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

[KimC]

Thanks Remco. I don't use PS; I'll have to see if my software has something similar ~ I believe they do in the newest version that I just loaded.

Another option might be using a luminosity mask to apply an "exposition" correction as a function of pixel luminance. That would allow you to avoid influencing the shadows. For a more thorough explanation than I can put here: http://goodlight.us/writing/luminosi...tymasks-1.html

[KimC]

Truthfully I didn't notice the blue cast. I did relook at the image and see that it did have a slight cast; personally, I wouldn't have called it "terrible".

Kim I was only showing what could be done to the horse and rider to remove that terrible blue cast, I have idea what you final vision for the image was, my only thoughts were to the horse and rider.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

I did relook at the image and see that it did have a slight cast; personally, I wouldn't have called it "terrible".

I also wouldn't call it terrible, at least not on my calibrated monitor. Just the opposite, the bluish tones in the shadows are natural and are attractive to my eye because they so nicely complement the warm tones in the background and dirt.

Images are so often presented with extra warmth that it's understandable when we notice a cooler cast. Personally, I think the tendency to display such warmth tends to be overdone.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Kim I just want to comment on WB . The horses in both images look a bit blue and IMO the WBs in both images need adjusting.I have read that you find Allan's edit too warm but IMO the color of the horse is more natural in his edit. So,may be you should try a WB not as warm as Alan's in order to get a more natural color of the horse.

[KimC]

Yes, I did Binnur. I adjusted the WB of the horse and that's how I saw the slight blue cast.

Hi Kim I just want to comment on WB . The horses in both images look a bit blue and IMO the WBs in both images need adjusting.I have read that you find Allan's edit too warm but IMO the color of the horse is more natural in his edit. So,may be you should try a WB not as warm as Alan's in order to get a more natural color of the horse.

[KimC]

My eye tends to like a bluer WB -- I do know it's something I need to be careful of. There are all different shades of gray. I can deal with having my hair gray as it is a gray shade I like -- that steel color with more blue versus brown. If it leaned brown, I would still be coloring it. ;-)

I also wouldn't call it terrible, at least not on my calibrated monitor. Just the opposite, the bluish tones in the shadows are natural and are attractive to my eye because they so nicely complement the warm tones in the background and dirt.

Images are so often presented with extra warmth that it's understandable when we notice a cooler cast. Personally, I think the tendency to display such warmth tends to be overdone.

[William W]

. . . 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.

Referring only to image #1

I find it often assists to define the issue - The Shooting Scenario is: Sport’s Subjects (the Horse and Rider) are lit by CHANGING (as Subjects move through) Dappled Available Light.

My general solution would be set manual and meter for whatever might be the highlighted area (the area lit by the strongest light, probably about allowing highlights about ⅔~ 1 Stop overexposed, depending upon the camera) and then Dodge and Burn each shot in Post Production.

If the dapples of direct sunlight were small and few and far between I'd be happy to allow those to burn-out: the few big chunks of dappled light that you have, maybe let them over expose by 1.5 stops and that would mean a little bit of burning out (or repair needed) in the final - it's a fluid slide rule - kinda a mix of experience / intuition / luck.

The big two advantages are: you've got a camera with a good dynamic range; you know that you'll be better able to pull out shadow detail at the lower ISO's

For your image #1, - IF most of the shots were to have big chunks of hard sunlight dapples on the Horse and/or Rider, (applying the ‘F/16 Rule’) you'd be pulling around: F/8 @ 1/800th @ ISO 800, being two stops over exposed for “F/16 Rule" for direct front-lit sunlight and (as you can use F/2.8) is ≡ F/2.8 @ 1/1600th @ ISO200. This might seem on the face of it terribly underexposed for the majority of the frame, (and it would be) but logically and probably assuming about 1 Stop headroom in your camera, that exposure would only blow-out some small areas of highlight which are in the middle of each ‘dapple’. Then the task is only to recover the shadow areas in Post Production – which is a task but not really all that difficult to achieve at ISO200 as there would be quite a lot of detail there in those shadows: your camera would have at least a Dynamic Range of 8 or 9 Stops at ISO200.

IF the Arena is clearly open shade in one area and direct light in another area, then I would make two meter readings and switch between the two, usually in M Mode, but can be done in an Automatic Mode switching the EC: such a Lighting Scenario is common at a Field Sport early morning or late afternoon when the Grandstand Shadows affect the playing area.

(Is it termed an “Arena” for Dressage?)

The added issue is that the Horse is white. When in open shade the blue cast is predominate on that area. (This is a familiar issue for Wedding Photographers - White Bridal Gown in Dappled Sunlight). Note the Horse's rump is in hard direct light and is 'white' but the head is in open shade and is 'blue'.

Direct (and powerful) Flash as Fill is a useful antidote – but probably impossible/impractical for Dressage, even at a practice session. The next solution is to dodge on colour balance (film / enlarger terminology).

***

For Subjects moving through Dappled Available Light, I would generally expose for the highlights (i.e. never allow any over massive area of unrecoverable overexposure and that's why I would tend to usually use Manual Mode after making a reading for the brightest area - or in most cases, simply use the F/16 Rule if the dappling is direct front-lit sunlight) and then lots of work in Post Production: that is my short answer.

WW

Addendum: On re-reading this conversation I noted Post #11 Dave wrote quite similar opinion regarding how to address the exposure question. I didn't notice this earlier as it didn't stand out as a direct answer to the question about 'how do I get a correct exposure in this situation?'

I just wanted to acknowledge Dave's comments now: I concur.

[DEAN01]

Kim,
Obviously very difficult shots and you have received very good advice for correcting the next series you shoot. From my perspective--a horse and rider perspective--both are well composed and the rider is in control. Good work under the conditions! Question: in the first shot was the horse throwing his tail up or wringing the tail?

[William W]

On the two topics of:
> the image as it appears with large areas overexposed and blown out;
> the "blue cast" in the shadow area

There are several methods of attacking these issues.

If possible I like to take a straight forward (and simple) approach and work with the WHOLE image first to get a good/acceptable colour balance, but importantly work ONLY in SMALL increments each pass and repeating if necessary:
> colour balance mid-tones, diminish blue
> colour balance shadows, diminish blue

Working on the whole image, these changes in colour balance affect the jodhpurs and the background timber, rendering the jodhpurs green and the timber more golden-yellow (which they both might have been): however addressing these changes:
> Saturation, diminish yellow (fixes timber to close to tone in the original)
> Saturation, diminish green (renders jodhpurs blackish)

The image appears generally cool
> mild warming filter (Filter 85, at about 12%)

Then the finer details:
The horse’s rump and hind legs are blown out in many areas (not necessary if the exposure was determined so as to not allow any area to be blown out): in that case all that is necessary is to bring up and invigorate the shadow areas.
> clone details as necessary to rebuild as much of the blown area as possible

The horse’s head and forequarter area are mushy
> dodge general area

As a result of the previous alterations, the reins are generally too light and areas of the horse are poorly defined
> burn and dodge small areas as necessary to create acceptable definition.

Rough (well not really “rough” – it was about 15 minutes work, but certainly not the fine detail if using the original raw file, the original is on the left:


*

In this final, I made a few minor adjustments:


*

One issue I am addressing is to remove the blue cast (and I didn’t get it all – and there might now be a little bit of yellow cast hanging around in spots) on the white dress/horse/shirt etc, the lighting will have an ‘apparent’ change: that change will be there to some extent depending upon how delicately you want to dodge and burn. You might not like the appearance of a (severe) lighting change, so you might only accommodate some of it and leave a bit of blue cast in some of the shadow areas. I think it depends on how much the blue cast annoys you - and noted you've already mentioned it didn't - perhaps now it does a bit?. It drives me nuts, so I would be prepared to work to remove it – and anyway I like the pop the apparent new lighting gives to the horse. But that doesn't mean you do or should, either.

WW

[William W]

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?

Yes I concur. And precisely because of that I wonder, Kim, if there was Exposure Compensation applied to image #1, when it was shot in A Mode?

If no EC was applied, then maybe the blown-out areas were if fact too small a portion of the matrix to account for dragging the exposure down any further.

WW

[William W]

. . . You can rebuild the blown areas on the wood, in the background whilst maintaining the 'dappledness':



"correction" can become obsessive - but that's not the point I want to make: the point is about the original exposure to use in that type of LIGHTING SCENARIO if you do not want large areas to blown-out and 'unrecoverable' - simply exposure so minimal areas is going to be blown out, trust your camera's Dynamic Range to get the image and then bring up the SHADOW AREA DETAIL (slowly and carefully).

Colin Southern made many commentaries here at CiC about the DYNAMIC RANGE of most modern cameras being adequate for mostly all scenes and he also gave on quite a few occasions much detailed instruction as to how go about bringing-up the shadow detail.

Another important point to remember is that the DR of the image as displayed in-line here, is way less than the DR of the camera.

Also reiterating, lower ISO allows for better shadow detail reclamation.

WW

BTW I worked on removing a bit more of the blue cast on the horse too - I couldn't help myself - a total lost cause am I.

. . . also: in all this excitement I neglected to state what I thought first up seeing it - Terrific shot! Great timing!

[Dave Humphries]

My eye tends to like a bluer WB -- I do know it's something I need to be careful of.

I wonder if the problem isn't your eye, but rather the monitor or illumination in the room where you post process?

(forgive me if this has already been asked and answered Kim, I think I have read most/all of the thread over the days, but I might have missed it)

[Mike Buckley]

William,

Though I admire your post-processing skill required to make the changes to the horse, and though I realize you only spent 15 minutes making them, to me eye there is considerably less detail in the horse in your revised version.

[KimC]

Thank you Bill -- this is extremely helpful and much appreciated.

Referring only to image #1

For your image #1, - IF most of the shots were to have big chunks of hard sunlight dapples on the Horse and/or Rider, (applying the ‘F/16 Rule’) you'd be pulling around: F/8 @ 1/800th @ ISO 800, being two stops over exposed for “F/16 Rule" for direct front-lit sunlight and (as you can use F/2.8) is ≡ F/2.8 @ 1/1600th @ ISO200. This might seem on the face of it terribly underexposed for the majority of the frame, (and it would be) but logically and probably assuming about 1 Stop headroom in your camera, that exposure would only blow-out some small areas of highlight which are in the middle of each ‘dapple’. Then the task is only to recover the shadow areas in Post Production – which is a task but not really all that difficult to achieve at ISO200 as there would be quite a lot of detail there in those shadows: your camera would have at least a Dynamic Range of 8 or 9 Stops at ISO200.

IF the Arena is clearly open shade in one area and direct light in another area, then I would make two meter readings and switch between the two, usually in M Mode, but can be done in an Automatic Mode switching the EC: such a Lighting Scenario is common at a Field Sport early morning or late afternoon when the Grandstand Shadows affect the playing area.WW

Yes :-)

(Is it termed an “Arena” for Dressage?) WW

[KimC]

Thank you Dean. He likes to throw his tail around when she puts her leg on him. It not the wringing. Wish I could reshoot this scene this weekend...

Kim,
Obviously very difficult shots and you have received very good advice for correcting the next series you shoot. From my perspective--a horse and rider perspective--both are well composed and the rider is in control. Good work under the conditions! Question: in the first shot was the horse throwing his tail up or wringing the tail?

[KimC]

I'm sorry, I gave some bad info -- 1st was M, second was A mode.

Yes I concur. And precisely because of that I wonder, Kim, if there was Exposure Compensation applied to image #1, when it was shot in A Mode?

If no EC was applied, then maybe the blown-out areas were if fact too small a portion of the matrix to account for dragging the exposure down any further.

WW

[KimC]

Thank you for the time and effort you put into the comments and the images you shared.

What do you mean by "mushy" -- that means soft to me?

Yes, riders breeches, vest and the bridle were jet black.

The horse’s head and forequarter area are mushy
> dodge general area


Rough (well not really “rough” – it was about 15 minutes work, but certainly not the fine detail if using the original raw file, the original is on the left

The horse is a flea bitten gray --- so he has lots of dark gray hair throughout his coat. What bothers me in this image is the yellow cast -- I prefer the tones in the image you posted below this post.

One issue I am addressing is to remove the blue cast (and I didn’t get it all – and there might now be a little bit of yellow cast hanging around in spots) on the white dress/horse/shirt etc, the lighting will have an ‘apparent’ change: that change will be there to some extent depending upon how delicately you want to dodge and burn. You might not like the appearance of a (severe) lighting change, so you might only accommodate some of it and leave a bit of blue cast in some of the shadow areas. I think it depends on how much the blue cast annoys you - and noted you've already mentioned it didn't - perhaps now it does a bit?. It drives me nuts, so I would be prepared to work to remove it – and anyway I like the pop the apparent new lighting gives to the horse. But that doesn't mean you do or should, either.

WW

[KimC]

Amazing demonstration of rebuilding the wood, especially from a JPEG!!

I like the color of the horse here... it does however seem that a bit of the detail was lost -- top of neck -- head towards eye. You and others have given me lots of ideas. I would like to process them and then repost the image. Regretfully, I won't be able to get to that today, but I didn't want to be silent on your post. My goal will be to make changes to better the image, but not lose the feeling I was trying to create. :-)

. . . You can rebuild the blown areas on the wood, in the background whilst maintaining the 'dappledness':



"correction" can become obsessive - but that's not the point I want to make: the point is about the original exposure to use in that type of LIGHTING SCENARIO if you do not want large areas to blown-out and 'unrecoverable' - simply exposure so minimal areas is going to be blown out, trust your camera's Dynamic Range to get the image and then bring up the SHADOW AREA DETAIL (slowly and carefully).

Colin Southern made many commentaries here at CiC about the DYNAMIC RANGE of most modern cameras being adequate for mostly all scenes and he also gave on quite a few occasions much detailed instruction as to how go about bringing-up the shadow detail.

Another important point to remember is that the DR of the image as displayed in-line here, is way less than the DR of the camera.

Also reiterating, lower ISO allows for better shadow detail reclamation.

WW

BTW I worked on removing a bit more of the blue cast on the horse too - I couldn't help myself - a total lost cause am I.

. . . also: in all this excitement I neglected to state what I thought first up seeing it - Terrific shot! Great timing!

[KimC]

I have a MAC and my room is mostly natural light. I don't PP at night usually as it makes my hyper and then I can't sleep.

I wonder if the problem isn't your eye, but rather the monitor or illumination in the room where you post process?

(forgive me if this has already been asked and answered Kim, I think I have read most/all of the thread over the days, but I might have missed it)

[William W]

. . . I like the color of the horse here... it does however seem that a bit of the detail was lost -- top of neck -- head towards eye . . . My goal will be to make changes to better the image, but not lose the feeling I was trying to create. :-)

and

. . . there is considerably less detail in the horse in your revised version. . .

Yes.

There is less detail in the horse's coat. It was a rough, but, moreover the main point of removing the blue cast was never about reconstructing the image to be a presentation of itself. I thought that I made that clear.

The main point of removing the blue cast was to provide an A/B with the cast removed to adequately show that there was indeed a (very strong) blue cast, in the first place. The topic of the Blue Cast was entirely incidental to the main question and, because as Kim mentioned that cast was not originally a concern for her – and that initially she didn’t even notice the Blue cast, I made an A/B to illustrate the existence of it.

For presentation, a lot longer than 15 minutes Post Production would be required. But for presentation (and this is the important bit) the original shot would have been made at a different exposure and at a lower ISO and then the shadow area built up., ensuring that few, if any areas were blown out.

Similarly, I showed in a rough, how it was possible to rebuild the blown areas on the wood – and that certainly was not to imply that it was a good idea to make the shot with that area blown-out in the first place.

***

Often when images posted on internet forum as an example it is that there is a flaw in the original capture: but when presented with an image the overwhelming tendency of most memberships is to play with the image to ‘correct it’ and often the reason for the problem is never uncovered.

In this conversation Kim’s asked a specific question about how to better get the correct exposure for this particular shooting condition: the image was merely illustrative of the shooting and the lighting scenario.

I suspect that either intuitively or subconsciously Kim, by asking that question, acknowledged the majority of the answer to her issue resided in the correct actions the time of the MAKING of the image and not during the Post Production of it.

***

However all that stated, you (Kim) have the image file that you have.

It is a good shot and if you spend time working on it, to make it as best you can, and in alignment with your vision of the shot, or your now revamped vision of the shot, then that is a most useful endeavour.

WW