Help needed dwith photos

[A-two]

Here are my challenges:-
1. There is no view through the patio doors that I can take without furniture cutting across it, so the cut out is going to be irregular whatever the angle.
2. There was so much light coming through the patio doors that it was impossible to get an exposure that didn't bleach out the edges of the furniture. I could have another go to see if I can improve on this, and/or I could close curtains, which would mean cutting them out again when the insert goes in, or I could take the photo when there's no sun, on a rainy grey day, and/or later in afternoon, when the sun has moved round the other side. Which would be best?
3. The center panel of the patio doors is a different exposure from the outside two panels because there is an extra screen door on the outside, which is a fine wire mesh to keep bugs out and the camera is exposing for that panel, not the outside two panel. My other half may be willing to remove it for the photo, but I will not be popular asking for it!
4. I have to zoom in to the window to get the outside exposure, otherwise the camera doesn't register it well enough, which I suspect is why CatherineS did the same above.

These are only rough photos taken today, (I didn't arrange furniture on the deck properly etc.) but I'd like to whether it would even be possible to fix this photo to anything half decent, even if I had the Photoshop skills, which I would be willing to try and learn if the answer is yes.

[Normandy Cow]

Joanna,
You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I do like a challenge!

Points 1,3 and 4 shouldn't be too much of a problem, but point 2 is a bit difficult. If this was the only photo you had, I could have a go at it, but it will never be a very good outcome.

If you could have another go at taking this interior shot again, then I think we could get there. Try taking it when the sun is not streaming through the window - as you said, on a dull or rainy day or at a different time of the day when the sun has moved to another position. The important thing is to get the exposure correct for the interior - never mind about the outside, that can be completely bleached out, but we do need a better definition of the furniture etc.

[A-two]

CatherineS,
Thank You! Thinking about it, I can reduce the light coming into the interior by closing the curtains on two other windows in the room, also by waiting until late afternoon when the sun moves round the back of the house, so the overall light levels would be lower. I'll try moving the chair a foot to the right and drawing the curtains a foot to the left, enough to make a difference on the chair outline. Attention to detail, that's the key!

The sun isn't actually streaming into the room in the above photo, even though it appears that way. (The light levels are just very high here, which is one reason I love the place, the sky is BIG!). But the photo was taken shortly after midday, so I will have another go later in the day, hopefully tomorrow.

I'll also try for a better exterior at the same time, but would like sunflowers on the patio set outside as people love that photo I have on my website and they are not in season right now, or I could buy ......gasp...fake sunflowers!

However, apart from the next few days, I'm not going to get another opportunity to do a late afternoon shot on the interior as we're booked solid until September, so I'll concentrate on getting that shot first. The exterior can be done at any time on a changeover.

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction in such a timely fashion! Thanks to you, I now know what to do. More later......

[Alan Knighting]

At the risk of appearing hopelessly old-fashioned, there is another way.

A 35mm SLR film camera is much more capable of handling this sort of thing than is any digital camera no matter how many mega-pixels it might have. Your photo shop will burn the results to hard disc on request and you can then “play� with the files to your heart’s content.

Alan

[Normandy Cow]

A 35mm SLR film camera is much more capable of handling this sort of thing than is any digital camera no matter how many mega-pixels it might have.

Sorry Alan, I have to disagree with you there.

I have been a member of my local camera club for many years. In the 80s and 90s I did all my own (monochrome) developing and printing, and had been of the same opinion as you when digital cameras first came out.

But now, I have to say that about 90% of the members of the club have switched to digital and we would not go back.
To prove to you that I consider myself to be a "serious" photographer, take a look at a collection of my photos - most of these were taken on my old Canon AE1 SLR and printed by me in my old makeshift darkroom in my kitchen (then recently scanned in to my PC), but 3 of them were taken on a pocket digital camera. I defy you to tell the difference (but here's a clue - those taken since 2000 are digital ).
www.photoclinic.co.uk (PS I'm looking for a publisher for these so if anyone can put me in touch with someone it would be much appreciated!)

[Alan Knighting]

Catherine,

You are of course entitled to disagree as much as you like, and so are the members of your camera club.

I too use a Canon AE-1 and I too have more or less abandoned it in favour of digital. Not because of quality but because of cost and convenience.

Based on my experience, a good SLR is much more capable of handling subtle and extreme colours scales and lighting contrasts.

The quality required for a sharp picture to be viewed on a PC screen is so low that it doesn’t matter. The scales and contrasts do matter and I prefer my route, even if it’s not fashionable.

Happy pointing and pressing.

Alan

[Normandy Cow]

OK Alan, we can agree to disagree on this one!

...But I have to add that those photos will be just as sharp, if not sharper, when/if(!) they are published at full pagesize in an A4 sized book. The ones on the website are just jpegs. Watch this space...

[Alan Knighting]

Catherine,

It’s all a matter of the technology lying behind digital –v- film. No matter what chip is used to capture an image with a digital camera it has a limited dynamic range compared to film. With digital cameras the amount of detail that can be captured when working with light and dark subjects together is limited. It is simply an inescapable symptom of digital photography in general. Adding the extra contrast of direct flash only exacerbates the problem with digital cameras, as does playing with exposure.

Whilst I stand by what I said, I accept a perfectly adequate picture can be obtained with a digital camera in most circumstances so it doesn’t really matter for most of the time and a digital camera is most certainly the more convenient.

However, the example you illustrated is not “most of the time� and I remain convinced that your old Canon AE-1 SLR would make an infinitely better fist of it. You have the technology; you could do a back to back test; give it a try and tell me if I am right or wrong. If I am wrong I will “go to the top of our stairs�.

Quite coincidentally I have a friend staying with me who is a movie film cameraman. I have discussed this question with him and he insists he can recognise movies recorded using film from those recorded digitally because of this very problem – the rendering of light and dark at the same time.

For day-to-day photography I stay with my digital camera, for special purposes the SLR always comes out of the cupboard.

Alan

[gh]

Just had a look at your photograpths Catherine and although I'm no expert I think they are good and enjoyed reading their biography, I have spent an afternoon in Pere Lachaise and was amazed that I enjoyed looking at the graves and how tranquil it was.

I hope you find someone to publish them.