we should expect from an image above 1200 pixels. As many a dedicated pixel-peeper will testify, it's quite easy to spot faults in a high-res image that may jeopardise the quality of a very large print.

Diffraction does of course exist but to most people it's no big deal. It's worth noting that there are many other reasons why an image can appear soft; it's far too easy to blame softness on diffraction when there may be other, much more fundamental reasons. Also worthy of note is that diffraction can differ between colours and tones, so a predominantly red scene at f/13 may display similar effects to a predominantly blue or green scene at f/22.

In short, I think diffraction is the least likely culprit for Chris' problems, and at this stage is something he shouldn't be worrying too much about. Diffraction is only something I'd seriously look at once I'd eliminated every other cause. I'm surprised this thread has descended so quickly into a debate about diffraction to be honest.

Karl


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4907 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23):
With all due respect, this statement suggests that the rest of us are simply 'settling' for second-best, and that we've no idea what quality we should expect from an image above 1200 pixels.

Definitely not what I intended to convey. I apologise if that's what it sounds like.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23):
In short, I think diffraction is the least likely culprit for Chris' problems, and at this stage is something he shouldn't be worrying too much about.

Agreed.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23):
I'm surprised this thread has descended so quickly into a debate about diffraction to be honest.

I think I was the first to bring it up, so probably shoulder some of the blame for dragging it here. It's just that a few years ago, I found myself stopping much further down than was ideal in an under-informed quest for sharpness and was keen not to let the "stop down for max sharpness" myth perpetuate.

I think I will hold my tongue until we get some sample shots (with EXIF) and perhaps an equipment list from Chris.

Off to bed with me...   


User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 23):

Whoa.. I didn't take his post that way at all.

I do agree, in response to Darren, that how much importance one puts on diffraction depends greatly on one's needs and expectations.

One thing I'm guilty of and try to avoid is getting a "stunning" shot accepted here because it works good enough at the small size yet has enough flaws at higher res that nothing else can be done with it outside of this site. For example I have been asked for large prints of a photo seen in the database that I've had to deny because quality just isn't there to meet the request.

Something to consider when "settling" for good enough for airliners.net.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4901 times:

Quoting angad84 (Reply 24):
Definitely not what I intended to convey. I apologise if that's what it sounds like



I'm sure you didn't mean to convey negativity. My response was perhaps more of a hint to word things slightly differently. No harm done and I'm certainly not offended. And definitely no need to apologise about mentioning diffraction as it is a factor - although probably pretty insignificant in this thread.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 25):
One thing I'm guilty of and try to avoid is getting a "stunning" shot accepted here because it works good enough at the small size yet has enough flaws at higher res that nothing else can be done with it outside of this site. For example I have been asked for large prints of a photo seen in the database that I've had to deny because quality just isn't there to meet the request.



This is a point I fully agree with. Most of my images here are from very good originals, as I sort of subconsciously feel that I'm letting myself down if I submit a below-par image. Sure, I do have a few shots in the database which have glaringly obvious faults if one were to look at the originals, but generally I try and choose only my best. Which is why I often get confused when I get a quality rejection (although I do tend to put that entirely down to my poor editing).

I loosely categorise the types of photographers here into two groups: those who concentrate mainly on the final edit and those who concentrate mainly on the original file. Each to their own but I find myself firmly rooted in the 'original file' group. For some the original file is like a blank canvass - a kind of basis for the 'end product' - while for others the file that comes straight from the camera is the final article that perhaps just needs 'polishing' for the internet. I personally bin all edits but back up all the originals. In contrast I know people who, once editing is complete, get rid of the original files as it's only the 'polished' edits they seek to retain.

Ultimately what you see here isn't always reflective of the quality of an image - with the right processing a poor image can be made to look stunning and a stunning image can be made to look poor. I imagine like most people I have examples of both.

Karl


User currently offlinechriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

Ok, heres a few examples of the whites im getting. these were all taken in Aperture Priority mode.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...sschecter/IMG_5681_zpsfee1d3e2.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...sschecter/IMG_5651_zps6fe91da1.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...sschecter/IMG_5110_zpsbc3bdf0a.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...sschecter/IMG_4912_zpsef0e4637.jpg

As for the head on shots being slightly blurred at one end the shots that have it were done using AV mode aswell and its only selected between 1/320 and 1/400. F8 and iso 100. Maybe like what has been said i need to up the shutter speed?


User currently offlineangad84 From India, joined Nov 2012, 969 posts, RR: 3
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 4793 times:

Yes, if you're getting blur on one end of the aircraft, then you just need to push shutter speed higher.

As for the whites - this looks fairly normal for most cameras, especially if you're shooting JPEG. Whether JPEG or RAW, this sort of thing is easy to fix in post. I use the "Highlights" slider in Lightroom. Don't know what one would do in Photoshop, but I'm sure someone else can help with that.

As for variations between camera screen and monitor - if you learn to read histograms, the difference becomes immaterial. I find it very useful when out on a busy day.


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2929 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

Quoting chriswade (Reply 27):
Ok, heres a few examples of the whites im getting. these were all taken in Aperture Priority mode.

They all look fine to me Chris, I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with them. It depends what you are calling whites, but the exposures look pretty much spot on and the colours about right for the conditions and time of year. You've nothing to worry about. Any blur in them is due to shutter speed rather than anything.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinechriswade From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4773 times:

Really? they all look massively bright and horrible to me. where as some of the shots look much less overpowering on the white and have come out really well.

User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4769 times:

Quoting chriswade (Reply 30):
they all look massively bright and horrible to me.

They are a bit bright, but not that bad. The over-brightness is psobably due to to too low of a shutter speed. I usually shoot moving airliners no lower than 1/500 if at all possible. Front 3/4 crops like the first UA usually go at 1/800 or so for me. Any slower and you get blown out whites and softness/blur.



Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4851 posts, RR: 26
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chriswade (Reply 30):
Really? they all look massively bright and horrible to me. where as some of the shots look much less overpowering on the white and have come out really well.


If they look that bad to you, then I think it's a monitor issue like I mentioned above. They don't look bad on my computer or my iPhone.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10258 posts, RR: 26
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4742 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting chriswade (Reply 30):
Really? they all look massively bright and horrible to me. where as some of the shots look much less overpowering on the white and have come out really well.

It's already been suggested a few times, but....Check the histogram!!!

On the first two shots, it looked to me like the red channel might be slightly overexposed, and it is clipped a bit in those per Photoshop....but that's not unexpected in morning/evening light.

The third and fourth shots look perfectly fine to me, exposure-wise.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineJKPhotos From Germany, joined Nov 2011, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

I'd say the UA 772 is slightly over-exposed and the BA 772 is a bit too yellow for my taste. So I do somehow understand your point, Chris. But the other pictures are just fine for exposure and whites.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 31):
The over-brightness is psobably due to to too low of a shutter speed.


? Exposure is the result of a combination between shutter speed and aperture opening! If you shoot at a low shutter speed in combination with a small aperture opening of f10, f11,f12, f13,........and so on it won't lead to an over-exposure.
The pictures from Paul are the best examples. He was taking the photos with a speed much lower than 1/500. Still no problems with exposure.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 31):
I usually shoot moving airliners no lower than 1/500 if at all possible. Front 3/4 crops like the first UA usually go at 1/800 or so for me.


There is generally nothing wrong with shooting moving aircraft lower than 1/500. I do that most of the times and rarely have any problems with pictures being blurry. Just generally speaking.

But in this case yes if you do have problems with pictures being blurry it would be a good idea to shoot at a higher shutter speed.

Quoting DL747 (Reply 31):
Any slower and you get blown out whites and softness/blur

Sorry but how should the shutter speed affect the whites? I don't get it. But perhaps I did not get your comment right.

Regards

[Edited 2013-01-22 00:57:06]

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

One fundamental point - a camera will rarely reproduce natural colour as seen by the naked eye. It will simply interpret it based on how the sensor reacts to different colours.

User currently offlineDL747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4671 times:

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 34):
? Exposure is the result of a combination between shutter speed and aperture opening! If you shoot at a low shutter speed in combination with a small aperture opening of f10, f11,f12, f13,........and so on it won't lead to an over-exposure.

I was not aware he was closing aperture as he decreased shutter speed. Now, I am. However, your point is certainly right.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 34):
There is generally nothing wrong with shooting moving aircraft lower than 1/500.

Wish I could do that! Its too cold here, so I have shaky hands if I am out in the cold for too long.

Quoting JKPhotos (Reply 34):
Sorry but how should the shutter speed affect the whites?

Well, it would not directly affect the whites, but if you had too low a shutter and too open of an aperture, you would obviously have an over-exposed picture, and therefore, blown out whites. (Again, I wasn't aware he was closing aperture as he decreased shutter.)



Just like the shirt says, Boeing Builds It Better!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Problems With My 350D posted Sun Oct 28 2007 14:35:35 by AirbusA346
Help, Problems With My Eyes? posted Sat Mar 31 2007 15:50:48 by Mirage
SFO Spotting Help With My 300D And Equip. posted Sun Nov 28 2004 09:42:01 by Ua777222
Problems With My HP S20, Need Help! posted Fri Jun 18 2004 05:01:57 by Ghost77
Problems With My Monitor On Edits? posted Thu Apr 22 2004 13:37:24 by LHRSIMON
Autofocus Problems With My Coolpix posted Sat Aug 3 2002 13:38:08 by Boeingholiday
Bad Problems With My Telephotos Lens. posted Thu Mar 8 2001 04:24:56 by BO__einG
What Am I Doing Wrong With My Photos? posted Wed Dec 19 2012 17:00:04 by BriceJohnson
What's The Problem With My Lens? posted Sat Oct 13 2012 02:15:59 by eskillawl
Still Problems With The Upload Counter posted Sun Sep 9 2012 14:05:19 by Fly-K