SOOC - Disappointing Exposure Issues - Please Help

[Suzan J]

Hello All: I am posting this screen shot in the hopes that you can help me with a future shoot at the same location. There have been no adjustments to this shot at all. I thought this would turn out better than it did, so I was really disappointed in it when I returned home to look at it. I hope you can see the information on the left hand side. (I am using Aperture 3.0. I don't believe it has as many features as Lightroom, but Levels and Curves are available along with many other options.)

My question is not really related to the PP, but rather to the initial camera settings. The settings were as follows: ISO 100, 72mm, Aperture 5.6, SS 1250

I was in Shutter Priority as my intent was to shoot the birds. This site is on Lake Superior. I am facing east and it was about 9 a.m. The sun was approximately at the 10 o'clock position and there were some hazy clouds. Overall, the conditions were quite bright. I was using matrix metering. I was in continuous focus with the focus point on the piece of dark wood near the bottom. I was low, on the shoreline, about 70 feet away from the dark wood. I wanted more detail out of the wood and the goose.

I just finished reading the thread on "metering" and from what I can understand, the basic principle is that centre weighted or spot metering on the wood or on the goose would have resulted in the camera choosing to use more exposure, in this case probably by lowering the SS value. My understanding is that I would then have to sacrifice sky or water if I wanted to lighten the darker areas.

Presuming this is correct, what is to be gained by changing the metering? I could get the same results by being in Manual Exposure and setting it slightly to the right (on Nikons) to overexpose slightly. This would be the same thing as using Exposure Compensation in either A or S mode. So basically, I have at least 3 ways of getting to the same exposure level. Is this one of those situations where there is simply too much range in light to dark and that there would be no way to achieve detail out of the dark areas without completing blowing the sky and water?

I do want to visit this place again and would appreciate any tips. I can't change the direction that I would shoot into as the shoreline makes me face to the east. It's a big lake! I can, however, change the time of day that I go there. Also, if anyone has any PP tips, I would be happy to hear them.

Thanks in advance



Screen Shot 2014-05-14 at 11.48.40 AM by Soo J, on Flickr

[Mike Buckley]

I just finished reading the thread on "metering" and from what I can understand, the basic principle is that centre weighted or spot metering on the wood or on the goose would have resulted in the camera choosing to use more exposure, in this case probably by lowering the SS value.

The first parts about metering and exposure are correct. The part about lowering the shutter speed is incorrect.

You were shooting in Shutter Priority mode, so the camera would not have changed that unless doing so was the only way to achieve the desired exposure. Instead, it would have changed the aperture to allow more exposure. You didn't mention whether you were using Auto ISO. The reason this is important is that if making the aperture larger wouldn't have accomplished the camera's goal on its own, it would have then also increased the ISO if you had used an Auto ISO setting that allowed that to happen. If I remember correctly (and I might not), if Auto ISO was not being used and if adjusting the aperture was insufficient, the camera would then have adjusted the shutter speed as its only other option, literally a matter of a last resort considering that using Shutter Priority is instructing the camera not to change the shutter on its own.

My understanding is that I would then have to sacrifice sky or water if I wanted to lighten the darker areas.

Correct, but only to a point. Notice the details of the histogram to the right of the bell curve. That data tells you that relatively few pixels in the image are of those brightest luminosities. So, though you would have sacrificed detail in those luminosities, you would not be compromising a large portion of the image.

Presuming this is correct, what is to be gained by changing the metering?...So basically, I have at least 3 ways of getting to the same exposure level.

Bingo! That explains why nothing is to be gained by changing the method of metering, only by changing the exposure regardless of the metering mode in use at the time. Your camera always has four metering modes (manual, matrix, center-weighted and spot metering) and the same exposure can be achieved using all of them.

Is this one of those situations where there is simply too much range in light to dark and that there would be no way to achieve detail out of the dark areas without completing blowing the sky and water?

As I mentioned above, you could use a brighter exposure that blows part of the sky and water but you still had a lot of latitude indicated in the histogram to blow only small parts of it.

By the way, this is the kind of scene that I just love to see in a style that is almost completely devoid of detail in the sky and water.

[Geoff F]

I can't see much wrong with that shot, Suzan. You were shooting towards the light and the exposure is good on both sky and water.

Any elements which were in shadow in real life will be dark in your photo.

You could try taking two or three shots with different exposures then combine them into some sot of HDR providing you have suitable software. But when you have moving objects they can't cause problems; and of course, you need to shoot on a tripod.

Careful selective editing could brighten the dark areas slightly but that often causes more problems than it cures.

So I would just accept what you have with this scene.

Note what Mike has said for future reference but your thinking wasn't far out.

[DanK]

That explains why nothing is to be gained by changing the method of metering, only by changing the exposure regardless of the metering mode in use at the time.

Mike beat me to it. I would have put it a bit differently. IMHO, you are asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is how you want the image exposed. Metering modes are just tools to get you what you want, and you could get the same image with different modes, if you know how to use them.

As I see it, there are two main problems with this image, both a function of the lighting rather than the exposure. One is that because of the clouds and the fact that the sun is in front of you, you have almost no color in the image. The second is that there is not much tonal range (light to dark) in most of the image. The image as a whole extends the entire range from black to white, but the large bulk of it is in a narrow range near the high end of the histogram. This corresponds to the large area of near-white in the sky and on the water. These are not problems because of the particular metering method you used.

Is this one of those situations where there is simply too much range in light to dark and that there would be no way to achieve detail out of the dark areas without completing blowing the sky and water?

With a single image and without editing, yes. if you increase exposure to regain detail in the dark areas, you will blow out more of the brightest. however, if you are shooting raw, you may be able to recover the highlights. One alternative is to take more than one image and blend them with HDR or exposure fusion. Another option would be to deliberately keep the darkest areas as silhouettes.

[Manfred M]

Suzan; I think the others have given you some very good advice, and frankly, this shot is going to be difficult, to pull off, given the shooting conditionss and time of day.

Looking east into Lake Superior means at 09:00AM is going to give you a back-lit image as the sun will be hitting the back of the birds, the pilings (I think that might be what they are) and the land in the background from in front of you; i.e. the side you are shooting is in shadow. If this were a portrait, the photographer would be looking at a situation where fill-flash or a reflector would be used to open up the shadow details. Unfortunately, this is not an option here.

If you adjusted the exposure in such a way to bring out the details of the feathers, you would end up blowing out the water and the sky.

I would suggest a return late in the afternoon, when the sun is behind you and lighting up the side of the subject(s) that you are facing toward. That will show up the details you are looking for. If you shoot during "golden hour", i.e. shortly before sunset, you should be able to pull of a gorgeous shot,

[Suzan J]

Thanks Mike, Dan, and Geoff for the comments. I think I have gained somewhat of a better understanding of the different methods to achieve equivalent exposures after reading some of the past threads. As for an image such as this, I'm thinking that as Mike mentioned, I have a bit of wiggle room to increase exposure slightly as indicated on the histogram. I am also going to shoot in Manual mode which allows me to make quick adjustments in either direction. That will give me more options. I would like to explore HDR as well, but for that, I will have to make sure the lake is perfectly calm. It is not far from my home, so I should have many more opportunities.

[Suzan J]

Thanks also to Manfred for the advice to try a different time of day. As you pointed out, there is not much I can do about the conditions in the morning. It's a shame really, as the lake is nice and calm then and the birds are active.

[davidedric]

I may be missing something (in which case someone will surely tell me), and I certainly don't know Aperture, but if this is a RAW image then it is surely possible that there is detail hidden in the shadows? If I were looking at this in Lightroom, I would be trying the Shadows slider or even the Blacks to see what I could pull out. Otoh, I prefer the image with silhouettes.

Dave

[Saorsa]

The selection of metering mode is important as you discuss. I think you have a well exposed image there but you need to do a bit to bring out some detail in the pilings or bird. With your Nikon, the only thing I can think of that might help SOOC is the D-lighting function. If that doesn't help, you will need to deal with it in post processing.

[William W]

. . . I am also going to shoot in Manual mode which allows me to make quick adjustments in either direction. That will give me more options. . .

By all means use Manual Mode if you want to, but not for the reasons that you mention.

I think that you will find that there will be the same number of exposure options in Manual Mode as there will be in 'S' or 'A' Modes.
Also at a guess (assuming you are using Nikon DSLR) rather than it being about the quickness of adjustment per se, it is more about the method of adjustment which is more pleasing and easier for the user to manipulate.

The point I am making is: several times I have shot side by side all day with bloke who used exclusively Av Mode ("A" mode in Nikon Speak) and I used M Mode exclusively - and we were both equally as quick and at ease in adjusting and compensating for various lighting scenarios.

So my advice is to several times work through the CONTROLS and FUNCTIONALITY of making exposure adjustments in M Mode and also in S Mode and A Mode and determine which are more suitable easier and quicker for YOU to use.

WW

[AB26]

Hi Suzan,

In a case where the DR in the image exceeds the DR of the sensor in my camera I use a method called FLASH to compensate for the DR. If it is impossible to get the DR within the scene to within the DR boundaries of the sensor by using the FLASH method, you simply have to decide what you are going to compensate for. What is most important? The sky, the water or detail in the bird.

In this image the sky and water is dominant and should not be “blown out”. I would like to see more detail in the sky and water with the bird and dead tree trunk as silhouettes.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Susan,

The metering and exposure were fine; the fundamental issue is that the dynamic range of a backlit scene -v- dark foreground objects in shadow is more than monitors can display (the camera captured it just fine though, from what I can see).

So it's really a processing problem, not a capture problem (the original scene at the time probably had a dynamic range of around 8 or 9 stops, and we need to squish that into around 5 to 6 stops for it to look OK). That process starts with using a Fill Light slider to raise the value of the dark areas, but it also involves careful manipulation of other controls to highlight what's called local contrast (otherwise the image just looks flat).

It's a wee bit complex to explain, but the rub of it is, you'll possibly need something a bit more powerful to process this type of image.

Hope you don't mind, but I gave the image a Photoshop "30 Second makeover" (TM!) to illustrate some of the points I mean as best I could with your screen shot.



Images like this don't have a hope in hades of being optimal SOOC I'm afraid.

[CaolIla]

My question is not really related to the PP, but rather to the initial camera settings. The settings were as follows: ISO 100, 72mm, Aperture 5.6, SS 1250

Hi Susan

Many wise things has already been said but, if someone allready said anything about the actual settings I apologize, I don't think the settings are relevant for this kind of picture.

ISO 100, absolutely right if thats your cameras native ISO.

72 mm, nothing to say about that.

Aperture 5.6, Thats not your lens's best performing aperture I'd guess and it gives you a shallow DOF. 8 to 11 or even 16 would be more right.

SS 1250, OK with a smaller aperture the value would be different, but if you're not running past the lake when taking the picture you don't need it so high. You are of course using a tripod....

When you are there you are not in a hurry so take your time, look at the histogram, and take lots of pictures.

[Suzan J]

Thank you all for your helpful comments. As usual, the main take away relating to this issue is "Practice makes Perfect". I will attempt to incorporate all the helpful advice in my next attempt. A special thank you to Colin for the make-over. I especially like how you brought dimension to the water area in front of the wood. Bringing out the texture in the wood and adding some depth to the water was exactly was I was trying to achieve. What this tells me is that an image can be vastly improved with skillful PP techniques despite backlighting and wide dynamic ranges.

For those who had asked, I never have ISO set to automatic and try to keep it as low as possible for all shots.

I did use my Aperture 3.0 application to try and selectively lighten the dark wood and I think it is somewhat of an improvement, but falls short of Colin's version. Below is my lightened version.

DSC_1359 by Soo J, on Flickr

[Saorsa]

DSC_1359 by Soo J, on Flickr

Actually, I find your version a delightfully soft and peaceful aquascape and prefer it to the previous edit.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you all for your helpful comments. As usual, the main take away relating to this issue is "Practice makes Perfect". I will attempt to incorporate all the helpful advice in my next attempt. A special thank you to Colin for the make-over. I especially like how you brought dimension to the water area in front of the wood. Bringing out the texture in the wood and adding some depth to the water was exactly was I was trying to achieve. What this tells me is that an image can be vastly improved with skillful PP techniques despite backlighting and wide dynamic ranges.

For those who had asked, I never have ISO set to automatic and try to keep it as low as possible for all shots.

I did use my Aperture 3.0 application to try and selectively lighten the dark wood and I think it is somewhat of an improvement, but falls short of Colin's version. Below is my lightened version.

DSC_1359 by Soo J, on Flickr

You're welcome Suzan. Just to get a bit more technical for a sec; most modern cameras will capture about 12 stops of dynamic range, so often that's not the issue (it wasn't in your case) - the problem is that we can only display around 6 stops and print only 4 - so the camera isn't the "weak link in the chain". It IS important to use the camera's base ISO if you want to maximise the dynamic range of the scene captured though; for the most part (and almost by definition) dynamic range of a camera decreases at the same rate as ISO increases - so a low ISO is definitely a good thing for scenes like this. Often aperture isn't overly important, but ultimately, it's shutterspeed that determines the effect you'll get with water. Here's a couple of examples - the first I shot at (off memory) 1/3 second - and the second around 30 seconds - I'm sure you can see the difference.





Generally, all camera metering will select a shutterspeed / aperture / ISO combo that protects highlights (to a degree anyway) so the important things are (a) shoot RAW so that you're not throwing away information that's needed to process the image optimally and (b) make sure that you're not over-exposing areas that have important detail (like clouds). After that, it's all in the processing. For what it's worth, the best in the business for this kind of work is undoubtedly Photoshop; it used to be that we had to fork out hundreds and hundreds of dollars to buy it (and about 1/4 of that each time to update it), but a year or so ago they changed their business model to one where you can simply subscribe to the software for a tiny fraction of that (currently $9.95 a month in my currency) (for the first year, then $19.95 a month after that).

[jcuknz]

Ignoring your original question the message I get from this thread is the difference between control of somebody using Aperture versus somebody using Photoshop or in my case Paint Shop Pro X6 to match Colin's without his presentation.

Over at Photo Net in the casual forum there is a discussion on the use [ over use ] of the clarity slider which seems to be alluded to in Brian's comment #15. It seem fashionable these days to go for the brittle finish rather than the more pleasant softness of yesteryear so maybe one should stay with Aperture unless one is pot hunting

Of course I am biased as a long standing [ sitting ] user of PSP which cost me just ten months of PSCC first year rates and I will likely not need to get X7 but wait a year or more for X8

[lukaswerth]

Others seem to be able to see the image in question, but I am not. I get only a flickr message: "This image or video is currently unavailable." Anyone knows how to get around this?

Lukas

[ajohnw]

I think there is only one way that you could rescue this shot. Do 2 developments from the same raw file - one to give the water etc as you would like and then another set up to show detail in the dark areas. Looking at the histogram there is enough there to do this. Then blend the 2 with the windows enfuse gui which you will find freely available on the web. You may have to do this a couple of times to get what you want.

I posted a set of shots in my flickr account to show the general idea.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/489946...7631399852866/

Simple exposure compensation adjustments may give you what you need but the exposure for the dark areas may need a curve adjustment as well or some combination of the 2. One way of looking at the process is that Enfuse picks pixels based on contrast but the lightness of the dark end exposure may brighten the light end exposure. I would also advise using the default settings. These are all weightings for making pixel selections so may not have the anticipated results.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

Over at Photo Net in the casual forum there is a discussion on the use [ over use ] of the clarity slider which seems to be alluded to in Brian's comment #15. It seem fashionable these days to go for the brittle finish rather than the more pleasant softness of yesteryear so maybe one should stay with Aperture unless one is pot hunting

Photoshop ACR's clarity slider doesn't produce a "brittle" finish; it provides an effect similar to a high radius variable contrast unsharp mask that in essence acts as a local contrast enhancement; something that's needed to provide "pop" to clouds when a high dynamic range is compressed into something displayable.

Of course I am biased as a long standing [ sitting ] user of PSP

Yep.