Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 2, 2006, 11:59 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38
Default

OK I have the E-500, I think it takes absoluely awesome pictures except for when I photgraph the woods. I don't know what it is but it seems to me that the exposure can't seem to capture the complexity of green shapes? Is this make any sense to anyone?

Below is an image I took in the jungle.. I have found the same problem while photographing any forests. The images just look too digital.. I'm under the impression that it could be a problem caused by jpg compression.




adamwarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 2, 2006, 12:19 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

Well, to begin with, the composition isn't going to be very flattering to any camera/lens combination. Plus, you're apparently using the 14-45 lens, which is not bad as a kit lens goes, but not optimum--it has more CA than the 14-54, for example. The kind of photograph you're attempting is difficult with any camera, not just the E-500. What kind of PP did you use? That's really the key when using any dSLR. I started out with the E-300 thinking that it couldn't take anything right, even with expensive ED lenses like the 50mm f2, but it was just the learning curve--which includes pp.

On a somewhat related note, just today I got two poster prints, sized B1, taken with the E-300 this year, that are really great. I think it just takes some time to learn how to best combine the out-of-camera results with your PP--and use of a dSLR almost always assumes some degree of PP. If you want better results out-of-camera with JPEG, I'd go to a high-level digicam rather than dSLR.

Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 1:21 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Wheather this isa good composition or bad is irrelavant...also theexposure leve. I am only reffering to the genral detailof the forest.This image is justto serve as an example of what I am talking about.

I tried different exposure settings of the same frame and the lack of detail on complex textures (forest background) is very poor. I have a lot of experience with SLR cameras and I never saw that.. only with my new dSLR.

Since you didn't like my shot here is a better exposed shot which shows the same problem, the details of simpler shapes and solids is much higher but leaf complexity seems to stump the sensor (or the processing in the camera). The trees look like a blend of green shapes rather than leaves.




adamwarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 2:48 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

hi I'm new to fourm but have an e-500 and 3 other digital cameras, my favoriteplaces to shoot is in the woods & mountains around my home. Taking photos in the woods is hard. Forrests have extremely wide contrast and dynamic range. I have learned through countless headaches and wrongly blaming the equipment when to take pictures in forests. my greatest success is early morning to 1 hour after sunrise. dull shadowless overcast days are also good. eveings are also alright if there is no wind. Norm is right though based on your 2 examples, I have probaly 500 pics like those you posted & for several years i beat my head against the wall trying to fix them but now I've learned to shoot when the light is right. no camera to my knowledge is going to handle that cotrast range. hope this helps.
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2006, 4:38 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

Check the foreground of your second shot; the low-lying vegetation. More like the detail you're looking for? You've got a great deal of contrast differential in this shot. The area beneath the trees is in shadow while the foreground and lake are in direct sun. You could spot-meter on the trees in shadow to expose them correctlybut would then blow-out the highlights in the foreground and lake.

There's a lot to be said for choosing the right angle and light. Bright sun can be your friend, but more often is your worst enemy when trying to get a good overall exposure. Unless you're into using split neutral-density filters and other such tricks no digital camera can compensate for all lighting conditions.
stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 6:12 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Thanks! I like your comments and it makes sense. I also do alot of outdoor photography and I was wondering if you have an idea for a filter that would help me in taking those shots.

You mentioned split-natural density... can you elaborate about that?

Also, a sales guy tried to sell me a polarizing filter when I ordered the 14-54mm. As far as I knew that was used for removing reflections. He told me its good for outside photography as well, does anyone know if this is true?
adamwarp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 7:30 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
-=edge=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 220
Default

polarizing filters do indeed help to bring out skies in a richer tone and they punch through haze, bringing a more balanced contrast to your shots....learning how to compose your shots using a histogram and PP is also important
-=edge=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 7:30 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Quote:
You mentioned split-natural density... can you elaborate about that?
It's a filter that part of it is clear, and the other part is darkened, but neutral (doesn't affect colour).

A more natural one would be a "graduated" neutral density filter that has a smooth transition between the clear and darkened portions. Here's a great example:

http://www.photokaboom.com/images/ha...uated_hand.jpg

That filter is probably a "Cokin" brand which requires a special holder, but the advantage is you can shift the darkened portion...there are also round ones but they are more limited as the divison runs right across the half way point:

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/ima...-nd-filter.gif

For more examples go to Google Images and type in GRADUATED NEUTRAL DENSITY FILTER.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2006, 1:15 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: south west pennsylvania
Posts: 415
Default

i agree with edge on the polarizing filter, i always have one on for any senic shots no exceptions, they add contrast and natural detailed saturation to the pics without bumping up in camera sat. or in pp. i also use several differnt neutral grad filters. they have there place but would not have helped ethier shot you posted. circ polarizer might have a little. also i have several filter holders for the cokin system but rarely use them to hold the filters due to vinetting instead i just use gaffers tape or duct tape to hold to lens.
cshanaberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2006, 7:44 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38
Default

Apparantly its me who is poor at taking forest shots. Great info guys thanks. It makes a lot of sense and I think the gradient filter would have helped even the terrible shot I first posted. Iam going to get one soon as it should solve a lot of my problems.

Last question, is there a difference in exposure and contrast between shots taken at open aparture short shutter vs. closed apartureand long exposure. I'm not asking about the depth of field, just contrast?
adamwarp is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:45 AM.