What is wrong?

[vinnyvinny]

HI all,

I need advice on the following pictures,

I had gotten my new camera E600, but apparently i do not know how to fully utilise the functions.

Tha pictures came out like this.... what is the problem? was it over exposed? How do i amend? I tried photoshop > Image> curve> auto too.

I had it in tha motion or auto mode .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7205499...in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7205499...n/photostream/
(Pardon the editing at the corner)

Thanks for helping

[donoreo]

The white balance, because of the fluorescent lights, is off. The second one has a better white balance.

Other than that, what do you think is wrong with the photos?

[vinnyvinny]

Hi Donoreo,

I find the colour are wrong for both.

How do i ensure bettter colour quality in future.

And perhaps how should i save these pictures using photoshop?

[markgozz]

Auto white balance ( if that's what your using ) doesn't always get it right but if you shoot in RAW it's one of the easiest things to correct in software ( photoshop's camera raw ) , you can save you images in many different formats but again if you save your Raw image and an extra image in JPEG you will cover all eventualities .

Mark

[Geoff I]

Sorry thought you had an Olympus oops

[OldBoy]

Your biggest problem is the Fluorescent tubes, as these don't give a consistent white light, and as they age this becomes worse. See below two quotes from Wikepedia.

Color rendering index (CRI) is a measure of how well colors can be perceived using light from a source, relative to light from a reference source such as daylight or a blackbody of the same color temperature. By definition, an incandescent lamp has a CRI of 100. Real-life fluorescent tubes achieve CRIs of anywhere from 50 to 99. Fluorescent lamps with low CRI have phosphors that emit too little red light. Skin appears less pink, and hence "unhealthy" compared with incandescent lighting. Colored objects appear muted. For example, a low CRI 6800 K halophosphate tube (an extreme example) will make reds appear dull red or even brown. Since the eye is relatively less efficient at detecting red light, an improvement in color rendering index, with increased energy in the red part of the spectrum, may reduce the overall luminous efficacy.

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency. This results in fluctuations not only with light output but color temperature as well,[33] which may pose problems for photography and people who are sensitive to the flicker.

Hope that helps.

[canoman]

Using tubes converts the mains sine wave to square wave,so its a case of now you see it, now you don`t

[jet_kit]

To my mind the whole colour balance issue is an irrelevance, this is so easily fixed in PP. What the images lack is Punch, or Pop and the reason for that is that they've been taken at a high shutter speeds with ambient light.
If you check out the EXIF data these images were taken using ISO 640 and 800 respectively, both at 1/320 sec @ f3.5 with an 18mm lens. I'm assuming this was the 18-55mm kit lens.
So, let's look at what we have. The ISO setting is too high for a good noise-free image and should perhaps be around the 400 mark.
In an attempt to accentuate the height of the jump you have shot from a low angle, but this has has included the light source in the image which is being picked up by the meter resulting in the underexposure of the subjects, therefore you need to change the camera angle to keep them out of the frame.
This is immediately going to present you with a problem, because this is going to give you a shutter speed of about 1/100 sec @ f3.5, which I'm guessing is wide open. This is too slow to capture the action. It will also loose the impact gained from the low angle.
There is only one solution - Flash. Even the built-in flash on the camera will freeze the action and give you a better colour rendition. You'll be able to work with a smaller aperture which will increase the depth of field and increase sharpness overall (no lens works at it's best wide open). If you have a separate flash unit then even more possibilities are open to you. Switch off the lights (at least those in view) because they'll only confuse the camera. This will make life difficult for the AF, so I suggest you switch to manual and pre-focus with all the light you can get beforehand.
Hope this helps.

[jet_kit]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

Fluorescent lamps using a magnetic mains frequency ballast do not give out a steady light; instead, they flicker at twice the supply frequency. This results in fluctuations not only with light output but color temperature as well,[33] which may pose problems for photography and people who are sensitive to the flicker.

Living up to your name; OldBoy.

Modern fluorescent fittings (i.e.20 or so years) are all high frequency luminaires with electronic ballasts. These typically oscillate at around 20kHz which is a little faster that the supply frequency of 50Hz (UK) and 60Hz (USA), and the reason flicker is no longer an issue. They offer many other advantages; quick-start, soft-start, much increased tube life and, in many instances allowing the lamps to be dimmed.
I prepared a 40-page dissertation on this subject for expert testimony in court case about 10 years ago. I think I can find it if anyone want a copy?