You should have taken a reading of the outside, remember it , go inside set your reading in manual mode then take the shot, thats the simple way.
Outside is a little over exposed. Did you shoot raw or JPEG? Easily adjusted if you shot raw. Easy to get correct when shooting too. Set Manual mode, then meter on the scene outside. There is no need to run around, just point the camera out the window and get a meter reading. Then, the question is, do you want the inside to be a dark silhouette, or do you want it brighter? If you want it dark, once metered on the light outside, you shoot. If you want it lighter, fire a flash inside, probably at reduced power, adjust power up or down to taste.
Your vertical lines are not parallel, this can be fixed in camera by making sure it is level when you take the photo. If you can not have the camera level for some reason, then you can straighten later in post.
Well done Issi,
i agree with cutting out of lot of the negative space around the windows..
The other thing is there is a huge difference between Raw and Jpeg - Raw will give you far more latitude with less artifacts and noise when adjusting exposure in post..
Carlos, the silhouette works if there is less window frame, from a real estate point of view
If you can't fill flash in this situation then try a bracket sequence..
In the top image it would have been nice to see a boat or something else going on outside to strengthen the scene and create a focal point outside..
Carlos depending on how many images you shoot could be the difference detween shooting RAW and JPEG, Raw will eat up the space on your memory card fast, JPEG not so fast. With RAW you need special software to read the file, not so with JPEG. Every time you take a shot its recorded as a RAW data its then processed in camera to a JPEG, the RAW data then evaporates as soon as the JPEG is recorded. Raw data is not a picture until its processed with the special software unlike a JPEG. As one PRO photographer said "a raw is like an olive, you need to cook or otherwise process them before you can use them. They also go bad fast if left in the raw state and can keep forever once processed to olive oil or JPEG's"
Sports photographers always shoot JPEG never RAW. No time for all the exrta work plus the saving on card space.
There is a slight difference between RAW and JPEG but is the extra work worth it.
"They also go bad fast if left in the raw state and can keep forever once processed to olive oil or JPEG's"
this is probably one of the most laughed at and ridiculed statements ever since 2008 from the "Ken Rockwell" site and it's really not a good analogy for anyone wanting seriously to learn photography!
Why would you say Raw files go bad and advocate the Jpeg?
The poster does not need special software as the disk comes in the box with his camera for a reason.
It is virtually impossible to adjust white balance and exposure on a cooked JPEG and takes very little time on a Raw.
When we shoot events here we go Raw + Jpeg because our lights are set up optimally for the exposure and we print off just the Jpegs all night because of time limits.
We still have the Raw negative for people wanting an enlargement which is worked and printed from a .tiff and not a Jpeg.
Back up, xtra cards and back up internal / external drives are part of the course with photography these days and are not expensive.
If you need to re-edit a Jpeg compared to a Raw it's like frying food without the quoted olive oil, it will burn much quicker..
Ken's piece is here:http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
If you read the whole article it makes a degree of sense but it is a terrible analogy and I would not dare eat at his house for fear of getting food poisoning. The main points of his article are that:
- Each camera has its own proprietary raw file format and at some time in the future you may not have an operating system, conversion program and raw file that are all compatible. JPEG being a standard format will presumably still be able to be read by a number of devices.
- It takes time to do the conversion in the computer and is nearly instant when the camera does it.
- Most of what he takes with a digital camera can be accomplished with JPEG.
I think if all you ever do is a default conversion from raw to JPEG, you might as well save yourself the trouble and shoot JPEG. If you are going to touch your photos in the computer anyway, you probably should shoot raw as the extra time to process raw is minimal. I really like the difference in noise that I can achieve by doing my own conversion, to me that makes shooting raw worthwhile. I also find some scenes can be reprocessed and merged, pseudo HDR, which can not be done if you just have a JPEG. The article indicates he can go 2 stops up or down by doing tricky things with a JPEG. I can go 4 stops with raw, just by moving a slider. That is useful if you have a scene with very bright and very dark parts.
I agree with you i remember laughing at his analogy years ago - pity he can't actually be bothered to re-edit or update that page.
I don't know of anybody who does an immediate default conversion from Raw to Jpeg and can't think of any point to it.
I would have to take Ken Rockwell's claim that he can get a two stop difference in a JPEG with a pinch of salt - he can be a prize twit some of the time.
Totally agree with you on bracketing and HDR conversion, the most horrendous amount of noise can be generated by merging JPEG's and whats the point in then running a noise reduction filter to more squish the detail..
EXIF says these were shot with a Canon 7D so the software to convert a raw file came on the CDs in the box with the body. A 7D has dual DIGIC 4 processors so it is a 14 bit machine. When you convert from raw to JPEG, you keep 1/64th of the information available in the raw file and the rest is jettisoned. So as Reg says, there is a slight difference. I think it is worth shooting raw because there is more dynamic range and more latitude for white balance adjustment in difficult lighting. Sometimes it does not make any difference, sometimes it does. To calculate space, use 21 Mb for raw and 12 Mb for JPEG, with raw your card will fill twice as fast. The solution is simple, get a second card.
Gary look at the change I made from the posted image, think what the result would be given the original to work on, this is just a posted copy. I work in both RAW and JPEG depends what im shooting.
If you know how to set your camera up correctly in the first place a JPEG will do the job save time and space.
space is never an issue, as i said when we shoot events under optimum lighting we shoot Raw + Jpeg and print off the Jpegs continually all evening - the Raw is there for enlargements as interpolating / uprezzing a Jpeg is asking for trouble.
The changes i can see in the edit you posted are crushed blacks in the right treeline ie: now devoid of detail and amplified burn out in the sky.........
which is why the editors in our group only accept either Raw / .psd or 16 bit .tif files for processing / styling.
Thank you all, I shoot raw and used some of your hints, croped, exposed to the outside and the results was very good.