Histograms
One of this week's topic was histograms--how to interpret them, and what to aim for when doing so. I learned that I should be avoiding any shots that had pixels stacked at either end of the histogram, indicating under- or overexposure. In practice, it was a bit trickier to actually take shots in which this didn't occur.
Due to the brutally cold weather we've been having lately, and my work schedule, I was limited to experimenting indoors at night, which once again lead to tungsten spot-lighting in a relatively dark apartment. I wonder whether these conditions caused some of the difficulty I had in making pictures that weren't blown out or greyed out.
The shot below, for example, while visually interesting to me, and by far the best exposure of many attempts, still has a stack of pixels that are underexposed (left side of histogram), and overexposed (right side). The image itself is low-key, with a majority of dark pixels on the left.
Email me if you'd like to see the high-res version of any of these images.
Since I wasn't able to find an exposure that solved the problems in the scenario above, I switched subjects, and repositioned my light for more diffuse lighting. Again after many failed attempts, I was able to capture the following image, which, though less interesting, has a much improved histogram, with just a few rogue pixels in the underexposed range, but for the most part displaying the small space at the left and right I was aiming for.
Comments
send me a picture of your indoor setup sometime -tungsten lighting? You have a special lamp, I suppose?
Posted by: Mom | April 17, 2007 11:03 AM