|
kevanrobitaille
Aug 10, 2006, 12:30 AM
Post #1 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
This is the second time I've taken shots in what i call 'spot light' lighting - mixed lighting created by sun breaking through the trees. I really like the effect it produces, but if i Expose to get the desired brightness on the climber, the 'spotlight' on the rock, or sometimes on the skin of the climber, is always burnt out/super over exposed. Is there a technique for correcting this?
Here's an example. http://forums.climbing.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=3434.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
cam
Aug 10, 2006, 12:46 AM
Post #2 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 219
|
If you shoot digital, the answer is simple. Try bracketing the shot and combining the images to for a high dynamic range result. There is a good article on HDR photography here.
Also, you can use a graduated neutral density filter in some situations, but this may prove to be useless when the "hot-spot" is central in the image.
Hope this helps.
cam out.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 10, 2006, 12:57 AM
Post #3 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
typically bracketing works well on static shots....your subject in that shot is on a boulder problem and i doubt he will remain motionless for you to autobracket so that you can line everything up.
the climber looks underexposed slightly so your hotspot is even hotter.
you could try the shadow highlight or the burn/dodge tool to adjust the hotspot, or you can live with it.
not sure why it is accepted to go black on your shadows but burnt highlights aren't acceptable.
the other thing you could do is use fill flash to even out the overall exposure closer to the hot spots more neutral brightness. so underexpose the ambient a bit and let the flash illuminate the climber. if you do this with and off camera setup it will even add some depth and not look flat.
not a bad shot btw.
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Aug 10, 2006, 3:39 AM
Post #4 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
In reply to: you could try the shadow highlight or the burn/dodge tool to adjust the hotspot, or you can live with it.
Is this a photoshop tool? I think its about time I go and get that...
|
|
|
|
|
pixelguru
Aug 10, 2006, 4:15 AM
Post #5 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 182
|
Shooting a high-contrast image like that in RAW mode will give you a lot more dynamic range to work with if your highlights are too hot, or your shadows get muddy.
This site has a pretty concise explanation of RAW vs JPEG.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/...are/camera-raw.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 10, 2006, 5:06 AM
Post #6 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Ahh, back to RAW vs. JPEG
no matter what, while RAW does give you more dynamic range because of the 16bits it most likely won't solve the OP's problem.
RAW is another digital excuse to not understand photography or it can be a great tool. To me the best use of RAW is shooting under the lights at sporting events and...to give me a fairly lossless 4MP boost in size by upsizing the original RAW file. Beyond that using it seems less a priority. It's a nice option to have though.
And yes the dodge and burn and shadow highlight are on Photoshop. Shadow highlight was added to Elements 3.0 and Photoshop CS. Prior versions don't have it. However, dodge and burn has been included with every semi recent version of photoshop (if not all of them from the start).
You have a few PS options Elements 3 or 4 for $75-100 or Paintshop Pro for about $100. Both give you most of the useful functionality of Photoshop full version without most of price. In fact Paintshop Pro is possibly as good as full Photoshop.
this was done in about 2 minutes in elements 3.0...not perfect but a bit better. I selected the climber and the hot points using magic wand, feathered, used shadow/highlight at about 3% shadow and 15% highlight. I then went over it with the burn tool at 15% exposure for just the hot points on the rock around the climbers hand. sharpened .3 @ 125%, 2 levels of noise.
http://www.mountainvisionsphotography.com/...089-shad-hi-burn.jpg
and the original:
http://forums.climbing.com/.../photo/3434/size/big
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Aug 10, 2006, 5:55 AM
Post #7 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
In reply to: Ahh, back to RAW vs. JPEG
In reply to: no matter what, while RAW does give you more dynamic range because of the 16bits it most likely won't solve the OP's problem.
Try this:
- Shoot RAW, make sure the hot spot is not overexposed - so spot light on clearest spot.
- Make 1 raw conversion where you light out the light spot correctly
- make 1 raw conversion where you light out the climber correctly (using fill flash option, or overexposure option).
Now you've got your "bracketing", and the climber didn't moove!
The rest is PS work (like described above).
Maybe - but I'm not sure - you can even get a decent lighting by just using the "fill flash/exposure" options on the raw-file, without PS afterwards to use the two bracketing files...
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 10, 2006, 6:30 AM
Post #8 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Ahh, back to RAW vs. JPEG Yes, it is. In reply to: no matter what, while RAW does give you more dynamic range because of the 16bits it most likely won't solve the OP's problem. Try this: - Shoot RAW, make sure the hot spot is not overexposed - so spot light on clearest spot. - Make 1 raw conversion where you light out the light spot correctly - make 1 raw conversion where you light out the climber correctly (using fill flash option, or overexposure option). Now you've got your "bracketing", and the climber didn't moove! The rest is PS work (like described above). Maybe - but I'm not sure - you can even get a decent lighting by just using the "fill flash/exposure" options on the raw-file, without PS afterwards to use the two bracketing files...
Nice idea, and yes, it works (again, to a point). Definitely better then bracketing since it's an "action" shot. again nice contribution. while bracketing is best thing in a static scene your tip is really the only way in an action scene.
score one for RAW.
the only problem is you have perhaps 1-2 stops latitude before things get noisy on RAW. so it depends if that hot spot is less then 2 stops and looking at the burn out it looks like it's pushing two stops. nevertheless it would be an improvement before resorting to the highlight shadow and burning in post process. and would certainly look even better.
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Aug 11, 2006, 1:01 AM
Post #9 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
In reply to: Shooting a high-contrast image like that in RAW mode will give you a lot more dynamic range to work with if your highlights are too hot, or your shadows get muddy. This site has a pretty concise explanation of RAW vs JPEG. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/...are/camera-raw.shtml
Actually, I shoot RAW + jpeg Basic. So I do have the exact same picture in RAW.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 12, 2006, 1:37 PM
Post #10 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Popol, I was just about to make that same sugestion. It's a nice technic. If you know ahead of time, you can also take the shot with that process in mind.
Try a reflector on the scene, they work wonders
|
|
|
|
|
zuegma
Aug 12, 2006, 4:57 PM
Post #11 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2006
Posts: 125
|
i would look into special filters..b/c im sure that there is one made specifically for a situation such as yours. also i would get there before the climbers and shot a couple shots and adjust aperature, shutter speed, etc. be creative maybe try shooting for a different angle or height. you could even try setting the aperature really high like 18-20 and then use a flash. the best way to solve it is to experiment with different settings. if all else fails...photoshop it.
|
|
|
|
|
djsulli
Aug 13, 2006, 4:28 PM
Post #12 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 27
|
...Try a light meter... I personally prefer the sekonic L-328, not too spendy, easy to use, self explanatory, and ultra-precise.
Take a reading of the light you want perfectly exposed and set your camera accordingly.
After a while, you will learn to shoot without it and you can sell it on ebay or something.
Here's a link... http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/...tail.php?item_id=790
It works great with flash readings too : )
//Sulli
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Aug 13, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #13 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
In reply to: ...Try a light meter... I personally prefer the sekonic L-328, not too spendy, easy to use, self explanatory, and ultra-precise. Take a reading of the light you want perfectly exposed and set your camera accordingly. After a while, you will learn to shoot without it and you can sell it on ebay or something. Here's a link... http://www.hotbuyselectronics.com/...tail.php?item_id=790 It works great with flash readings too : ) //Sulli
I'm pretty sure his camera will have a reasonably accurate light meter built into it. If you want to do something like that just spot meter the bright and dark spots of the frame, know how much DR your camera can produce, and expose accordingly.
I agree with pico that popol suggestion is a good contribution.
I messed around with the image (hope you don't mind).
I just clone stamped some stuff and adjusted colour. It's not perfect or anything, but it got rid of a lot of the bright spot and brought some more detail out of the shadows.
http://i.pbase.com/...pafsNAz.DSC_0089.jpg
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
djsulli
Aug 13, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #14 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 27
|
...ya but that's the point... The meter inside the camera takes a reading from the opposite direction that is needed... it reads the light reflecting, not the light hitting the subject.
A handheld light meter you can hold out and turn the bulb to face you this reads the light as if it was your subject, not the light reflecting off your subject.
To view some of my work where i used a light meter in this fashion, check out my photography book here on amazon...
http://www.amazon.com/...1062-9377760?ie=UTF8
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 13, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #15 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: I'm pretty sure his camera will have a reasonably accurate light meter built into it. If you want to do something like that just spot meter the bright and dark spots of the frame, know how much DR your camera can produce, and expose accordingly. Brent
incident light meters, i don't see the point?
I'm fairly certain those have a use in indoor flash photography (studio) but outdoors it only complicates. It also adds a perfectly useless piece of gear.
The spot meter on most good nikon and pentax cameras meters in the range of 2-3% of the image area. This gives you a dead on reading of bright and dark areas.
No matter what, unless you bracket and layer, your images only have a 4 stop range. No meter is going change that. anything greater then 2-2.5 stops from mid tone exposure will be burnt out, anything under 2 stops from mid tone goes black. So as the photographer you have to decide what is most important in the image. Highlights or shadows and how you want you midtone to come out.
A good example is snow. Meter with spot meter off the snow and then open 1.5-2 stops. A person with dark complexion, meter off there face and close .5 stops. No need for another fancy piece of equipment. And if surrounded by green leafy trees meter off the leaves and voila, you have 18% grey all dialed in.
This is why the golden hours apply. generally the scene is evenly lit with that 4 stop gradient of light. If you photograph in hi contrast light you will inevitably have this problem.
Anyway, the reason, and the only reason, to shoot 35mm small format is the portability of the system. 2 lenses, a light body and 1-2 flash units and you can shoot just about anything with 10lbs of gear on your back. Start throwing in superfluous items and you negate the advantage of 35mm and might as well go medium format and get better quality.
|
|
|
|
|
djsulli
Aug 13, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #16 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 27
|
... a 3 ounce piece of gear in exchange for the shots being perfect every time?
You obviously have never used a meter of this type or you would not be making such un-informed remarks.
I'll take perfect shots, thank you.
//SS
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 13, 2006, 7:23 PM
Post #17 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
3 ounces and $200+ to replicate what is built into your camera.
and the meter has nothing to do with perfect shots. shit, you could give a meterless camera and an EV scale to a monkey and they could get "perfect shots".
again, no need to take suerfluous gear when what you need is built into any modern camera. simply slide the switch to spot and meter away.
even if you have center weighted or large spot only (some canons) you can throw a tele photo on and voila narrow spot.
35mm TTL equals portability and rapid adjustments. spot meters add nothing but totally eliminate the prior sentences advantages.
perhaps you should try the in-camera spot meter before making expensive purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
djsulli
Aug 13, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #18 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 27
|
In reply to: 3 ounces and $200+ to replicate what is built into your camera. and the meter has nothing to do with perfect shots. s---, you could give a meterless camera and an EV scale to a monkey and they could get "perfect shots". again, no need to take suerfluous gear when what you need is built into any modern camera. simply slide the switch to spot and meter away. even if you have center weighted or large spot only (some canons) you can throw a tele photo on and voila narrow spot. 35mm TTL equals portability and rapid adjustments. spot meters add nothing but totally eliminate the prior sentences advantages. perhaps you should try the in-camera spot meter before making expensive purchases.
... Look, no bitterness intended but that is just not true.
using a handheld meter vs a spot meter use entirely different pricipals...
One reads reflected light - spot meter.
The other reads direct light - light meter.
think about it... Look through your camera, what your seeing is light reflected off the subject into your view finder. the meter in your camera is reading this reflected light as it enters the camera and hits the built in meter.
When you take your hand held meter and hold it up next to your subject, with the sensor facing you, you are reading the light intensity as it hits your subject, NOT AS IT IS REFLECTED BACK AT YOU.
How many times have we all seen modeling photographers using a handheld meter, flash or not, they take reading every few shots to make sure there exposure is right on. You will NEVER see them use the spot meter in there camera. Modeling photography is quite similiar to climbing photos, it's people in the frame, with a background, the only difference is that there standing there instead of climbing.
Here's a tip too... If your shooting with a telephoto from say 100 feet away, if you have similiar light right where your standing as is shining on your subject, you can also take reading of this same light just as if you were standing right next to him. Simply hold the meter up, with the sensor facing back at you and click the button.
Speaking as a professional photographer with 17+ years of full time shooting experience, i can tell you straight-up that I have used these techniques and tools on a virtually daily basis and they have NEVER failed me.
//Sulli
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Aug 13, 2006, 8:09 PM
Post #19 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
i understand the difference.
my point is i don't believe either will give you a better shot. so if you have one (such as the reflective buit into the camera) then learn to use that one and you'll be fine.
you can't change the properties of the light on your subject based on the meter. nor can you change the tonal range. that hot spot in the OP's photo is going to be there regardless.
true, with reflective you must interpet the reading as i noted in a previous post. if you meter off white snow and don't interpet that reading based on it's tonal value your shot is going to be less then adequate. if you start seeing things in tones rather then colors you can figure this out sort of quickly. like the Ansel Adams Zone system or the Campbell zone system.
so the real advantage of incident vs reflactive is the lack of need to adjust for subject tonal range. to me this is just second nature. i can meter any tone in a scene make an adjustment and fire away.
one thing to also note is that the film/sensor is collecting reflected light off the scene. thats how it captures the image. so i do have an issue with reflective being inferior.
my basic premise as can be found in most of my post is: if it ain't broke don't fix it (or more aptly don't waste your money on stuff you don't need).
In terms of professionals. I have several favorite photographers. Some use handheld meters and some don't to the best of knowledge they all use them in reflective mode. For instance Tim Ernst uses reflective metering with a handheld spot for large format (not sure about the other formats he uses). On the other hand, Galen Rowell was the biggest proponent of the KISS method and seemed to only use his in camera meters.
So I'm sure incident metering works fine as well but I don't see it as an advantage over reflective and certainly wouldn't recommend someone shooting with the excellent metering of a D70 go out and get one. Money could be better spent on some flashes (more like a flash) from the Nikon CLS. Or put it towards a tack sharp lens.
|
|
|
|
|
djsulli
Aug 13, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #20 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Posts: 27
|
... I would just like to note that, even though we never really agreed on this... i think your last reply was well put and represents clearly how i wish all debates on this board would go.
Shoutz for making your opinion clear without the harshness and sarcasm that i find all to frequently on RC.com
: )
//Sulli
|
|
|
|
|
brent_e
Aug 13, 2006, 11:50 PM
Post #21 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 5111
|
In reply to: ... I would just like to note that, even though we never really agreed on this... i think your last reply was well put and represents clearly how i wish all debates on this board would go. Shoutz for making your opinion clear without the harshness and sarcasm that i find all to frequently on RC.com : ) //Sulli
agreed. it's nice to see. there is so much crap and chatter that is just a urination contest....
I have nothing to add. Just that it's good to see some diplomacy here!
Best
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Aug 16, 2006, 8:47 AM
Post #22 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
Try using the blue sky brother trick like on sunset shot. Should be workable.
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Sep 10, 2006, 7:46 PM
Post #23 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
In reply to: Try using the blue sky brother trick like on sunset shot. Should be workable.
Im not familiar with this trick, what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
rwicker
Sep 11, 2006, 2:28 AM
Post #24 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 4
|
Ok, it is simple.If you are using a Digital SLR, try flash fill at -1.5 it should give you fill for the contrast without blowing out the lighting effect you are capturing.
Another great suggestion is try Monavie for more energy.
http://www.mymonavie.com/wicker
Good luck and good health,
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 12, 2006, 3:45 AM
Post #25 of 27
(4848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Try using the blue sky brother trick like on sunset shot. Should be workable. Im not familiar with this trick, what is it?
One other little trick i've learned.
if your using raw for your images. Shoot at about 2/3-1 stop under.
it's tough to recover blown out highlights (that is information you never recorded).
by setting and leaving the exp comp at around 2/3-1 under you generaly get 2/3-1 stop under exposures which are easily adjusted to perfection in your raw software to get the right combo of highlights and midtones.
you can also use the extra shutter speed in most cases when shooting with a long lens or low light.
digital is tough on the highlights better to underexpose a little and up it in raw then over expose and lose the shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
