Dressage Rider - Seeking assistance / C&C welcomed as well

[KimC]

This horse and rider will look familiar to a few of you. This weekend my friend was riding in a dressage clinic (a private riding lesson with a special clinician). Dressage is very precise "flat" work, meaning there is no jumping. The horse listens to the rider's seat, leg and hands. This horse was imported from Belgium as a jumping horse, but was unable to do so because of injuries - hence the change in discipline to dressage.

I decided to bring my camera along as the indoor arena had some cool lighting. Where I need some help is -- how do I get the correct exposure when shooting in conditions such as this? I love the drama of this light, but I did get hot spots. I shot in both M and A mode. Would appreciate any help and insight.

#1

ISO 3200, 1/640s, f/2.8, 105mm - this was shot in A mode



#2

ISO 3200, 1/1250s, f/2.8, 92mm - this was shot in M mode - Faster shutter speed was because they were cantering (going faster)

[Saorsa]

I think the big contrast here is her dark clothing and helmet and the white of the horse and the black of her clothing. It is difficult to maintain detail in both areas. I can see the pattern in her red sweater but the vest doesn't have anything.

Since these are planned events you might ask if she could wear a lighter top and helmet cover. Then, the primary points of interest would be in similar tones. The horse is very well exposed and I like the detail in de tail.

[chauncey]

how do I get the correct exposure when shooting in conditions such as this

That would be a neat trick as you have a whitish horse prancing around from sun to shade.
Your second one is better, but then the horse is in the shade...unlike number one.

This is one of those "get it close and fix in PP" scenarios.

[Shadowman]

You've got a decent dynamic range of light within this composition and it seems your camera can handle it very well. If you were to spot meter off the brightest area, the camera would underexpose, if off the shadows it would overexpose. Which metering mode did you use, I'm sure matrix metering would have given you pretty accurate results?

[KimC]

I did try dodging her black sweater and helmet a bit, but I preferred it dark -- just my artistic preference. I should have mentioned, for me, this image is more about the horse rather than the rider, so I did do more PP on him. I do agree, a better clothes selection would have been better, regretfully this was impromptu and more of an experimental exercise for me. Thanks for your comment - I appreciate it.

I think the big contrast here is her dark clothing and helmet and the white of the horse and the black of her clothing. It is difficult to maintain detail in both areas. I can see the pattern in her red sweater but the vest doesn't have anything.

Since these are planned events you might ask if she could wear a lighter top and helmet cover. Then, the primary points of interest would be in similar tones. The horse is very well exposed and I like the detail in de tail.

[KimC]

Yes, I agree Chauncey, but I wasn't loving those hot spots. There is a wedding photog that I really admire who shoots a lot of dark images with the white gowns... I love the drama and that's what I would REALLY like to learn to do (not wedding dresses, but other items ;-)

That would be a neat trick as you have a whitish horse prancing around from sun to shade.
Your second one is better, but then the horse is in the shade...unlike number one.

This is one of those "get it close and fix in PP" scenarios.

[KimC]

I checked John and I did use matrix. When I am shooting something dark, I expose on the non-dark items and then lift the shadows in PP... was trying to figure out the reverse of that for the sun beams... :-(

You've got a decent dynamic range of light within this composition and it seems your camera can handle it very well. If you were to spot meter off the brightest area, the camera would underexpose, if off the shadows it would overexpose. Which metering mode did you use, I'm sure matrix metering would have given you pretty accurate results?

[Mike Buckley]

how do I get the correct exposure when shooting in conditions such as this?

I would take some test shots, check the histogram and adjust as needed.

I shot in both M and A mode.

Why two different modes? What were you hoping to achieve in one mode that you couldn't achieve in the other one and vice versa?

[Mike Buckley]

I did use matrix. When I am shooting something dark, I expose on the non-dark items

What does the last phrase mean? I would understand the meaning if you had used spot metering but not matrix metering.

[Shadowman]

I checked John and I did use matrix. When I am shooting something dark, I expose on the non-dark items and then lift the shadows in PP... was trying to figure out the reverse of that for the sun beams... :-(

Kim,

Which camera did you use, on some tests the 810 has a slightly wider dynamic range. 14.8 vs 12 EV. Not really an answer to your question but something to consider when faced with a dynamic range as your shot.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Kim,

~ but I wasn't loving those hot spots ~

If you know how to 'dodge' shadow areas to bring up shadow detail, why not just 'burn' the hot spots to reduce the exposure there?

If the answer is that they turn in to a grey smudge, then you probably lost detail in those areas because they were grossly over exposed (blown).


As you say, you need to expose for the highlights (= "non-dark items"), to retain detail in the hotspots (be they on horse and/or timber), then use that exposure (in M mode) for all shots against that wall, hope the sun's brightness doesn't also vary (e.g. with clouds), then you'll know there is detail to be recovered. There is a balance to be struck though, if you go down too far, when you raise the darker areas in PP with dodging, you'll possibly bring up noise.

I see these were shot at 3200, if you do take exposure down so the sunlit areas aren't blown, you may find you can get away with a lesser ISO (and still maintain same ss and aperture).

It would help to know your camera (D3S or D810?) and PP software.

It is a 'difficult lighting' situation - on a bright overcast day, or even at a different time of day when the sun doesn't shine in there, you wouldn't be fighting the sun lit patches and I suspect the ISO wouldn't need to be too much more than what you've shot with here.

HTH, Dave

[KimC]

I did do that, but not well enough -- the blown areas are so small, they didn't show up well on the camera histogram. Which now reminds me, I need to turn on the "warnings" that show up as flashing when you loss detail or have blown highlights -- thanks Mike!

I would take some test shots, check the histogram and adjust as needed.

Because I tend to be more successful in difficult situations when on M, rather than doing Exposure Compensation in A mode.

Why two different modes? What were you hoping to achieve in one mode that you couldn't achieve in the other one and vice versa?

[KimC]

When I am shooting my Black poodle and she is taking up a good portion of the shot, I shoot on Manual. I meter off something other than the poodle and then adjust my settings. In PP, I lift the shadows.

What does the last phrase mean? I would understand the meaning if you had used spot metering but not matrix metering.

[KimC]

D3S John, I haven't been satisfied with the 810 when having to go to a high ISO.

Kim,

Which camera did you use, on some tests the 810 has a slightly wider dynamic range. 14.8 vs 12 EV. Not really an answer to your question but something to consider when faced with a dynamic range as your shot.

[Mike Buckley]

I meter off something other than the poodle

I still don't understand, Kim. When using matrix metering, you're allowing the camera to meter using the entire scene. So, what exactly do you do when you "meter off something?"

[KimC]

And you have the correct answer Dave -- I got the grey :-(

Hi Kim,

If you know how to 'dodge' shadow areas to bring up shadow detail, why not just 'burn' the hot spots to reduce the exposure there?

If the answer is that they turn in to a grey smudge, then you probably lost detail in those areas because they were grossly over exposed (blown).

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to do Dave. And, I was very close to losing that detail on the blacks. I guess it gets back to the 2 extremes that Brian mentioned.

As you say, you need to expose for the highlights (= "non-dark items"), to retain detail in the hotspots (be they on horse and/or timber), then use that exposure (in M mode) for all shots against that wall, hope the sun's brightness doesn't also vary (e.g. with clouds), then you'll know there is detail to be recovered. There is a balance to be struck though, if you go down too far, when you raise the darker areas in PP with dodging, you'll possibly bring up noise.

Yes.

I see these were shot at 3200, if you do take exposure down so the sunlit areas aren't blown, you may find you can get away with a lesser ISO (and still maintain same ss and aperture).

Used the D3s and the software was primarily Capture One 9. Yes, but it was the sun beams that I love...

It would help to know your camera (D3S or D810?) and PP software.

It is a 'difficult lighting' situation - on a bright overcast day, or even at a different time of day when the sun doesn't shine in there, you wouldn't be fighting the sun lit patches and I suspect the ISO wouldn't need to be too much more than what you've shot with here.

HTH, Dave

Thanks for your comments.

[Mike Buckley]

I did do that, but not well enough -- the blown areas are so small, they didn't show up well on the camera histogram.

When viewing only a part of the image in your LCD (because you have zoomed in on the image), does your camera display the histogram only of the portion of the image being displayed? If so, zoom in on the highlights and my guess is that the histogram will more readily display when you've lost detail.

Even so, especially if you're shooting RAW files, I would expect you to be able to recover such small amounts of blown highlights.

Because I tend to be more successful in difficult situations when on M, rather than doing Exposure Compensation in A mode.

That being the case, why did you shoot in Aperture Priority? Perhaps you simply forgot the mode you were using (I'm especially good at doing that and worse).

[KimC]

Sorry I am not explaining it well. In post #16, Dave describes what I am trying to say. See second box I responded to.

I still don't understand, Kim. When using matrix metering, you're allowing the camera to meter using the entire scene. So, what exactly do you do when you "meter off something?"

[Mike Buckley]

Got it, Kim. Rather than using the phrase, expose off this or that, try using expose for this or that. It might seem like a ridiculously small nuance but your usage was not a phrase I'm used to seeing in the context of matrix metering. In the context of spot metering, yes, but not matrix metering.

I just now downloaded the first image and checked for blown highlights. The blown areas are so tiny that I don't understand your concern. Even if you printed the image really large, they wouldn't adversely affect the image in my mind.

[Dave Humphries]

There's currently another thread here about in-camera HDR, which, if your subject were not moving, might have been a solution - as long as you don't mind shooting jpg only AND losing any continuous shooting mode.

The first post gives a demo.

Unfortunately, it takes automatically two images and I suspect your subject may have moved too much between exposures for it to work. It may only be your D810 that has the capability anyway.


I'm surprised the D810 disappoints you in high ISO, I know it has lots more (hence smaller) pixels, but being much newer ...

I'm not familiar with Capture One I'm afraid, so cannot offer anything more there.


I'm tempted to ask for a NEF file to try with PS CC (since Mike thinks there's sufficient there to work with), DropBox works well for me.