Adjusting to low light

[Danudin]

This afternoon I took a long overdue walk through our (extremely small) Redcliffe Botanical Garden armed with my DSLR. I got what I considered to be several really pleasing shots but as I expected to have to shoot any wildlife from a distance, I attached my Pheonix X2 Tele-converter to the 55-200mm lens which in addition to costing me two fStops (or so I am told) it also precludes the AF from operating. no real lose there as it gives me an excuse to go back and get like shots for the ones I had to delete. My problem is that because of the attempts to replicate several Bush Types, Open Woodland, Wetlands and sparse bush etc the light varies.

Just to show you the tranquility of this place I have included two more shots (Both enhanced) Don't know why I hadn't been before.

I the darker areas such as the swamp I had difficulty setting the shutter speed right to capture what I was seeing. Now when I imported some of these photos into the editor it gave me very pleasing pictures, but I am wondering;
Am I losing detail by using the enhancing tools that PSE% provides, for example;

The Dragonflys.jpg shows a great shot of the little critters, but the dark version (imported without change then saved) seems to my memory to be the truer colour of the Red Dragonfly (Female I think) it was so vivid that I never paid the yellow one (I assume male by the way he was hanging around the red one). Is it best to sacrifice this type of detail just to get a good shot or is there settings I can use while shooting that make the changes unnecessary?

Ron

[frank abramonte]

Ron, overall nice shots.
It's next to impossible to get the correct exposure for the dragon fly shot.
As for the swamp you can always bracket your exposures 1 or 2 f stops.
In the end I don't see anything wrong in enhancing your difficult photos.
I like the natural look of the dragon flies, however, I like the action of their wings in the lighter version, though a little too bright in the background.
You apparently had the correct shutter speed to able to capture the wings with blur, but with enough detail to distinguish what they are. Too fast a shutter and they would have been too sharp.
You could select the dragon flies and darken the background a little, sort of in between.
This is the beauty of being able to correct your photos. It enables you to achieve what you saw when you took the shot.
Obviously the location where you shot the dragon flies had a lot more depth than what your photos show, but then a camera has a tough time seeing what the human eye does.
Post back your thoughts.

[Danudin]

The two Dragonfly shots speak for themselves Frank and asked the question I posed, I was even pleased with the overall look of the darker shot, but just needed some advice from someone who "Has Been There, Done That", and for that I thank you. I think I really am getting better at the Photography side of things (Only about 40 Million things to learn - This Year) With regard to PSE5 I have only dabbled but am slowly coming to grips with it's capabilities, if not how to achieve them yet.

My only question is as the title above suggests, I am not sure what you meant by depth? The other two photos were a fair rendition of what my overall memory of that little stream had as atmosphere, in fact looking akt the stream shot brings back the smells and sounds to my mind.

I often surprise myself with what I produce but these two blew me away, a bit. I posted a couple of dainty flowers that I also shot on PhotoCamel under the Username Sppitzz that you might want to look at too.

I love the knowledge I am able to pick up from the dribs and drabbs provided by yourself and so many others.

Ron

[frank abramonte]

My only question is as the title above suggests, I am not sure what you meant by depth?Ron

Depth is a perception of a third dimension in a photo that is only 2 dimensions.
This is achieved by the varying lights and darks and relative positions of images within the photo.
You have some depth in the corrected dragon fly photo where the flies seem to be separated from the background.
Also, there's a little more depth in your first swamp photo. The second swamp photo doesn't have enough background to have achieved the depth of the first one with it's high lights, mid-tones and shadows.

Read the following link for a more detailed explanation, then post back if you still don't understand.


http://photoinf.com/General/NAVY/Perspective.htm

[Danudin]

I vote that your name be changed to:
"Photoshop Elements Editor Enhance Clarity of Phrase, Photographers for the use of:"

A mouth full and shows my Military Background but sure gets the message across. The description opened up a lot for me specifically for these photos but also with photography in its entirety. Lately I have learned about "Bokeh" never heard of it until a couple of months ago. It worried me that that Stream shot didn't have it, but I liked the shot anyhow. I was trying to achieve something different with the second photo as the shot before I had tried to snap the dragonflies hovering near there but they moved quickly and I am old and slow, but looking at the LCD I became aware of the water and its flow so I took that shot to capture the water and that little waterfall, and I feel that the darkness behind the water does give depth, but that is just my opinion and isn't important.

When I took that second shot I decided to try to achieve a little "Bokeh" with the longer shot and I have included a couple of other snaps that I think came close to achieving the effect I wanted. I would be rapt in hearing (reading) your comments on this point of view (and the new shots of course) but also on if I have it right in my mind that either the clarity of the first stream shot or the use of "Bokeh" can give depth to a photo.

Your link was invaluable because without it I would have fixated on depth alone, but that article made me aware that it is really about "Volume, Space, Depth and Distance" and how we percieve them as either Actual or Apparant View points, because we aren't there. It is easy for me because I HAVE BEEN THERE, but the art is trying to take you there. For this reason I have left the new images as dark as it appeared to be to me, it would be spoiled by too much illumination and detailed.

I don't know if you are an instructor, but I have been one and YOU ARE GOOD, my hats off to you, goodness where has my hair gone?

Thank you

Ron

[frank abramonte]

Ron:
1. On your first 2 earlier swamp photos:
The second photo I don't think has enough background to establish relative size (location) and, therefore depth.
Perhaps some more detail in the lighting may work, i'm not sure.
The first one had good balance of colors and background to be able to establish location and depth.
There was enough surrounding background to lead your eye to the center, sort of like a tube or tunnel.

2. The next problem would be how you print them on paper.
The blacks will probably plug up somewhat, unless you use a 6 or 8 color printer.
The alternative would be to lighten the image using the curves tool.
Curves is available in the full photoshop, however I think there is a plugin for elements.
In printing there is under color removal. This is a technique for achieving the darker colors with less ink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_color_removal


3. Your 2 most recent posts:
The first one is superior.
[QUOTE]"It is easy for me because I HAVE BEEN THERE"[QUOTE]
Your photos are all good. Just that some don't quite make the grade as to what you saw.
Then again I know that even the best of them don't always get the shot they want, that's why they shoot many shots.
When in doubt bracket your exposures.
The important thing is that you apparently now know what depth in a photo is.

On a hunch I re-cropped you closeup photo to see it improve it.
What's your opinion?

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1AnB5HKx8kG0wjVn4esYvxA2oDL4mf_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1AnB5HKx8kG0wjVn4esYvxA2oDL4mf)



4. I don't know whether Bokeh can be achieved with colors or only with blurriness.
Read the definition "Bokeh"
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm


This post is getting too long. It's time to take a breather until your next input.

By the way I'm a trained US Army photographer from the Korean War, but never followed it as a hobby.
I spent almost 40 years running my typography and printing business.
Your way ahead of my expertise in using a camera.

[Danudin]

Sorry for being long winded, its how I am guessed your military contacts thanks again for all the info, I will give you a break for a while,\.

Ron;)

[frank abramonte]

I didn't mean that I need a break. It's just that sometimes there a number of points in your questions. Difficult to keep them straight and not overlap.
That's why I began to number my replies, so as to try an hit each point that you make.

The way you post your photos makes it impossible for me to have more than one photo open at a time. I must close the first photo before I can open the second one. Impossible for me to get a side by side comparison, must be my browser. What I do is save them to my desktop and open them in photoshop so I can compare them.

What did you think of the cropping on the last photo, needed a little adjusting in the shadows?

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/11yE2mbufQJ01Q1MEzm6RAnL67B7c1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=11yE2mbufQJ01Q1MEzm6RAnL67B7c1)

Keep in touch.

[Danudin]

Sorry thought I had pushed the limits! I do ramble so will keep it to one point per post in future

Referring to the cropping, Yes it is tidier but by cropping the top aren't you diminishing the depth to some degree? I don't understand the colour problem with the blacks that you mention. I am only a hobbyist, as I am near sixty I can't contemplate it as a career, my problem is that up until around three years before, "I didn't need Photographs" (Heavens SACRILEGE) I have vivid memories of my entire life to about age 12 months in colour, smell and sound, all stuck inside my head. A blessing and a curse, I only got into photography to be able to show things to others.

My knowledge is nil, but growing quickly thanks to you and your ilk.

Question for this post!

How did you go about editing my photo and would having a higher quality jpeg help?

Not that I want you to do the work I have to learn, just interested in your methodology.
Ronj

[frank abramonte]

Ron, welcome back, hope this makes sense to you. If I left anything out I'll cover it on the next go-around.
By the way, you are aware that i'm on a mac platform so some of the commands may not be familiar to you, but are available on the pc.

[Quote]aren't you diminishing the depth to some degree?[Quote]
1. Not necessarily, since you can achieve depth through variations and saturation of colors.

[Quote]I don't understand the colour problem with the blacks that you mention[Quote]
2. Don't concern yourself with this now. it would only come into play if you wanted to print your work on paper.

[Quote]I am only a hobbyist[Quote]
3. Your work shows that your are beyond being a hobbyist. What you lack it the refinements a and confidence.

[Quote]I only got into photography to be able to show things to others.[Quote]
The only way you will know when you've succeeded is when people stop suggesting corrections to your work.

[Quote]would having a higher quality jpeg help[Quote]
A higher quality document is always beneficial since it contains a greater amount of color information.
The greater the dpi the more color information and the larger you can enlarge without loss of quality.
Check this link.
http://www.photoelf.com/support/faq/pixel.shtml


A. I didn't resize your photo I re-cropped it using the crop tool. Select the area you want to be included in the new document with the crop tool, if prompted say ok.
The Photo will reduce on the screen and retain it's original dpi but show less of the background.
B. You can also use the marquee tool to select the part you want, but in this case you should move it to another document of equal dpi for it to take affect.
With this method you have the option of changing the resolution or not depending whether you check the "Resample Image" box.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1uaCc4SOstNppZ8yo4psKcZ7ljm6PY1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1uaCc4SOstNppZ8yo4psKcZ7ljm6PY1)

C. When you Resample from small size to large the software will interpret the missing pixels and fill in the void with what it thinks the missing pixel would have been, sort of averaging.
D. When you Resample from large to small the software will determine which pixels are to be discarded. This is more accurate that the first.
E. If you have flat colors then interpreting the missing colors is simple, they are all the same.
It's the difference of creating pixels to fill a solid color of 4+4+4+4+4+4+4
F. If you have a face or various blending of colors then the calculation becomes more complex.
The software had to creat pixels to fill a color of 4+2+2+4+5+2+5+2+
If you note in the first there is no averaging required, whereas in the second the software will have to average to create a fill in for gradual tone changes.
G. I hope this makes sense to you, if not wait a minute and it will.
H. I don't know your level of expertise with photoshop or elements. Can you work in layers? Do you know what each of the adjustment tools is capable of doing?

[Danudin]

Guess you saw through my one question ploy okay!

Some of it is as clear as mud the other will come into focus as the mud settles. I asked about how you got to work on my photo but saw your answer in the http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41676 thread so have a small idea on how to do that now and will work on your other info as it co-aleases for me.

Just for info I use a Nikon D70s and would love a D300 but don't feel I would need any stronger a camera, just better (Quicker) lenses. Don't get me wrong I love what I have got and what we (All) (or is that Y'all) are able to get out of it.

Most of my hard copies are currently being produced on an HP 2605 Color Laser printer (Mostly on heavy Matte card)
and to date only very few that I choose to print have been bad enough to toss out, but I am picky.

Just finished some volunteer instruction on the Indonesian Language and will have a bit of time till next week so will work on the blacks in that shot to see how it turns out and report back.

Your Question

"H. I don't know your level of expertise with photoshop or elements. Can you work in layers? Do you know what each of the adjustment tools is capable of doing?"

Well yes I only have PSE5 but am amazed by what it can do. My poor attempt at ripping off Monkey Magic to attain my (Partially me) avatar was done using layers. So Dabbled is the answer, was intrigued by the statement in the thread above (Either you or Juergen said) just keep adding layers to make it lighter, my intial response was and do what to them? I have played around with a few of the adjustment tools but to date it has only to achieve a specific job and the ideas come from here or photocamel.

Lately I have got hooked on Wendy's Orb tut and the results blow me away but every time I use it I can't help thinking Who found out that these actions produced this result. It is the same thing with most of the actions so far, but understanding is slowly breaking through.

Would love Photoshop, and the D300 nut as I said any spare cash will go into glass first, and I will come seeking advice on that too.

Hope this isn't too much Frank, it's like I tripped over a Diamond Mine and I just want to keep on picking up the pretty little baubbles
Ron

[frank abramonte]

1Q. [/QUOTE]I asked about how you got to work on my photo[/QUOTE]
1A. There are two way of copying posted image to your desktop (this all base on a mac platform, I don't know how it works on a PC).
#1 = Open the photo to the largest size (this mean not the thumbnail).
Hover the photo with your cursor and holding down the option key you will get a number of selections. One selection is to "Save to Desktop".
#2 = Open the photo to the largest size and take a screen shot.
Hold down the Cmd+Shift+4 keys. Once you do this you can drag a selection around the area you want to include with the rectangular marquee tool.
#3 = Same as #2 but hold down the Cmd+Shift+3 keys. This will automatically give you a photo of your entire screen. With this you don't have the option of selecting only the part you want. You can delete all the extra parts when you open it in Elements.


2Q. [/QUOTE]just keep adding layers to make it lighter[/QUOTE]
2A. Just adding layers to make it lighter doesn't pertain to all situations, if fact you would only use it if you had a rather dense photo where the detail was there but difficult to see.
More important are the adjustment layers.
I tend to take the simplest way of achieving a result. I often have made improvements in half the steps that other contributors used to make the same corrections. However, I'm shooting for a nice and acceptable result and not a museum piece.
I often test a number of the adjustment tools to see which gives me what I'm looking for, often combining two or more.
I don't spend my life studying photoshop techniques, I research them as I need them. This eventually give me a base from which I can work.
Most of my time is helping others on the Elements site.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1d2iS5EBie5kCfPAsgukuvMfYvZZ_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1d2iS5EBie5kCfPAsgukuvMfYvZZ)

3Q. [/QUOTE]hard copies are currently being produced on an HP 2605 Color Laser printer[/QUOTE]
3A. If you happy the way the dark areas are printing then don't worry about them. In commercial printing if you use too much density of ink to achieve a color it prints muddy and not a clean clear color.

I really couldn't tell whether you had a question or wanted advice or not, so I answered what I thought was a question. If you do have any more questions post back.

One other thing. On the last photo that I cropped. The reason I cropped out some the background was that I thought you were concentrating on the water fall. Well the shot as it was originally detracted from the small amount of water going over the rocks. I made the water a more prominent part of the photo. The depth you would get from the highlights and shadows in the water and around the rocks. I hope this makes sense?


Here's a place where you can get various languages translated, not the one you on though.
http://translation.langenberg.com/