I need help (again)

[ScoutR]

Had the most amazing light here yesterday, and I totally messed up. I love this kind of light and if I get another chance need to do Much Much better. What I got yesterday I could have done with a kodak instamatic and I am very dissapointed.

These are all as shot, no PP. Here are the problems

1. Noise. these are at ISO 200 I would not expect to get so much noise. I know I can make it a bit better with PP but these are really bad and not what I am used to seeing from this camera at 200 ISO

2. What is the best method for exposing in this kind of light. I always need help here. I've gotten into the habit of using Spot metering (it works pretty good for birds and flowers, but not sure about this type of scene) and that's what I used here. "Generally" I try to expose for the brightest part then adjust if required to eliminate blinkies.

3. Don't even worry about the focus. Something is wrong with the camera OR I've changed something and I don't know what. I'm working on that. The last 3 outings, the camera does not seem to be focusing properly. Again I don't know if its an adjustment gone wrong or the camera is malfunctioning. Just imagine the they are in focus.

Anyway, I'm open to any and all advice on how to expose and compose for these kind of shots. Be brutal (but not nasty, I feel bad enough already)

#1 1/640s: f11: ISO 200: 52mm spot metered on light part of sky


#2 1/250s: f11: ISO 200: 112mm: spot metered on light part of sky


#3 1/320s: f5.6: ISO 200: 170mm: spot metered on light grey part of road


#4 1/320s: f5.6: ISO 200: 200mm: spot metered on rainbow (my first rainbow, not much of a rainbow but....)

[Shadowman]

Wendy,

1. I can't remember which camera you use but ISO 200 shouldn't give you that much noise. I think both of your issues, noise and focus, are related to the conditions you were shooting in. You may have, it's only a guess, shot multiple exposures creating a bit of heat across the camera sensor and the out of focus may have occurred because of your excitement to get the shot and is the result of camera shake. Now if you tell me you were using a tripod then perhaps you are right about the camera. Let us know more about your shooting experience.

[Radu Dinu Cordeanu]

Hi,
In my opinion ...below You'll get the first

[Radu Dinu Cordeanu]

And now........the second

[nycandre]

Hi Wendy - that third one, of the shiny road is really nice

As to the other shots - I am assuming you are shooting digital. (I you are shooting film all I can offer is to bracket your shots). Now if you shoot digital, it is so much simpler: just review the histogram of a shot you just made, expose to the right. And shoot raw. Then correct in post processing. The cloud scenes you shot have a wide range of light intensity - and they may well exceed what is possible with film or digital for that matter.
In this example I wanted to include the sky, but I knew that may have been asking too much, so I made sure I got the scenery exposure right - I did - the only thing I could have done (if I had wanted to take the trouble) would have been to take another shot exposed for the sky and then combine the two exposures in photoshop. I am no expert in that and figured the image was good enough as it is
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/2377324914/
This other shot is straight into the sun on a cloudy hzay day - again very high variation in light intensity. So there are some sacrifices to make - the area around the sun is definitely white-d out - tho I *did* get the silhoutte of the bird - and the rest of the clouds have an even light so they come out right.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/2156730461/
Well - hope this helps - just have to experiment a lot. Shooting film is expensive, so if you do I would advise to use as a side tool a digital camera - my recommendation since you are a careful type would be the (now available in used only) Sony R1. Amazing optics quality (Zeiss!) and very decent 10 Meg sensor. And the price (used) nowadays runs about USD 350. A real bargain. See my photog equip comments in the New York Times article there
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4050967137/

[Geoff F]

Well they are all difficult, if not impossible, scenes to accurately capture in one exposure. But my first thought is what white balance were you using?

[ScoutR]

From Shadowman
Wendy,

1. I can't remember which camera you use but ISO 200 shouldn't give you that much noise. I think both of your issues, noise and focus, are related to the conditions you were shooting in. You may have, it's only a guess, shot multiple exposures creating a bit of heat across the camera sensor and the out of focus may have occurred because of your excitement to get the shot and is the result of camera shake. Now if you tell me you were using a tripod then perhaps you are right about the camera. Let us know more about your shooting experience.

Sorry I should have given more information. These were taken with a Nikon D3000 and a Nikon 18-200mm VRII f 5.6 lens.
I don't use a tripod but in the first 2 did prop myself up against a post. It was Very windy, but I think with the shutter speeds used they should all have been much sharper. The thing with the focus is that I do not hear the camera focusing like I usually do, so I am more concerned about the exposure and why all the noise. I think the focus really does have something to do with the camera Or I have indavertantly set something wrong. I'll try to figure that out on my own or take it back to the store for them to check.

From Nycandre
Hi Wendy - that third one, of the shiny road is really nice

Thanks, it would be a lot nicer if it was in focus and missing all the noise. Exposure not too bad I guess, but the road was much darker in spots than what shows here.

The cloud scenes you shot have a wide range of light intensity - and they may well exceed what is possible with film or digital for that matter.

Does anyone know if scenes like this are outside the dynamic range of digital sensors. Do I really need HDR for scenes like this?

From Geoff
Well they are all difficult, if not impossible, scenes to accurately capture in one exposure. But my first thought is what white balance were you using?

I guess that answers my question. White balance was set to auto. Generally the colours look pretty accurate to what I saw. I just can't figure out why all the noise. If scenes like this are outside the range of the camera, I guess I will have to decide which is most important and expose for that. In the first 2 the sky was the most important to me, and that is what I exposed for. I can accept the dark foreground, but I don't know where all this noise came from all of a sudden.
Also I am wondering if (in the future) I would be better of using Matrix metering mode for this type of shot instead of spot metering, and then compensate +or- EC on what the camera gives me.

[ScoutR]

Hi,
In my opinion ...below You'll get the first

Thanks Radu, I like what you have done with the crop and the B&W conversion.

[ScoutR]

And now........the second

Ahh, that is very nice. The colours are not what I actually saw (which is shown in the original) but I like the way you have emphasized the light streaking from behind the clouds. That is what i was trying to capture.

[Colin Southern]

I've gotten into the habit of using Spot metering (it works pretty good for birds and flowers, but not sure about this type of scene) and that's what I used here. "Generally" I try to expose for the brightest part then adjust if required to eliminate blinkies.

Hi Wendy,

Spot metering is a wonderful thing, but it's NOT like using the other metering modes. I wrote a bit about it here and here. Personally, for this type of scene I'd just go with Av mode and Evaluative / matrix metering - watch for blinkies and watch the histogram - and add or subtract EC as required.

[arith]

I don't understand what you want really. If you are taking a picture for your own benefit or even just an image for a competition, it doesn't have to be real does it?

I like the undulating road, I could do that here all I need is a car, but you've done it and so well I took a look and saw it was good. cheers Wendy

[rick55]

I guess that answers my question. White balance was set to auto. Generally the colours look pretty accurate to what I saw. I just can't figure out why all the noise. If scenes like this are outside the range of the camera, I guess I will have to decide which is most important and expose for that. In the first 2 the sky was the most important to me, and that is what I exposed for. I can accept the dark foreground, but I don't know where all this noise came from all of a sudden.
Also I am wondering if (in the future) I would be better of using Matrix metering mode for this type of shot instead of spot metering, and then compensate +or- EC on what the camera gives me.

Hi, Wendy;

I think the noise came in because the images were underexposed. When pixels in the sensor don't get as much light, the noise gets more noticeable. This is because noise is (relatively) constant, being proportional to things like temperature, so as the levels of light at the sensor go down, noise becomes more apparent. I thought there was a thread about this, where people discussed whether to raise the ISO or underexpose, but I can't find it. Maybe it was in a book.

Cheers,
Rick

[Colin Southern]

I thought there was a thread about this, where people discussed whether to raise the ISO or underexpose, but I can't find it. Maybe it was in a book.

We've discussed it here, but I can't immediately find it.

Basically the rule is ALWAYS use a higher ISO (in preference to under-exposing), but make it a full ISO step (100,200,400 etc) - don't use part ISO steps as they're done digitally.

[ScoutR]

From Rick
I think the noise came in because the images were underexposed. When pixels in the sensor don't get as much light, the noise gets more noticeable. This is because noise is (relatively) constant, being proportional to things like temperature, so as the levels of light at the sensor go down, noise becomes more apparent. I thought there was a thread about this, where people discussed whether to raise the ISO or underexpose, but I can't find it. Maybe it was in a book.

Thanks Rick: I don't mind the underexposure, but I do mind the noise. In the first 2 shots the sky looks properly exposed, but there is noise in the sky too. Based on what you said I would expect the noise in the underexposed foreground. Am I missing something? or does underexposure in one area cause noise across the whole spectrum.

I can understand that ideally exposure has to be correct. Regardless of whether or not I can live with the underexposure or not, I can't live with the noise . I guess that is where the dynamic range comes in and the need for HDR. Sadly, I don't want to get into that just now, so I will have to compose so I have one or the other. I like the contrast between light and dark, but everything is a compromise. I'm sure I can clean up the noise a bit with PP, I don't know if I can do it to acceptable levels though. I may have to try Neat Image. I've had it for awhile but have not had to use it.

From Colin
Basically the rule is ALWAYS use a higher ISO (in preference to under-exposing), but make it a full ISO step (100,200,400 etc) - don't use part ISO steps as they're done digitally.

Thanks Colin: Good point to keep in mind. However, on these shots, I had enough light that I did not need higher ISO. The problem was finding the exposure that would work for the highlights in the sky but not underexpose the foreground and in this case apparently introduce a lot of noise.
Next time I have the chance I will use Matrix metering and see if that works any better.

Thanks for the help and taking the time. Sorry if I'm totally misunderstanding. For awhile, I thought I was getting better at this, but methinks it's back to the drawing board.

Wendy

[ScoutR]

I don't understand what you want really. If you are taking a picture for your own benefit or even just an image for a competition, it doesn't have to be real does it?

I like the undulating road, I could do that here all I need is a car, but you've done it and so well I took a look and saw it was good. cheers Wendy

Thanks Arith: I think I could live with the road shot if it any part of it was even slightly in focus. . I'm glad you like it though - you should get a car or a bike.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Wendy,

The problem was finding the exposure that would work for the highlights in the sky but not underexpose the foreground

Can't be done (well not without a GND filter anyway). For that to happen you need the sky to be no more than about 2 or 3 stops brighter than the foreground, and what you've got there is probably 4 or 5 stops (due to what we call "backlighting" - where the bright bits are due more to a direct / active light source than a reflective scene where the light is reflecting off the object).

Best you can do is push the exposure as high as you can without blinkies (or perhaps just a few blinkies in the brightest portion), and then raise the shadows and midtones using fill light and brightness controls in ACR (MUST be shot RAW). Alternatively, take a couple of brackeded shots and combine them using a 1 of a couple of HDR techniques.

[ScoutR]

Hi Wendy,



Can't be done (well not without a GND filter anyway). For that to happen you need the sky to be no more than about 2 or 3 stops brighter than the foreground, and what you've got there is probably 4 or 5 stops (due to what we call "backlighting" - where the bright bits are due more to a direct / active light source than a reflective scene where the light is reflecting off the object).

Best you can do is push the exposure as high as you can without blinkies (or perhaps just a few blinkies in the brightest portion), and then raise the shadows and midtones using fill light and brightness controls in ACR (MUST be shot RAW). Alternatively, take a couple of brackeded shots and combine them using a 1 of a couple of HDR techniques.

<Sigh> Bah humbug It seems I always want to do the impossible. I've always wanted a wide angle telephoto lens too. It also seems that I like backlighting. I think we went through this before, but at that time chormatic abberation was the issue. You told me then that I couldn't expect the camera to shoot these kind of scenes and very patiently explained why .... I don't mean to not listen, I just like this type of lighting and keep going back to it. I guess I'll have to put it off for awhile though until I can do HDR. Right now I would not even want to attempt it. Too many other things to get a grasp on.
Thanks for not yelling, and calling me names . I'll try to quit asking the same (but sort of different question) over and over.

Wendy

[Colin Southern]

Hi Wendy,

All is not lost - you just need to understand what's happening so you can work around it. What you have there is a bit like taking a photo of someone who is standing in front of a window ... the camera meters and exposes for the light coming through behind the person, and the person becomes "a shadow of their former self"

If you like that kind of lighting (I do too by the way - kinda throws the old "don't shoot into the sun" rule out of the window) then probably a good thing to start with would be a GND Filter. I use Singh-Ray, but there are also cheaper brands available. Combining them in PP is also pretty easy if you shoot the originals using a tripod.

[Colin Southern]

[ScoutR]

Hi Wendy,

All is not lost - you just need to understand what's happening so you can work around it. What you have there is a bit like taking a photo of someone who is standing in front of a window ... the camera meters and exposes for the light coming through behind the person, and the person becomes "a shadow of their former self"

If you like that kind of lighting (I do too by the way - kinda throws the old "don't shoot into the sun" rule out of the window) then probably a good thing to start with would be a GND Filter. I use Singh-Ray, but there are also cheaper brands available. Combining them in PP is also pretty easy if you shoot the originals using a tripod.

I have a tripod but not the right kind of head (I think) the tripod is very sturdy but the head is hard to manipulate and set up. I've only used it once. It's a Giotto with a 3 way head. I hope to start revisiting some locations by the end of the summer, and i will take the tripod along. Right now I'm too busy rediscovering the countryside and ping ponging around from place to place. I just don't want to lug the tripod. GND might help me though. I will check it out.
Goals for this summer: More creative floral shots, and get some decent backlit shots. That should keep me busy.

Your rework looks good. Maybe a bit too bright in the foreground, but more in keeping with the original scene, and the sky still looks great. (except for the noise) I like it. Thanks

Wendy