bud shot exposure test

So I'm about to shoot my year cured buds thread and was wondering which exposure people liked best

So I shot a sweetblue mystery seed bud as an example.

took 5 shots each with a different aperture.
f20
http://www.fullmeltbubble.com/galler...5/f20_9405.jpg
f22
http://www.fullmeltbubble.com/galler...5/f22_9404.jpg
f29
http://www.fullmeltbubble.com/galler...5/f29_9403.jpg
f32
http://www.fullmeltbubble.com/galler...5/f32_9402.jpg
f36
http://www.fullmeltbubble.com/galler...5/f36_9401.jpg

So which one is it?
Which do you like best and why?

As a graphic designer who uses photoshop a lot for color correction and making sure it will be printable for offset printing. i have chosen f36. The histogram reveals the contrast will be better than the others. I would bring your white point down a little though and add some unsharp masking to it.

I would choose the f36 as well, especialy as it darkens the background much more profoundly and in that way makes the bud stand out even more imo.


Peace
Bubbleman

Hiya Trichome farmer.Nice tosee you here :) Hope all is well and by the way wish you a Happy New Year full of bubble!

Yep , f36 it is . :D

I prefer to underexpose a bit most of the times, especially when shooting reflective/refractive objects that show bright highlights , cause its easier to push the exposure upwards in post (especially if you work with RAW files that have quite high dynamic range compared to standard 8 bit images) ,..than recover detail in overexposed-burned highlights areas .

first off are you using a flash when shooting?

even beeing a 1/2 stop underexposed can create problems resulting in colorshift, added grain noise etc.. your exposure isnt totaly determined to your aperture. all that aperture is letting you do is have more depth of field the smaller you go (larger f/stop). it's a matter of what you want to show or what you'd like to have sharp in you image. at f/36 if thats the maximum aperture you can achieve on that given lense then it means you're whole frame will be sharp cornre to diagonal corner .


another factor is , is it a high key or low key scenerio . in the example above that would be considered a low key scenerio. so keying in on your whites wouldnt be th greatest way to get detail out of it, you'll just end up blowing out your highlights if you meter for your whites , you'll also loose detail in the shadow and mid tones.

if it's for the web i'd go till you just blow your whites over 1/3 of a stop. computer screens will alway be more sharp then a print and thefore having a true white is ideal for view.

if its for printing you should check with your histogram and make sure you're not blowing out your whites way too much. and check with your lab and comp screen after getting a print to see if its the same on screen as in print. every lab is different.

also know you're using a nikon slr i believe, well any dSLR these days are equiped with a reflective light meter on board meaning it only evaluates reflected light. it's not really taking in account for ambient light sources so it all depends on what metering pattern you're set to and what exactly you wanted exposed.

Hello h0meGRwN,

Nice input :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h0meGRwN

first off are you using a flash when shooting?

even beeing a 1/2 stop underexposed can create problems resulting in colorshift, added grain noise etc..

---

I haven't seen any problems of color shifting when changing f-stop to underexpose neither have seen added grain.Of course I don't refer to low light conditions where you need to compensate with higher ISO (which always means more noise n grain)or longer shutter speed. But I refer to the case where you can use more light to keep the same ISO and shutter speed, just change the f-stop , or when you have lots of light like when outdoors with sunlight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h0meGRwN

your exposure isnt totaly determined to your aperture. all that aperture is letting you do is have more depth of field the smaller you go (larger f/stop). it's a matter of what you want to show or what you'd like to have sharp in you image. at f/36 if thats the maximum aperture you can achieve on that given lense then it means you're whole frame will be sharp cornre to diagonal corner .

---

You re right but don't forget that most lenses are not very sharp / have lower resolution at their higher f-stops (and most lenses at lower f-stops as well). So even though you may have better depth of field (more things in focus) most of the times you don't get better overall results compared to lower f-stops like f-16 or f-22 instead of f-32 due to blurring/less resolution. For example most lenses have their best resolution at around f-4 - f-8 depending on how 'fast' a lens is of course.And dont forget that in higher than 1:1 magnifications (where we use extensions most of the times:extension tubes / bellows) the 'effective f-stop' is different to what we ve set the lens ('marked f-stop') Also we get better results with medium f-stops not extremes due to diffraction and longer exposure times/higher ISO..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h0meGRwN

another factor is , is it a high key or low key scenerio . in the example above that would be considered a low key scenerio. so keying in on your whites wouldnt be th greatest way to get detail out of it, you'll just end up blowing out your highlights if you meter for your whites , you'll also loose detail in the shadow and mid tones.

if it's for the web i'd go till you just blow your whites over 1/3 of a stop. computer screens will alway be more sharp then a print and thefore having a true white is ideal for view.

if its for printing you should check with your histogram and make sure you're not blowing out your whites way too much. and check with your lab and comp screen after getting a print to see if its the same on screen as in print. every lab is different.

---

Generally I 'd say if you work with raw format , always underexpose just a bit even if you mean to post the images online only , just to make sure you don't get burned/overblown highlights, cause you can't recover details in overexposed highlight areas, while with shadows its easier to recover the details in the dark areas as most DSLR cams have better high dynamic range compared to most films/slide film.The best thing to do is avoid extreme contrast in your scene so you dont have problems with exposure and lost detail.A way to do this is to use 'reflector cards' photographers use and/or 'light diffusers' .


By the way I was wondering has anyone of you tried to make any HDR format images and tonemap them afterwards to make the image into a LowDynamicRange one (so its more pleasing and natural looking to the eye) ? I ve done a few and have seen another ICmag member has done it as well.Its good approach but I prefer to just make sure I have good lighting from the start to get a good pic straight from the cam. Or at least minimize the post editing and correction process time.

i agree raw format is the way to go, its true it dependent on your lens quality and speed, you can recover some information on an over exposed picture but don't look at grabbign to much , it'll start to fall apart after 1stop of correction in my opinion. reflector cards are handy and will help determine a proper exposure when using 18% grey card (all dSLR cameras are calibrated to 18%grey) using a white card to balance is key when shooting dSLR.

as far HDR no i havent switched over to that, i just optimize my files as is and that's that.

Id go with f36 as well....i dont know shit about photography but that one looks like its got more depth and colour than the others...

well cool some responses
thanks
1 these pictures are mostly for this site and as a record for myself.

2 im using a nikon d100 with 60mm nikkor 2.8 macro
the flash is an sb 29 ring flash and i use a sb 800 in a soft box.
the metering is matrix and i almost always shoot in aperture priority.

and shooting in jpeg and the only post shot alteration is file shrinking from 3000 x 2000 to 750 x 1000 soo pics upload to sites.

Hi trichomefarmer

The nikkor 60mm 2.8 macro is a good lens I ve worked with it and got some very nice sharp images.

I would suggest you shoot in raw if you photograph scenes with high contrast harsh shadows bright highlights etc..Jpgs are great as they are smaller files and are fine for most shots..but if you shoot in a grow room for example without flash or out of the reach of the flash I 'd suggest you try the raw files..its really 2-3 easy clicks then to correct/enhance a shot.I usually shoot Jpg when I just want to keep record pics and quality is of no concern to me but when I show my work or quality is of importance I like to edit the photos and work with raw.The best thing with raw is that even if you don't usually edit or correct pics in Post , it can save the day if you need to recover detail/color in certain over & under exposed shots.One more really good thing with raw is that White balance correction is not embedded in the files so its really easy to correct shots that were shot with wrong white balance setting in the cam and look for example very orange or blue tinted. With jpgs thats a real pain to correct (if possible at all is many cases) in the ass to correct but with raw needs just one click.


Great photographers always say its better to get the look you are after in the cam but technology evolves and its easier than ever nowadays to get great looking pics and recover detail even if a photo was problematic when shot and now with digital photography and photo editing computer software its very easy to do things unimagined before with minimum effort and time.

Is your soft box homemade DIY or did you buy one?
I was also wondering if your ring flash allows for only one side lighting (only half right/left side to light).

L33t

it's a bought softbox, had it for over 10years and yes i can adjust for 1 side only lighting with ring flash

nikon sb-29