Promise... last of the horse pics ;-) C&C welcomed

[KimC]

I was reading in the lighting book that some on this site recommended that it's easier to correct an overexposed image than to correct one that is underexposed... but for some reason I am not finding that (specifically speaking to photo 1). Hopefully the book will help me understand this as I continue to read thru it (and of course, as I improve my photo and PP skills).

Pic 1 - ISO 200; 70mm; F8.0; 1/500




Pic 2 - ISO 3200; 85m; F7.1; 1/250 - My camera doesn't handle ISO this high well...

[rpcrowe]

Kim,

IMO, you have pushed the ISO on #2 higher than you need. I never use 3,200 in daylight, even on a cloudy day or in the shade. I do most of my daylight shooting ranging between 100 and 400 ISO depending on the venue, lighting and subject, I will tend to use the 320 or 400 ISO levels when I am shooting with a long focal length lens and want a faster shutter speed.

As far as being able to correct over exposure more easily than underexposure, I would want to err on the under side. I always shoot RAW and there is a lot of information contained in a RAW image even when under exposed. However if you have burned out your highlights with overexposure, there is no information in those highlights with which to work.

However, most digital cameras are capable of auto exposure bracketing: AEB. Doubtless, some cameras make it easier to accomplish AEB than others. But, if you have an important series of shots, I would recommend shooting a series of three AEB shots (one at, one over and one under the suggested meter reading). Shooting that way, you will almost never lose an image due to exposure variables and you will also gain insight into the proper exposure vs. the exposure recommended by your meter...

[NorthernFocus]

I was reading in the lighting book that some on this site recommended that it's easier to correct an overexposed image than to correct one that is underexposed... but for some reason I am not finding that ...

Hi, Kim. The caveat is that the highlights aren't blown. This one looks like you've got some hot spots. Plus with the angle you were shooting there's a lot of glare on the grass/leaves. A polarizer would really help in those conditions.

The second shot is really nice. Great animated pose by your friend and the horse is at just a bit of an angle but appears to be looking at the camera. IMO cropping a bit from right and top would benefit the image as well as increasing contrast a bit. This is my favorite one so far for content. Just a couple of tweaks.

[Mike Buckley]

Pic 2 - ISO 3200; 85m; F7.1; 1/250 - My camera doesn't handle ISO this high well...

I won't express an opinion about your camera's ISO capability but maybe I can provide some help about how to use a lower ISO. Your shutter speed is the slowest I would use in this situation. Assuming that it's fast enough, you only need to determine how to maintain it and lower your ISO. You would do that by using a larger aperture. Given this composition, you could do that and easily keep the two subjects sharply in focus. If you opened up your aperture by two stops to about f/3.3 (I emphasize about because I don't know the exact aperture that is 2 stops greater than f/7.1) you would be shooting at ISO 800.

By the way, rather than promise to show us the last of your horse photos, promise instead to show us more of them.

[IzzieK]

I am with Dan in his opinion here...in the first one the grass and the green spots in the trees are overblown (too much yellow) but the shot itself is OK of your friend and her horse. My favourite here is shot #2...I just noticed that you seem to be fond of this pose no matter if it is outside or near the shed...I really love #2, I just keep coming back each time to look at it again...there is magic between these two...

[KimC]

Kim,

IMO, you have pushed the ISO on #2 higher than you need. I never use 3,200 in daylight, even on a cloudy day or in the shade. I do most of my daylight shooting ranging between 100 and 400 ISO depending on the venue, lighting and subject, I will tend to use the 320 or 400 ISO levels when I am shooting with a long focal length lens and want a faster shutter speed.

As far as being able to correct over exposure more easily than underexposure, I would want to err on the under side. I always shoot RAW and there is a lot of information contained in a RAW image even when under exposed. However if you have burned out your highlights with overexposure, there is no information in those highlights with which to work.

However, most digital cameras are capable of auto exposure bracketing: AEB. Doubtless, some cameras make it easier to accomplish AEB than others. But, if you have an important series of shots, I would recommend shooting a series of three AEB shots (one at, one over and one under the suggested meter reading). Shooting that way, you will almost never lose an image due to exposure variables and you will also gain insight into the proper exposure vs. the exposure recommended by your meter...

Thank you Richard, this is very helpful information. Yes, I agree, ISO was much too high. It was prob 20 minutes before sunset. I did learn that evening, although too late, that I should have decreased the ISO and opened up the aperture, but I have been having issues with some blurring and was reluctant to do so... Lesson learned. I'll have to check into whether my camera has AEB.

[KimC]

Assuming that it's fast enough, you only need to determine how to maintain it and lower your ISO. You would do that by using a larger aperture. Given this composition, you could do that and easily keep the two subjects sharply in focus. If you opened up your aperture by two stops to about f/3.3 (I emphasize about because I don't know the exact aperture that is 2 stops greater than f/7.1) you would be shooting at ISO 800.

By the way, rather than promise to show us the last of your horse photos, promise instead to show us more of them.

Thanks for you specific comments Mike - they are very helpful. As I shared with Richard, I did figure out, although too late, that I should have done just as you suggested. We had quit because it was too dark, so walking back to the barn, I decreased the ISO and opened up the aperture to get a shot of my two friends w/ the horse... I looked at the display and said urgh... wish I figured that out sooner. I do have a question -- is it just experience that results in you knowing if my aperture is X, then my ISO is Y? Or is there some guide? Perhaps it will be in my lighting book as I continue to read thru it.

Thanks for mentioning you would like to see more of these images... :-)

[KimC]

I am with Dan in his opinion here...in the first one the grass and the green spots in the trees are overblown (too much yellow) but the shot itself is OK of your friend and her horse. My favourite here is shot #2...I just noticed that you seem to be fond of this pose no matter if it is outside or near the shed...I really love #2, I just keep coming back each time to look at it again...there is magic between these two...

Thank you Izzie. Yes, I agree - this set of images has been rather frustrating but I knew the harsh sun would be a challenge.

Thanks for your comments on #2. I do like that pose - they are both rather formal creatures and it suits them well :-)

[KimC]

Hi, Kim. The caveat is that the highlights aren't blown. This one looks like you've got some hot spots. Plus with the angle you were shooting there's a lot of glare on the grass/leaves. A polarizer would really help in those conditions.

The second shot is really nice. Great animated pose by your friend and the horse is at just a bit of an angle but appears to be looking at the camera. IMO cropping a bit from right and top would benefit the image as well as increasing contrast a bit. This is my favorite one so far for content. Just a couple of tweaks.

Thanks so much for mentioning a polarizer Dan. I have one and can use it today; I will be trying more outside riding shots. Question - what kind of angle would have helped with the glare?

Concerning the second, I will make the crop adjustment and also play with the contrast. Thank you

[KimC]

This seems to be "glowing" a little less than then 1st image above... I do like how it looks like they are both in deep thought.

ISO 200; 100mm; F8; 1/500

[NorthernFocus]

...is it just experience that results in you knowing if my aperture is X, then my ISO is Y? Or is there some guide?...

It is just the basic exposure equation. You can alter exposure by any one of the three variables, shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. Like shutter speed one full stop of change requires either doubling or halving the ISO setting. In you case you were at ISO 3200; F7.1; 1/250 and 85mm. Assuming you wanted to keep the same exposure and ss but shoot lower ISO, if you were in aperture priority changing ISO to 1600 would have pushed aperture to f5 (one full stop). Another stop to ISO 800 would have given f3.5.

Not sure what lens you were shooting, presumably a zoom considering the two shots were at different focal lengths? So I suspect by this time you were getting down pretty well wide open on the lens. So to get any lower ISO you'd have to start giving up ss.

[Mike Buckley]

is it just experience that results in you knowing if my aperture is X, then my ISO is Y?

It has to do with understanding the so-called exposure triangle: aperture setting, shutter speed and ISO value. When changing one or more of those three exposure settings, the others change in proportion when maintaining the same exposure.

You probably know that exposing the sensor to twice as much or half as much light is the difference of one more or one less stop of exposure, respectively. It's easy to remember that changing only the ISO to a value that is twice or half as high increases or reduces the exposure by one stop, respectively, by affecting the sensor's sensitivity to light. Similarly, changing only the shutter speed to a duration of time that is twice or half as fast reduces or increases the exposure by one stop, respectively, by affecting the amount of time the sensor is exposed to light. The mathematical relationship between aperture settings, which affect the amount of light exposed to the sensor, is far more complicated and I have never pretended to understand the underlying math behind the relationships. Even so, it's easy to memorize that the following settings are sequentially 1 stop apart: f/1.4 -- f/2 -- f/2.8 -- f/4 -- f/5.6 -- f/8 -- f/11 -- f/16 -- f/22. (Those of us who grew up on film cameras constantly saw those settings that we made directly on the lens. That made it easy to learn those relationships, unlike the experience of digital photographers who see every imaginable aperture setting displayed in the LCD.)

If you leave one setting unchanged and change one setting, you must change the third setting by the same degree in the opposite direction to maintain the same exposure. As an example, if you don't change the shutter speed and if you change the aperture by one full stop, the ISO value must also change by one full stop in the opposite direction to maintain the same exposure.

Most important: study up on the relationships in the triangle of exposure, which I'm sure is explained very well in one of the CiC tutorials. Understanding and using those relationships is fundamental to everything about controlling exposure beyond the realm of automated point-and-shoot photography.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks so much for mentioning a polarizer Dan. I have one and can use it today; I will be trying more outside riding shots. Question - what kind of angle would have helped with the glare?

In the first shot it looks like you were at least partially backlit (shooting towards the sun). In the last shot that you just posted it appears to be lit from the side. Back lighting can be tricky as demonstrated by you shot in that the meter is compensating for the shadows but the edges (hair, reflection on leaves, etc.) are very bright. So you get the really bright highlights. You can use it to your advantage when done purposefully such as light through the horses tail/mane, a person's hair, etc. But you have to mind the highlights.

Keep in mind with the polarizer you will lose 1 1/2 stops of light so you will have to fight the ISO issue if late in the day. Also if you find the sun behind you the polarizer won't do much good.

[Mike Buckley]

Also if you find the sun behind you the polarizer won't do much good.

Also true when shooting primarily toward the sun.

In summary, the lower the sun is to the horizon, the closer the position of the sun is to a 90-degree angle to the direction you are pointing the camera, and the less diffuse the light is (clouds diffuse sunlight), the more change can be made using a polarizer.

[Shadowman]

So sad this is the last, very interesting subjects.

[KimC]

It is just the basic exposure equation. You can alter exposure by any one of the three variables, shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. Like shutter speed one full stop of change requires either doubling or halving the ISO setting. In you case you were at ISO 3200; F7.1; 1/250 and 85mm. Assuming you wanted to keep the same exposure and ss but shoot lower ISO, if you were in aperture priority changing ISO to 1600 would have pushed aperture to f5 (one full stop). Another stop to ISO 800 would have given f3.5.

Not sure what lens you were shooting, presumably a zoom considering the two shots were at different focal lengths? So I suspect by this time you were getting down pretty well wide open on the lens. So to get any lower ISO you'd have to start giving up ss.

Such helpful information Dan - thank you. You are correct, I had a zoom lens on..

[KimC]

It has to do with understanding the so-called exposure triangle: aperture setting, shutter speed and ISO value. When changing one or more of those three exposure settings, the others change in proportion when maintaining the same exposure.

You probably know that exposing the sensor to twice as much or half as much light is the difference of one more or one less stop of exposure, respectively. It's easy to remember that changing only the ISO to a value that is twice or half as high increases or reduces the exposure by one stop, respectively, by affecting the sensor's sensitivity to light. Similarly, changing only the shutter speed to a duration of time that is twice or half as fast reduces or increases the exposure by one stop, respectively, by affecting the amount of time the sensor is exposed to light. The mathematical relationship between aperture settings, which affect the amount of light exposed to the sensor, is far more complicated and I have never pretended to understand the underlying math behind the relationships. Even so, it's easy to memorize that the following settings are sequentially 1 stop apart: f/1.4 -- f/2 -- f/2.8 -- f/4 -- f/5.6 -- f/8 -- f/11 -- f/16 -- f/22. (Those of us who grew up on film cameras constantly saw those settings that we made directly on the lens. That made it easy to learn those relationships, unlike the experience of digital photographers who see every imaginable aperture setting displayed in the LCD.)

If you leave one setting unchanged and change one setting, you must change the third setting by the same degree in the opposite direction to maintain the same exposure. As an example, if you don't change the shutter speed and if you change the aperture by one full stop, the ISO value must also change by one full stop in the opposite direction to maintain the same exposure.

Most important: study up on the relationships in the triangle of exposure, which I'm sure is explained very well in one of the CiC tutorials. Understanding and using those relationships is fundamental to everything about controlling exposure beyond the realm of automated point-and-shoot photography.

This is wonderful! Math is my weakness, so I greatly appreciate you taking the time to explain it as you have. This site has wonderful people on it. I have learned so much since I joined!

[KimC]

In the first shot it looks like you were at least partially backlit (shooting towards the sun). In the last shot that you just posted it appears to be lit from the side. Back lighting can be tricky as demonstrated by you shot in that the meter is compensating for the shadows but the edges (hair, reflection on leaves, etc.) are very bright. So you get the really bright highlights. You can use it to your advantage when done purposefully such as light through the horses tail/mane, a person's hair, etc. But you have to mind the highlights.

Keep in mind with the polarizer you will lose 1 1/2 stops of light so you will have to fight the ISO issue if late in the day. Also if you find the sun behind you the polarizer won't do much good.

Dan, thank you for explaining it a visual way -- this kind of explanation really helps me. I learned some great new stuff - I am glad I posted more horse pics :-)

[KimC]

So sad this is the last, very interesting subjects.

Thank you John. I was concerned I was boring all of you with so many horse shots (horses are my favorite creatures), but since it seems that some of you enjoy them, perhaps it will not be the last. Of today (a cloudy day) to hopefully get some better conditions for the riding shots.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kim, my best is #2, I also like the posture of the horse in #1 very much I too would like to see some more of horse shots and your pony is very nice to shoot too. I can assure you that tutorials in CinC are super , they really help.