Blown Highlights With Wedding Dress Photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    doing this, based on this "beauty"

    http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg

    Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.

    But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.

    This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.

    Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?

    Any fix for this? Tips?

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Robertwgross Guest

    LRH wrote:
    >I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    >doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    >like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    >the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    >comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >Any fix for this? Tips?
    >LRH


    I doubt that there is too much wrong with the camera. It is probably the fault
    of the photographer for not setting in some exposure compensation. For the
    white dress, it is essential. Then also, the shutter speed is too slow, so you
    have some motion blur on the groom. The black tux has proper exposure. Was the
    tilt intentional, or not?

    ---Bob Gross---
     
    Robertwgross, Sep 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <V8G4d.289170$Lj.239783@fed1read03>,
    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?


    Common for all digital, its just like shooting slides,...but with
    adjustable cameras Like the DSLR cameras you can correct the problem.

    >
    > Any fix for this? Tips?


    Use film. maybe set the camera to under expose, 1/2 stop from that.

    There is another problem I see, the groom is blurred. Shutter speed to
    slow!

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Sep 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this?


    It's common for all cameras to do it.. Even $5000.00+ ones :)

    When shooting large areas of white, you should be checking the
    histogram (if the 5700 has one). Check to make sure the graphed data
    isn't butting up against or getting cut off on the right border of
    the histogram. The right side represents white.. If you're spilling
    over the right side, you've overexposed the white in the image.

    If it is doing this, apply exposure compensation until there's a touch
    of space between the white data and the right side of the histogram.


    > Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
     
    Jim Townsend, Sep 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    leo Guest

    "Robertwgross" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > LRH wrote:
    >>I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    >>doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >>http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >>Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >>But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >>This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in
    >>FINE-JPEG.
    >>Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    >>like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    >>the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when
    >>one
    >>comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >>Any fix for this? Tips?
    >>LRH

    >
    > I doubt that there is too much wrong with the camera. It is probably the
    > fault
    > of the photographer for not setting in some exposure compensation. For the
    > white dress, it is essential. Then also, the shutter speed is too slow, so
    > you
    > have some motion blur on the groom. The black tux has proper exposure. Was
    > the
    > tilt intentional, or not?
    >
    > ---Bob Gross---


    Aside from it's a bit crooked and blurred, there's nothing wrong about the
    exposure. However, the current crops of digital cameras, P&S or dSLR, have
    limited dynamic range. Highlight blown out is common place. I have got the
    Canon 300D that I like but I'd certainly hold out my money till a model that
    would correct this type of issue. The fix at this moment is under expose a
    bit. Use curve in post processing to bring up the shadow details and
    contract the light area to prevent clipping.
     
    leo, Sep 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >
    > Any fix for this? Tips?



    Hi Larry...

    Nothing to do for the skirt part of the dress, I'm
    afraid.

    However, if the original is large enough to allow
    some severe cropping, then it looks pretty good if
    you crop from the grooms back to the back of the
    veil, and from over the grooms head to just under
    the bustline.

    And give the happy couple a copy anyway! It'll add
    to their memories of the occasion, and of you and
    your valiant effort :)

    Can't guess your age, of course. But I can promise
    you that as we grow older it's the little mishaps
    that we remember best and smile most over. Share with
    the kids and grandkids...

    Can't resist telling. The day after my wife and I got
    back from our honeymoon we moved into a new house.
    Bought some necessities and started our life.
    Wife made a pie. Filling was really good, but couldn't
    cut the crust with a chain saw. Days later, discovered
    that the bag of flour was unopened. But the box of
    pancake mix was half gone. We hadn't yet had pancakes.
    Highways department would have liked that recipe.
    And grandkids still hear about it from time to time :)

    So give them your picture :)

    Take care.

    Ken
     
    Ken Weitzel, Sep 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Yes I'm aware, the groom is blurred. The lighting was low, I didn't have my
    full-sized flash handy (heck, even the person they HIRED only had a pop-up
    for crying out loud) and I really would've loved having a camera like the
    Nikon D70 which I could've cranked up to ISO 800 and still had
    well-controlled digital noise. I kept the Coolpix 5700 ISO at 100 because
    it's useless at ISO800; that wasn't a surprise to me. (For the record, I did
    also shoot some shots with a Nikon F65 with ISO 800 film used.)

    Am I understanding correctly--slide-film would've also experienced this? If
    slide film has this problem, why do so many shoot with it (especially since
    nowadays you can scan your negatives and have more control over how they're
    printed)? (The film I used with the F65 was PRINT film.)

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 23, 2004
    #7
  8. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Alan Browne Guest

    Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?


    ....a lot of things here, first of all, face it ... it's a snapshot and you let
    the camera decide everything.

    The scene has a lot of dark area in it.... so the exposure system tended to go
    for more light than neccesary.

    I get the impression that there was special lighting focusing on the happy
    couple rendering her dress very white while leaving the BG of the scene muted.

    If you had done a histogram first, you may have seen the right edge completely
    filled ... by compensating to a lower exposure the dress would have been
    properly exposed...however the skin tones of the maids/bestman/minister would
    have been muddy.

    It is up to the photog to 'fit' the scene latitude into the latitude of the
    film, regardless of the camera.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Larry R Harrison Jr

    BobS Guest

    Having "Just done that" - photographing my niece's wedding with a spanking
    new Pentax *ist digital SLR, I can understand your disappointment. Knowing
    in that my inexperience with the new digital would rear it's ugly head - I
    had two other film camera's and an assistant backing me up on almost every
    shot.... With 144 shots on film and nearly 300 digital, I can salvage the
    30 to 50 photographs for her wedding album.

    I literally got the digital SLR on Thurs evening and my nieces wedding was
    the following Saturday. What little experimenting time I had with the
    camera, told me use the "Dumb 'n Dumber modes" (full auto) for now and at
    least get a high percentage of the shots close enough so Photoshop can
    make'em look good.

    All I can say is it's a good thing I had a backup plan. The white dress and
    black tux played havoc and I've certainly been reading Martin Evening's book
    "Adobe Photoshop CS for Photographers" a lot lately... I've turned some
    real bad shots into acceptable ones much to my own amazement. Some
    selective cropping, along with a healthy dose of level and curve adjustments
    have been a godsend.

    Both of us probably learned a great deal in shooting a wedding with a
    digital camera with lesson number one being - take it off auto mode, adjust
    white balance manually, bracket the money shots and get to know Photoshop
    up-close and personal like.

    Bob S.



    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:V8G4d.289170$Lj.239783@fed1read03...
    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in

    FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when

    one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >
    > Any fix for this? Tips?
    >
    > LRH
    >
    >
     
    BobS, Sep 23, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <>,
    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote:

    >(For the record, I did also shoot some shots with a Nikon F65 with ISO

    800 film used.)

    And How did those look? I use slower film for weddings,typically.


    > Am I understanding correctly--slide-film would've also experienced this? If
    > slide film has this problem, why do so many shoot with it (especially since
    > nowadays you can scan your negatives and have more control over how they're
    > printed)? (The film I used with the F65 was PRINT film.)
    > H


    Its about dynamic range, slide film has a short dynamic range, compared
    to color negative. Most of those who use slide film are doing so because
    of saturated color and the ease of editing (Trash only required).

    Typically very few if any Pro Wedding photographers
    use slide film. I use color negative or digital, whatever my clients
    are buying.

    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Sep 23, 2004
    #10
  11. Larry R Harrison Jr

    mark_digital Guest

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message news:V8G4d.289170$Lj.239783@fed1read03...
    I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    doing this, based on this "beauty"

    http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg

    Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.

    But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.

    ______________________________________

    The sample you show us is worst than the original, isn't it?

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Sep 23, 2004
    #11
  12. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ken Oaf Guest

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:13:55 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr" <>
    wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >
    > Any fix for this? Tips?


    Ask the bride to pose naked.
     
    Ken Oaf, Sep 23, 2004
    #12
  13. That's the whole thing--I didn't have it on "dummy" modes--the only "dummy"
    mode the 5700 has is the full-auto user preset, which I NEVER EVER use,
    ever. There are no scene modes on this camera, thank goodness. Also I used a
    preset white balance by measuring off a white-tissue to make the colors more
    accurate.

    I've heard of the histogram before but never really "got it." Even once I
    understood it a little I didn't get why a live-view histogram was good in
    addition to a record-view histogram; the 5700 has the latter but not the
    former. Now I see why. Duh.

    Should've bracketed, too. Maybe I should've shot in RAW too when I could;
    for faster-paced shots, I couldn't becaue the 5700 is locked up for like 20
    seconds between each RAW shot.

    LRH

    "BobS" <> wrote in message
    news:5ZG4d.241073$...
    > Having "Just done that" - photographing my niece's wedding with a spanking
    > new Pentax *ist digital SLR, I can understand your disappointment.
    > Knowing
    > in that my inexperience with the new digital would rear it's ugly head - I
    > had two other film camera's and an assistant backing me up on almost every
    > shot.... With 144 shots on film and nearly 300 digital, I can salvage the
    > 30 to 50 photographs for her wedding album.
    >
    > I literally got the digital SLR on Thurs evening and my nieces wedding was
    > the following Saturday. What little experimenting time I had with the
    > camera, told me use the "Dumb 'n Dumber modes" (full auto) for now and at
    > least get a high percentage of the shots close enough so Photoshop can
    > make'em look good.
    >
    > All I can say is it's a good thing I had a backup plan. The white dress
    > and
    > black tux played havoc and I've certainly been reading Martin Evening's
    > book
    > "Adobe Photoshop CS for Photographers" a lot lately... I've turned some
    > real bad shots into acceptable ones much to my own amazement. Some
    > selective cropping, along with a healthy dose of level and curve
    > adjustments
    > have been a godsend.
    >
    > Both of us probably learned a great deal in shooting a wedding with a
    > digital camera with lesson number one being - take it off auto mode,
    > adjust
    > white balance manually, bracket the money shots and get to know Photoshop
    > up-close and personal like.
    >
    > Bob S.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    > news:V8G4d.289170$Lj.239783@fed1read03...
    >> I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    >> doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >>
    >> http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >>
    >> Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >>
    >> But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >>
    >> This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in

    > FINE-JPEG.
    >>
    >> Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    >> like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    >> the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when

    > one
    >> comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >>
    >> Any fix for this? Tips?
    >>
    >> LRH
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Larry R Harrison Jr

    mark_digital Guest

    "Ken Oaf" <> wrote in message news:...
    On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:13:55 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr" <>
    wrote:

    > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    > like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    > the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    > comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >
    > Any fix for this? Tips?


    Ask the bride to pose naked.
    ----------------------------

    If you look close enough you'll see she's wearing
    a white thong.

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Sep 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    BobS <> wrote:

    > Both of us probably learned a great deal in shooting a wedding with a
    > digital camera with lesson number one being - take it off auto mode, adjust
    > white balance manually, bracket the money shots and get to know Photoshop
    > up-close and personal like.


    I think you learned the wrong lesson. The real lesson is this: shooting
    weddings is a specialty; shooting weddings is not easy by any stretch of
    the imagination; knowing photography does not mean you can shoot a wedding
    well any more than it means you can shoot a football game well; shooting
    weddings is best left to the professionals who specialize in the field
    and know how to do it right, because it is *much* harder than it looks.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Larry R Harrison Jr

    mark_digital Guest

    "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message news:...
    BobS <> wrote:

    > Both of us probably learned a great deal in shooting a wedding with a
    > digital camera with lesson number one being - take it off auto mode, adjust
    > white balance manually, bracket the money shots and get to know Photoshop
    > up-close and personal like.


    I think you learned the wrong lesson. The real lesson is this: shooting
    weddings is a specialty; shooting weddings is not easy by any stretch of
    the imagination; knowing photography does not mean you can shoot a wedding
    well any more than it means you can shoot a football game well; shooting
    weddings is best left to the professionals who specialize in the field
    and know how to do it right, because it is *much* harder than it looks.

    --
    Jeremy |
    -----------------------------------
    -----------------------------------
    Sorry to have to disagree with you but it isn't difficult because
    the norm is to expose for the bride, not the groom. What rational
    dictates the creases in the gooms pants have to be seen? The
    only exception is when the either the bride or groom or both
    are black as coal. There isn't a true professional that will
    disagree with me on this one. In this type of scenerio close
    ups are best if special lighting arrangements can't be made.

    mark_
     
    mark_digital, Sep 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Hunt Guest

    In article <V8G4d.289170$Lj.239783@fed1read03>, says...
    >
    >I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    >doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >
    >http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >
    >Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >
    >But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >
    >This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in FINE-JPEG.
    >
    >Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do models
    >like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just one of
    >the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course when one
    >comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >
    >Any fix for this? Tips?
    >
    >LRH


    Unfortunately, the detail in the dress age gone, but Photoshop CS's
    Image>Adjustment>Highlight&Shadow operation does a nice job of bringing the
    rest of the image into an acceptable range. An Adjustment Layer>Curves on the
    dress will also drop the flourescent white look a bit. The groom's head blur
    can't be corrected though. You might want to shoot in RAW to get the most info
    possible, especially with tricky situations like this on.

    Hunt
     
    Hunt, Sep 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Frank ess Guest

    mark_digital wrote:
    > "Ken Oaf" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:13:55 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
    > <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only
    >> one
    >> doing this, based on this "beauty"
    >>
    >> http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    >>
    >> Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    >>
    >> But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    >>
    >> This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in
    >> FINE-JPEG.
    >>
    >> Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this? Do
    >> models
    >> like the D70 or D2x handle these scenarios better, or is this just
    >> one of
    >> the things that digitals currently can't handle--and thus of course
    >> when one
    >> comes along which can it will make cameras like the 5700 obselete?
    >>
    >> Any fix for this? Tips?

    >
    > Ask the bride to pose naked.
    > ----------------------------
    >
    > If you look close enough you'll see she's wearing
    > a white thong.
    >



    I think that's Ed Ruf's 'phone number on her arm...
     
    Frank ess, Sep 24, 2004
    #18
  19. So your word is law! :)


    I think Jeremy has some good points.
    I know how I personally work, that is when I actually do use
    a meter (very infrequently) I meter for the skin tones not the
    dress & not the grooms pants.

    You know after over 100 plus weddings you sort of learn something about
    subject to flash distance, and that knowledge,.. it applies to digital
    as well, just in a different way. Some of these spontaneous are
    required, but as you state close ups are better. As Jeremy said its a
    matter a trained or at least seasoned photographer will know, which is
    not beyond most peoples capabilities to become but never the less
    something to be learned and to do it well really should be the
    goal/regardless of the equipment used.


    In article <>,
    "mark_digital" <> wrote:

    > "Jeremy Nixon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > BobS <> wrote:
    >
    > > Both of us probably learned a great deal in shooting a wedding with a
    > > digital camera with lesson number one being - take it off auto mode, adjust
    > > white balance manually, bracket the money shots and get to know Photoshop
    > > up-close and personal like.

    >
    > I think you learned the wrong lesson. The real lesson is this: shooting
    > weddings is a specialty; shooting weddings is not easy by any stretch of
    > the imagination; knowing photography does not mean you can shoot a wedding
    > well any more than it means you can shoot a football game well; shooting
    > weddings is best left to the professionals who specialize in the field
    > and know how to do it right, because it is *much* harder than it looks.
    >
    > --
    > Jeremy |
    > -----------------------------------
    > -----------------------------------
    > Sorry to have to disagree with you but it isn't difficult because
    > the norm is to expose for the bride, not the groom. What rational
    > dictates the creases in the gooms pants have to be seen? The
    > only exception is when the either the bride or groom or both
    > are black as coal. There isn't a true professional that will
    > disagree with me on this one. In this type of scenerio close
    > ups are best if special lighting arrangements can't be made.
    >
    > mark


    --
    LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    Gregory Blank, Sep 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Patrick L. Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
    >
    > > I took wedding photos recently and thank goodness I wasn't the only one
    > > doing this, based on this "beauty"
    > >
    > > http://www.dbases.net/tmp/wedphoto.jpg
    > >
    > > Notice how badly blown-out the wedding dress is.
    > >
    > > But the rest of the photo is beautifully exposed.
    > >
    > > This was taken with a high-grade camera, a Nikon Coolpix 5700, in

    FINE-JPEG.
    > >
    > > Is this common even for high-grade digital cameras to do this?

    >
    > It's common for all cameras to do it.. Even $5000.00+ ones :)
    >





    I find that I have to underexpose a bit, then push on the shadows in PS.


    http://www.patricklockwood.com/koonter/images/183.jpg


    http://www.patricklockwood.com/harrell/images/045.jpg



    Patrick
     
    Patrick L., Sep 24, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. street shooter

    Canon 10D Blown-Out Highlights

    street shooter, May 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    709
    Don F
    May 5, 2004
  2. JeffS

    Blown Out Highlights Question

    JeffS, Aug 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    4,317
  3. digiboy
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    910
  4. Rich

    R1 and blown highlights

    Rich, Nov 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    489
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    411
Loading...

Share This Page