Ranger Adventure

[RubberGears]

Originally Posted by txpaulranger

I truly appreciate them.

What I thought of camera setting was that if you set your shutter speed low, you could capture the dark area brighter. So I paid more attention to shutter speed and waited for a right moment and those are results.
I had been waiting for right moment and felt so bummer.

Are there any standard setting to shoot those sitting position to capture the moment of grace of uppie God?

Andy gave you almost everything you need for camera settings here: https://forum.oneclickchicks.com/show...6&postcount=30

Just do EXACTLY what he tells you on the settings and set your focus point to the center only. Resist your urges to experiment.

[AndyR]

Originally Posted by txpaulranger

What I thought of camera setting was that if you set your shutter speed low, you could capture the dark area brighter.

This is the point where you are going to have to decide how much you want to learn about photography. I previously suggested you should Google the term "exposure triangle", and to discuss your statement above, you really must understand this concept. So go ahead, Google it now, and read a bit. I'll wait, I've got some free time.

OK, you're back, lets talk about that concept in relation to candid photography.

Basically, on a Digital SLR you have three things you can adjust to get a correct, or desired exposure. You have

1) shutter speed
2) aperture
3) ISO

No matter which one you adjust, there will always be an undesirable consequence, at least when it comes to upskirting.

Shutter speed (without flash):

As I said before, you really, really must keep this above 1/320, preferably 1/400 or even 1/500 if you are using your telephoto lens near or at it's limit of 300mm, in order to PREVENT MOTION BLUR. This is a pretty short amount of time for the shutter to be open, so not much light gets in. So now we have to find a way to get more light using one or both of the other corners of the exposure triangle still available to us.

Aperture:

Frequently, this will be limited by the lens. A lens small enough, and black in color not to attract undue attention (you've seen those big white ones that Canon makes, right?) is going to have a pretty small "largest aperture", which is the size of the hole through which light can enter your camera. Your lens is "variable aperture", so this number changes as you zoom. From somewhere around 200mm on up, this is going to be F5.6. This is not good, but we're stuck with it due to limitations of the hardware (and trust me, you wouldn't be at all stealthy with a big white F2.8 lens that lets in more light).

ISO:

Uh-oh, were down to one thing we can adjust to get a brighter image. Maybe this is the magic bullet that will save the day??? Alas, no. ISO is like the volume control on your stereo. You can keep turning it up, but eventually all you get is distortion, or in camera terms, noise. ISO 400 is cool, ISO 800 is still good, but ISO 1600 is as far as you want to push it (there are values in between these if you set the camera to 1/3 stop ISO adjustments in the config menu - highly recommended).

I'll be blunt - on a cloudy day, in deep shade, or even if the woman is just facing in the wrong direction on a bright sunny day, you will QUICKLY get into a situation where there simply is NOT enough adjustment. Something has to give, so what's it going to be???


Shutter speed?? Motion blur can NEVER, ever, ever, EVER be fixed afterwards in software. Period. Burn that thought into your head. You MUST keep the shutter speed up, because if you blow this one, then your images are all going to be crap. (and please, nobody tell me about the motion blur fixer in Photoshop CC2015 - it does NOT work!!!)

Maximum aperture?? Even if we could afford one of those big white lenses, it sure would be pretty conspicuous walking around with it, wouldn't it?? This is simple physics, the bigger the hole to let in light, the bigger the lens. So we're stuck with what we've got here, F5.6 maybe f5.0 if you don't zoom too far.

ISO. The final frontier, so to speak. This is what we've got left after shutter & aperture, and it's what you are going to end up boosting to get proper exposure... I believe your camera may be set to "auto ISO" mode. This is ok, as long as there is a configuration to prevent it from going too high - check the manual. If it can be configured to stop at 1000, or worst case 1600, then auto ISO would be ok to use. Otherwise you should set it to a fixed value, and learn how to change it quickly.

My point in all this is that, depending on the day and the light, you can quickly run out of options that allow you to get proper exposure. But it's always, ALWAYS going to be better to have an underexposed picture with NO motion blur.

Now, sometimes we've got enough light, but the area we are interested in comes out too dark in the final picture. In other words, sometimes we still have some headroom with either our aperture or ISO. In this case we can use "exposure compensation" to make the panties brighter at the moment we take the picture, although it will *over-expose* other parts of the image. This is what I'm going to call an "advanced topic", and I'll talk more about it in a future post. For now, look up "Setting Exposure Compensation" in the Canon manual if you are interested.

I've made some very basic, quick and reasonably subtle adjustments to an image from your last post. There are probably others here who could do a better job, and some people might prefer a less subtle adjustment that really highlights the panties. This is just a quick take on it using my personal preferences. I want to show you that even though the panties are underexposed, we can fix this afterwards in software. You camera was in full auto mode, so it's pure luck that the picture ended up this way (Canon tends to favor low shutter speeds in full auto mode, frequently ruining shots by causing motion blur), but in essence, this is the kind of settings you want to end up with by setting them yourself. Take a look:

[txpaulranger]

Thanks for all the great info. It's a long way to go. I keep trying. Meanwhile, those were captured without any confusions in camera settings.

[AndyR]

I'm going to throw this post in before talking about exposure compensation, because it highlights something important.

In locations where it is appropriate**, using flash makes a mind boggling difference in the amount of detail your camera can capture. I didn't take the set of images below to create a teaching point, they just struck me as interesting and very illustrative as I was scanning some old images looking at settings.

Images 1a, 1b, and 1c are all created from the same photo. Versions b and c simulate what it would have looked like if I had applied the stated amount of exposure compensation in the camera. The flash did not fire in this photo because I didn't wait quite long enough for the flash to recharge. There is a finite time between flashes, and back in those days it could be close to 8 seconds if the flash fired at full power, and the batteries weren't really fresh. Someone unintentionally stepped between me and her in the previous photo I took, and I guess I pushed the shutter button again before counting to 8.

Image 2 was shot a few seconds later, but the flash had recovered and was ready to fire by this time. Notice how obvious the wet spot in her panties is in comparison to any of the previous images... and I did try to bring out the wet spot via software manipulation in 1b and 1c.

Images 3a & 3b are created from the same photo. I deliberately turned off the flash because I wanted a nice full-body shot showing off her boobs in that position, and I didn't want the slight over-exposure on her skin that I knew from experience the flash images would have.

Image 4 the flash is on again. Notice that you can actually see the stitching in the leg band of her panties... serious detail that otherwise would have been completely lost.

The images are annotated, and numbered in the order in which it makes sense to view them.

In case you are wondering why the shutter speed is so low, after I just spent the previous post taking about keeping it over 1/320, well, this is because of the flash. If you refer back to the post where I talked about settings recipes that I frequently used (bottom of page 3), you'll note that I said "Manual mode (M) 1/200sec (limited by X-sync of camera), aperture f8, ISO never below 400", and that's exactly what I'm shooting. I also said "not to push" the zoom, and you'll note that in all cases I was under 200mm on that old Canon 75-300mm image stabilized zoom. I'd say that recipe works!


**appropriate - generally speaking, any tourist venue where there are steps with people sitting on them, and an interesting tourist attraction behind them, such as a famous building, a statue, a monument, a fountain, sculptures, anything of that nature. Buskers & street performers make an excellent excuse as well, just be careful to tip them if it appears you've taken a bunch of pics of them so as not to cause a disturbance - what's a buck or two in exchange for an excuse to take a bunch of great uppies? If you spend a little time watching, you'll notice other people's flashes going off in these kinds of locations too, so it's unlikely you are the only "flasher" - lol. When you use the flash, it's *especially* important to snipe, not spray. You can do 2 to 4 images, stroll around while keeping an eye out to see if the position improves, then if it does, maybe fire off a couple more flash images, then you're done, you need to move on, even if you don't want to. I do not advocate taking undue risk, but when you have a fuster-cluck of tourists all taking pics, one more flash in the mess goes unnoticed, unless you start making a nuisance of yourself. Places where flash is inappropriate is any place where people are scattered far between, and there are absolutely no scenic things around that would justify a photo, flash or no.

Note: You can not, you must not use the internal flash on your camera to try to take images like these. It is not powerful enough, and everything will come out under-exposed.

[txpaulranger]

I can't thank enough very precious information. I can't ask anywhere else.

I have another problem.

Those pics were taken when they were shown crystal clear see-through in naked eyes, but somehow picture didn't come out as clear as I saw. Why is that?

[txpaulranger]

more mystery.

[txpaulranger]

more of them.

[AndyR]

Originally Posted by txpaulranger

Those pics were taken when they were shown crystal clear see-through in naked eyes, but somehow picture didn't come out as clear as I saw. Why is that?

There are various reasons that see through does not look very see through on a digital camera. The key here is to get used to the fact that the camera is not as good as your eyes, and not waste time on girls who aren't wearing ridiculously transparent clothing. Look for the very most awesome, and only raise the camera & press the shutter button if there is genuine potential.


1) Some of you may remember a big scandal back in the 90's when Sony released video cameras with a feature called "night-shot". Essentially, the camera switched to an infrared mode, allowing the owner to take videos in near darkness, although the resulting video was just in shades of green. It didn't take long for people to discover that if you activated that feature in the daytime, it made certain combinations of clothing colors nearly transparent. Sony quickly rectified this situation by changing the wavelength of the IR filter so that future cameras could still take low light videos, but daytime videos no longer made people's clothing see through.

Today, all digital cameras (except those specifically designed for astro-photography, such as the Canon 20Da, or Nikon's D810a) have an IR reduction filter bonded over the sensor during manufacture, it's generally preferred to get rid of those wavelengths of light in digital image processors, although not specifically to prevent clothing from becoming see-through... clothing being less see-through in pictures than in real life is merely a byproduct. I suppose if you were really wild about see-through, you could buy one of these specific camera models, then place the appropriate IR pass filter over the lens and go shooting. It should be noted that the IR pass filters in question appear completely black to the naked eye, so people will helpfully tell you to take your lens cap off if they see you shooting a camera like this. And best you not tell them it's an IR filter, because various US states have passed laws against using IR filters to shoot candid or voyeuristic see-through or "x-ray" images of people.

2) Cameras don't "see" colors. With the sole exception of the Foveon sensor used in a handful of virtually unknown Sigma cameras, all digital sensors are black & white, and colors are approximated using something called a "Bayer filter" bonded over the sensor during the manufacturing process. There is no specific data indicating that this reduces the see through effect, but it certainly can't help.

3) Colors - the human eye can discern about 10 million different shades of color, and is particularly good at discerning different shades of the same color... when all those shades are presented at the same time (eg woman wearing white lace bra under thin white shirt), although we generally suck at discerning particular shades at different times & locations (eg matching a paint color chip in a store to the color of the wall you need to touch up at home). Cameras generally have a limited number of bits used to represent a particular shade of color, so they generally suck at seeing through "same colors". Pick your battles wisely, as you can see in my examples, a medium blue outfit with white underwear produces exceptional levels of see-through.

4) Lighting, and light levels. Have you every been in a very professional office environment, and noticed a woman who seems to be wearing something inappropriately see through? Don't think for a second that that she woke up one morning and decided to dress like a skank (as some people on the forums seem to believe). Getting dressed in the early morning at home with dim household lighting levels, it's a sure bet that everything was perfectly opaque. Bright office lighting, or outside on lunch break on a sunny summer afternoon... poof, suddenly things are a whole lot more see through. But she's not looking in a mirror now, is she, so she has no idea. And most co-workers would be mortified to say anything in this age of political correctness. The point here is that different lighting conditions cause differing levels of see-through of the exact same clothing. Also, as you and your subject change positions relative to the sun, every shot is going to be different. There is no recipe for shooting this.

5) Exposure levels - when you are trying to take "see-through shots", it's always better to under-expose a bit. If you over-expose, there is pretty much no hope of manipulating the image in software to get more see through effect.


I chose one of your shots that was a little underexposed to show you what can be done in software. I think OCC actually has a rule against doing this, but hopefully one image for educational purposes won't raise the ire of the mods.

Basically, you need to take an image manipulation program, almost anything will work, and play with several key adjustments - "levels", "contrast", "shadows", "blacks", "dodge & burn", "clarity", "haze reduction". Please note that the names of these tools vary from program to program, these are what Adobe refers to them as. There is no particular "recipe" here, every image is different, and will require different amounts of some or all of these adjustments to improve the "see-through-ness" of the image.

The final version of your image is converted to black & white with Adobe's infrared filter applied. Surprisingly, it does a passable simulation of what you would get if you used real IR hardware on an appropriate camera... !!! However, if you are expecting miracles, you are doomed to disappointment...

(it is possible to push all these adjustments much further, but then the image really starts looking strange / bad. It is also possible to "mask" just the areas of bra and panty, and hit those areas only with a lot more adjustment - this is quite a bit of work & only worth doing on the most spectacular of women in my opinion)


I've included a few examples of see-through that illustrate how important it is to look for women wearing something spectacularly sheer, preferably with some difference in the color of the under verses outer wear.

In conclusion: Don't waste time on this. Only shoot if the situation and the woman is TRULY SPECTACULAR!!!

[txpaulranger]

You are very kind enough to share your knowledge. Those are my best so far. She was in same position for a while.

[txpaulranger]

action