Learning Landscapes - Sunlit Trees

[Downrigger]

First, these are really nice, Christina. These images represent to me the eye of a landscape photographer in action. Layers divided by light and distance is idea I have seen often in landscape images that I admire by real masters. I hope you will keep working at this idea. You will probably approach some ideal in you mind asymptotically as you go.

Second, I wonder if what you have read about changing the histogram is not only a matter of "for practical purposes" but also a matter of degree. I suspect that when you really have to push a lot on the histogram to recover a reasonable range of tones, you get noise and other interference with quality, which is why we try to get it more or less right in the native image. But I'm all ears, Mike.

[Mike Buckley]

we try to get it more or less right in the native image.

Exactly, Mark. We get all characteristics close enough in the native image that, for all practical purposes, the other changes that we make simply do not matter.

If one was to take to heart with absolutely no qualifications that a changed histogram is a symptom of a deteriorated image, we would never make any changes to our images and post-processing software would be virtually useless. That's because I can't think of one single thing off the top of my head that is done using post-processing software that doesn't result in a changed histogram at least a little bit. That includes sharpening an image.

[Brownbear]

Thanks Bruce, Mark and Mike...

Mark... this type of scene holds a certain appeal for me, and yes, for sure I will try again, likely several times.

[Mike Buckley]

this type of scene holds a certain appeal for me, and yes, for sure I will try again, likely several times.

The good news is that you can enjoy looking for this type of scene the rest of your life and find no two scenes exactly alike. That's true even when you mark the spot where you stand with an "X" and return to it each time. That's one of the really enjoyable aspects of photography, music or whatever for me.

[Brownbear]

Thanks for sharing... I will try these trees from the same spot.

The good news is that you can enjoy looking for this type of scene the rest of your life and find no two scenes exactly alike. That's true even when you mark the spot where you stand with an "X" and return to it each time. That's one of the really enjoyable aspects of photography, music or whatever for me.

[Downrigger]

The good news is that you can enjoy looking for this type of scene the rest of your life and find no two scenes exactly alike. That's true even when you mark the spot where you stand with an "X" and return to it each time. That's one of the really enjoyable aspects of photography, music or whatever for me.

Oh yes. Amen.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

Firstly I agree 200% with what Mike has said and I think you are concerning yourself with too many variables that in all honesty are just different means and options that can be used in achieving the same required end result.

As a practical example;

a) If your camera is sat on a tripod pointing at a static scene you wish to record and you are not limited at being only able to take one shot it is totally irrelevant which metering mode you are in. You take the shot and alter the settings on the next to achieve the histogram you want and if it's still not what you want you do another adjustment.

b) I would suggest that the difference in histogram shape and positioning between whether you have your picture control settings in camera as neutral or standard is insignificant in the real world in that any minor difference is very easily changed/adjusted on the RAW with no detrimental affect on the image.

With respect to the 'quick' method of getting exposure pretty accurate on a scene consisting of land and sky I meter on the horizon (using matrix) as this will give the metering system roughly 50/50 dark and light area to work with and the result will be a good average. This of course does not negate the fact that whatever the result gives me I will adjust to what I want as necessary and also would not do this if using a tripod.

Grahame

[Brownbear]

200 percent! Sheesh!

Thank you Grahame. Your taking the time to reinforce Mike's message and advise is truly appreciated.

Also, thank you for sharing your quick method.

Hi Christina,

Firstly I agree 200% with what Mike has said and I think you are concerning yourself with too many variables that in all honesty are just different means and options that can be used in achieving the same required end result.

As a practical example;

a) If your camera is sat on a tripod pointing at a static scene you wish to record and you are not limited at being only able to take one shot it is totally irrelevant which metering mode you are in. You take the shot and alter the settings on the next to achieve the histogram you want and if it's still not what you want you do another adjustment.

b) I would suggest that the difference in histogram shape and positioning between whether you have your picture control settings in camera as neutral or standard is insignificant in the real world in that any minor difference is very easily changed/adjusted on the RAW with no detrimental affect on the image.

With respect to the 'quick' method of getting exposure pretty accurate on a scene consisting of land and sky I meter on the horizon (using matrix) as this will give the metering system roughly 50/50 dark and light area to work with and the result will be a good average. This of course does not negate the fact that whatever the result gives me I will adjust to what I want as necessary and also would not do this if using a tripod.

Grahame

[Mike Buckley]

200 percent!

I'm disappointed that it isn't 400%.

[Brownbear]

I'm not surprised... Funny-man!

I'm disappointed that it isn't 400%.

[AndrewMcD]

Christina - I was immediately reminded of many terrific landscape images when I saw what you have presented. The "surprise" tree idea doesn't quite work for me but the layers and lines created are very appealing.

Mike -

I strongly recommend (again) that you master one thing at a time. That means using one Picture Control setting all the time, one exposure method all the time, one focus method all the time, and the like. Master that combination of settings while improving your composition and post-processing skills. Once you've accomplished that, venture into other realms, mastering one aspect before moving on to the other aspect.

Whether you know know it or not your mentoring of Christina is a terrific help to myself and, I expect, to others. Can you elaborate on the idea of concentrating on one aspect of the camera at a time and mastering it? Specifically, you mention one focus method at a time, one exposure method at a time, etc. As a relative new comer to the art of photography I too find myself flitting about between the various exposure methods (in particular) and focus methods. Consequently I'm finding myself taking multiple exposures with a variety of settings and then comparing images trying to decide what looks best. Unfortunately I feel that often as not I end up with mediocrity as a result of trying too many things and mastering none. I think I have a good conceptual understanding of what the various controls do but suggestions for a more disciplined approach to mastering each would be appreciated.

I don't mean to hijack Christina's thread but given the responses regarding her zig-zagging, and the feeling that I'm doing a lot of that myself, I hope this question might prove useful to both of us.

Andrew

[Mike Buckley]

Andrew,

Perhaps the best way to understand the reason to avoid zig zagging is to concentrate on the heart of Grahame's message -- that the camera provides many methods of accomplishing the exact same result. As an example, modern digital cameras provide at least three methods of focusing on a static scene and all three methods will achieve the same look. Similarly, they provide at least four methods of metering the exposure and all four methods will achieve the exact same exposure.

To provide a more specific example though importantly without beating up on Christina, she mentioned that she was metering these landscape photos using matrix metering (evaluative metering in Canon speak) with no success. So, she switched to spot metering. In reality, there is only one reason she wasn't successful using matrix metering (or any other kind of metering): she still doesn't understand how to use it. EDIT: Her later posts in the thread also reveal that she doesn't understand how to use spot metering.

Changing to spot metering will never help her master matrix metering. Moreover, changing to matrix metering when spot metering doesn't work for her will never help her master spot metering. In the end, she risks constantly changing methods, never mastering any of them, and relying on nothing other than blind luck that one particular metering method will work in a particular situation.

One should ask why it's important to master this or that technique, especially if photography is "only" a hobby. The answer is that we are often confronted with situations when we have very little time to capture a particular scene. We can't reliably capture a scene on extremely short notice unless we have mastered at least one focus method and one metering method. Lacking that reliability, we risk missing potentially the best shot of the day or even the year.

It's important for me to mention that not all people use the same method of learning. Some of us might very well find zigging and zagging an effective method. Most of us wouldn't, but that doesn't matter for the person for whom zigging and zagging is effective. However, it's clear from keeping up with Christina's posts that zigging and zagging is not particularly effective method for her. Otherwise, after having spent as much time as she has at this, she would never have come upon a static scene and been unable to use matrix metering to achieve her desired exposure. So, it's logical to stop using the zig zagging method and to concentrate on mastering one metering mode before moving on to the next one.

You brought up a point that might have nothing to do with zigging and zagging: "taking multiple exposures with a variety of settings and then comparing images trying to decide what looks best."

Let's assume that you used the same metering mode to capture several images, each with a different exposure and nothing else changed. That would be the effective method for most of us. Moreover, the heart of that method isn't about learning how to use a particular metering method; instead, the heart of that is deciding which exposure looks best, which comes only with time and experience. That being the case, that's a great reason for making different exposures of the same scene.

However, if you instead used different metering methods with the hope that one of them might accomplish an ideal exposure and then looked at them to determine which looks best, that's a very different matter. That's because if you used each method properly, all of the captures would look very much the same if not exactly the same. In that situation, using the various metering methods and their related settings would lead only to confusion for most people, resulting at best in getting one image that you prefer over the others but probably not understanding why that's the case or even how to reliably make it happen the next time.

So, if you believe zigging and zagging is unhelpful to your learning process, I recommend mastering one variable at a time. If it's focusing that you want to initially work on, make all of your shots using the same settings with regard to white balance, program mode (aperture priority, shutter priority, manual, etc., etc.), metering mode and the like. Determine the focusing mode that you want to master and use it until you have either mastered it or determined that it's simply not a good fit either with your style of photography or how your mind works. (As an example, I gave up years ago trying to master spot metering. It's simply not a good fit with me because of a particular inadequacy of my own that is an immense obstacle to using that mode successfully. So, I use either matrix metering or center-weighted metering, depending on the scene, to produce whatever histogram I want to produce.)

Beyond a shadow of doubt, you did a far better job of asking great questions than I did of answering them. Even so, I hope this helps with apologies for such a long post.

[AndrewMcD]

Mike - Thanks very much for such a thoughtful response. I'm pleased that you understood what I was asking and took the effort to fully develop a very useful response.

With respect to my doing numerous exposures of the same image; I have indeed been using the same metering method with this approach. I think you have touched on the fact that the real challenge is deciding how I WANT the image to look. I have yet to develop a strong enough sense of my own style to settle on a "look". Hopefully that comes as I continue to practice.

I like your suggestion of establishing a base line setting for the major camera parameters and then working on one particular aspect of the camera. I have been struggling the most with the different exposure modes so I'll start there. Sometimes I feel I get myself stuck in a loop chasing my tail and it's very useful to have experienced people that can help nudge me out of my tendency to over think.

[Mike Buckley]

Glad to know the post was helpful, Andrew!

Deciding how we want an image to look while in the early stage of the learning curve is probably the most difficult part for all of us. In addition to practicing making your own images, it can be very helpful to review other people's images. I recommend making a point of reviewing the really successful photographers that consistently produce images that possess essentially the same characteristics. The more those photographers are considered master photographers, having achieved the test of time of at least decades, the greater chance reviewing those images will help you settle in on a particular style even if that style is completely new and groundbreaking.

[Brownbear]

Andrew...

Please, always feel welcome to ask questions and bring up discussions on my threads. I think it is terrific that others can learn from my threads, too and I learn from others questions.

Mike...

I'm not sure what I'm missing about metering. I understand that matrix metering measures the light in the entire scene (and presents the light throughout the whole scene at it best), (Center for a smaller portion as in people shots) and that spot metering measures the light at a small point in the scene. And I know from the past exercise you gave me that I can achieve the same exposure with any type of metering.

However, when I was photographing this scene I changed to spot metering to help me figure out the correct exposure (not to clip the shadows in the darkest trees at the bottom or the highlights in the sky) Spot metering on the tops of the last row of trees on the sky line (brightest trees) makes sense to me as that point should represent the middle point of the exposure (Compromise between the sky and the bottom row of trees)

Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

You first explained that you switched from matrix metering to spot metering because matrix metering caused you to "struggle" with the exposure. That doesn't make any sense to me. If you had reviewed the histogram, you could have simply used the Exposure Compensation button to move the histogram in whatever direction and to whatever degree that would have resulted in the histogram that you were hoping to achieve.

You are now saying that you changed to spot metering to help you figure out the exposure. In my mind, it's the histogram that helps you figure out the desired exposure, not the metering mode, especially considering that you can achieve the same exposure using all metering modes.

If you are now saying that spot metering seemed to be the most intuitive, faster, or whatever for you, that's understandable and a terrific reason for using it. However, if that's the case, the fact that you didn't use spot metering from the outset indicates to me that you haven't thought the essentials through thoroughly enough. And I suspect that has occurred because you're switching from metering mode to metering mode without having mastered any of them, which is adding to your confusion and causing you to struggle with metering.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Sorry for not being clear... I also switched from aperture priority to manual as I was struggling with the exposure because no matter what I couldn't not, not clip the reds in the sky or underexpose the trees. (the histogram would be clipped just a wee bit on either end) (smaller or larger aperture/slower or faster shutter speed or exposure compensation) I couldn't manage a perfect histogram with either mode, so I exposed for the trees. Even though nothing in the scene was black the dynamic range of the scene was large. (as seen by the histogram)

I usually use matrix metering but in this case I figured that spot metering would help by measuring the light at the mid-point.

It seems that I always struggle with my exposures in these types of scenes (ie; clipping at one end or the other is also seen in my sunrise/sunset photos with mountains) So there is something that I'm still missing. I will read up on metering and think this scene through thoroughly to prepare/plan for my next try.

Thank you.

Christina,

You first explained that you switched from matrix metering to spot metering because matrix metering caused you to "struggle" with the exposure. That doesn't make any sense to me. If you had reviewed the histogram, you could have simply used the Exposure Compensation button to move the histogram in whatever direction and to whatever degree that would have resulted in the histogram that you were hoping to achieve.

You are now saying that you changed to spot metering to help you figure out the exposure. In my mind, it's the histogram that helps you figure out the desired exposure, not the metering mode, especially considering that you can achieve the same exposure using all metering modes.

If you are now saying that spot metering seemed to be the most intuitive, faster, or whatever for you, that's understandable and a terrific reason for using it. However, if that's the case, the fact that you didn't use spot metering from the outset indicates to me that you haven't thought the essentials through thoroughly enough. And I suspect that has occurred because you're switching from metering mode to metering mode without having mastered any of them, which is adding to your confusion and causing you to struggle with metering.

[Mike Buckley]

I think I understand what you are missing:

When you made the exposure that clipped the shadows and the highlights, that happened because the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the capability of your sensor to capture it. This is a common issue when shooting landscapes and the only way to eliminate the issue is to use a different composition whose bright tones aren't so bright, whose dark tones aren't so dark, or both.

The point is that changing the exposure would not have eliminated clipped highlights and shadows. You could have easily changed the exposure to eliminate one of them. Most people would have reduced the exposure to eliminate the clipped highlights, hoping to adequately if not perfectly deal with the clipped shadows during post-processing.

Changing from aperture priority to manual mode was not the solution to your situation, as whatever exposure you accomplished using manual mode could have easily been accomplished using aperture priority mode, assuming of course that the light did not change.

The only reason it would be helpful to measure the mid tones (using spot metering to do so) would be because you wanted for whatever reason to map a particular tone in the scene to be your mid tone. In that situation, you're making that a higher priority than attending to clipped highlights or shadows. If the light did not change and if you spot metered the tone that has the exact same luminosity as the grey on a card used for metering, you still would have clipped the shadows and the highlights. Again, that's because the sensor was not capable of recording such a wide range of tonalities.

[Brownbear]

Yes, but there is no true black in the scene, just dark greens which to me means that I should be able to capture the dynamic range, as it goes from dark green ( say #3 not #1 black) to extremely light (#10)?

Okay, I will expose for the highlights next time around and let the bottom row of trees go dark and see what I can do with clipped shadows, or just have the bottom row of the trees black.

When I can't figure things out I try different things, but next time I will stick with the chosen mode.

Thank you for the wonderful explanation of spot metering and priorities. Very helpful to know and a new way to think about things.

Thank you, Mike!

I think I understand what you are missing:

When you made the exposure that clipped the shadows and the highlights, that happened because the dynamic range of the scene exceeded the capability of your sensor to capture it. This is a common issue when shooting landscapes and the only way to eliminate the issue is to use a different composition whose bright tones aren't so bright, whose dark tones aren't so dark, or both.

The point is that changing the exposure would not have eliminated clipped highlights and shadows. You could have easily changed the exposure to eliminate one of them. Most people would have reduced the exposure to eliminate the clipped highlights, hoping to adequately if not perfectly deal with the clipped shadows during post-processing.

Changing from aperture priority to manual mode was not the solution to your situation, as whatever exposure you accomplished using manual mode could have easily been accomplished using aperture priority mode, assuming of course that the light did not change.

The only reason it would be helpful to measure the mid tones (using spot metering to do so) would be because you wanted for whatever reason to map a particular tone in the scene to be your mid tone. In that situation, you're making that a higher priority than attending to clipped highlights or shadows. If the light did not change and if you spot metered the tone that has the exact same luminosity as the grey on a card used for metering, you still would have clipped the shadows and the highlights. Again, that's because the sensor was not capable of recording such a wide range of tonalities.

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, but there is no true black in the scene, just dark greens which to me means that I should be able to capture the dynamic range

If the histogram indicates that the dynamic range of the scene is exceeding the ability of the sensor to record it, that is the best information available to you. Run with it.

You will surely see some relatively arcane discussions explaining why the histogram is not always precisely accurate, but it is still the only tool your camera provides for determining the likelihood of clipped shadows. Your camera provides two tools for determining the likelihood of clipped highlights -- the histogram and the "blinkies."

If your post-processing software determines where the clipped shadows are in a particular scene, that information could help you learn how to see in the scene itself where they might occur. I don't know if Nikon View NX2 or the beta version of View NX-D do that. Considering that both are free, it's worth looking into simply because Capture NX2 does. Other software that you use might also display that information, which would eliminate the need to try new software.

If you still have the file that clipped both the shadows and the highlights, please get the NEF to me. I'd like to see where the shadows were clipped in light of your thinking that none should have been clipped.