Night shot with flash ~ Tree Frog On Glass Wall (the reflections are neat)

[Mike Buckley]

But is it a well exposed shot that turns nighttime into the middle of the day? (he asks innocently)

Essentially, though not exactly, yes. Even so, your current image looks like an underexposed shot captured during the middle of the day. Which would you prefer? Also, you can make adjustments during post-processing to get the scene back to looking more like nighttime.

[JBW]

Essentially, though not exactly, yes. Even so, your current image looks like an underexposed shot captured during the middle of the day. Which would you prefer? Also, you can make adjustments during post-processing to get the scene back to looking more like nighttime.

At this point I prefer mine but I recognize that it is not a great shot.

[JohnRostron]

Assuming you're using the term, specular reflection, to be synonymous with the term, direct reflection, that statement is not true. (If you're using the term differently, I would need to know the definition you're using.) The most common direct reflections are produced by shiny metal, water and glass but other surfaces also produce them. Any surface that produces a reflection that is the color or close to the color of the light source is producing a direct reflection.

The term, specular reflection, means so many different things to different photographers that the term isn't used in Light: Science & Magic, which has been so widely recognized for so long that it is now in its fifth edition.

Mike, I have to admit that my definition of specular reflection is based on my A-level physics (ca 1959). I'm pretty sure that it was correct then, but these things change. What I was really saying was that reflections from water would be, to some extent, polarised. This would apply to a damp, wet or slimy frog, though I have yet to feel a slimy frog.

John

[Mike Buckley]

You're correct, John, that in this context the direct reflection produced by the surface of the water or moisture on the frog would be polarized, which is the definition of glare. That's because the moisture is transparent, though opaque surfaces that are black also produce glare.

The problem is that a polarizer filter affects only one plane at a time. So, even when given the time to adjust the polarizer to eliminate that glare, it will be eliminated only on one plane. If most of the glare in this context happens to be on one plane, that's the best we can reasonably hope for. The rest of the glare can often be eliminated during post-processing.

[Manfred M]

Does seem to lean to that side But is it a well exposed shot that turns nighttime into the middle of the day? (he asks innocently)

I call this "Black cow in the middle of a remote field at midnight on a moonless night".






Nicely said, photography is all about the light and if the light is insufficient for your camera to capture a decent image, you are not going to get a good image. As we have discussed a number of times in the past, an underexposed image does not generally work well. As one of my photography professors used to say when someone complained about the ambient lighting conditions; "Just add light".

[JBW]

Mike, I have to admit that my definition of specular reflection is based on my A-level physics (ca 1959). I'm pretty sure that it was correct then, but these things change. What I was really saying was that reflections from water would be, to some extent, polarised. This would apply to a damp, wet or slimy frog, though I have yet to feel a slimy frog.

John

You really don't want to feel a slimy frog. The 'slime' is often a protective covering that burns the mouth of a predator. Our Doberman only tried to eat one frog and then spent a lot of time rinsing out his mouth in the fish pond,

[JBW]

I call this "Black cow in the middle of a remote field at midnight on a moonless night".






Nicely said, photography is all about the light and if the light is insufficient for your camera to capture a decent image, you are not going to get a good image. As we have discussed a number of times in the past, an underexposed image does not generally work well. As one of my photography professors used to say when someone complained about the ambient lighting conditions; "Just add light".

I am afraid that I still believe that there are times that underexposing is needed for the ambience I'm trying for. Donald shoots in B&W with a square frame for his style. 90% of the time I shoot modestly underexposed and the result is on occasion rather good.

This time I was experimenting and went too far. This doesn't mean the technique doesn't work. It does mean I pushed it too far.

[Manfred M]

I am afraid that I still believe that there are times that underexposing is needed for the ambience

Underexposing is never going to give you an optimal image.

I look at the image that you capture with your camera the same way as I look at the foundation of a house. The foundation has to be well made, otherwise whatever you build on top of it cannot be optimal. The same thing goes for an image; expose it properly for the given light conditions and then manipulate it in PP for the effect you are after.

[JBW]

Underexposing is never going to give you an optimal image.

I look at the image that you capture with your camera the same way as I look at the foundation of a house. The foundation has to be well made, otherwise whatever you build on top of it cannot be optimal. The same thing goes for an image; expose it properly for the given light conditions and then manipulate it in PP for the effect you are after.

and sometimes those conditions require underexposing in my limited experience. Sometimes a house needs a slab foundation sometimes it needs a post foundation.

[Mike Buckley]

Brian,

The best and most important photo I have ever made in my mind was intentionally underexposed. That's because it was made in a special hospital unit where no flash or tripod was allowed and where there was little light. So, I underexposed a little to allow a fast enough shutter speed to handhold the camera and even then I was risking that one of the subjects would create motion blur. Despite that the photo is very successful, it is not optimal for the reason Manfred explains; it would have been even better in a different situation allowing the luxury of an optimal exposure.

You appropriately explained that some conditions require underexposing. However, I see nothing about the photo in this thread that requires that. Consider reviewing photos on the Internet that are obviously captured at night that aren't underexposed. Something to think about when making photos in the future in similar circumstances.

[JBW]

Brian,

The best and most important photo I have ever made in my mind was intentionally underexposed. That's because it was made in a special hospital unit where no flash or tripod was allowed and where there was little light. So, I underexposed a little to allow a fast enough shutter speed to handhold the camera and even then I was risking that one of the subjects would create motion blur. Despite that the photo is very successful, it is not optimal for the reason Manfred explains; it would have been even better in a different situation allowing the luxury of an optimal exposure.

You appropriately explained that some conditions require underexposing. However, I see nothing about the photo in this thread that requires that. Consider reviewing photos on the Internet that are obviously captured at night that aren't underexposed. Something to think about when making photos in the future in similar circumstances.

I will and I shall

[Manfred M]

and sometimes those conditions require underexposing in my limited experience. Sometimes a house needs a slab foundation sometimes it needs a post foundation.

Yes Brian, there are different types of foundations, and as long as they are well constructed, the building that is put on them should be stable. If it is not, there are likely to be issues throughout the life of the building. The photographic analogy holds here too, a well exposed image will let you build a good image; one that is not well exposed may or may not work well. This is where Mike's example comes in; I fairly sure I remember the image he mentioned in his post. While it may have had some technical limitations, due to the technical (exposure) issues when he took it, it had a huge emotional impact. Had the light been better, he would have gotten a technically better image; likely with the same level of emotion.

You will never get a better image by deliberately underexposing it. There are ways to get dark and moody images, and the best ones start with a well exposed image that is then reworked in PP to give it the appropriate "look".

[JBW]

Yes Brian, there are different types of foundations, and as long as they are well constructed, the building that is put on them should be stable. If it is not, there are likely to be issues throughout the life of the building. The photographic analogy holds here too, a well exposed image will let you build a good image; one that is not well exposed may or may not work well. This is where Mike's example comes in; I fairly sure I remember the image he mentioned in his post. While it may have had some technical limitations, due to the technical (exposure) issues when he took it, it had a huge emotional impact. Had the light been better, he would have gotten a technically better image; likely with the same level of emotion.

You will never get a better image by deliberately underexposing it. There are ways to get dark and moody images, and the best ones start with a well exposed image that is then reworked in PP to give it the appropriate "look".

Just to broaden this discussion out a bit. How does this tie into the histogram? If the exposure compensation is set to -1.0 and the histogram is pretty much centered and peaked nicely is that proper or improper exposure?

[Manfred M]

Just to broaden this discussion out a bit. How does this tie into the histogram? If the exposure compensation is set to -1.0 and the histogram is pretty much centered and peaked nicely is that proper or improper exposure?

A proper exposure shows a distribution of the tonal values from the darkest shadows to the brightest highlights. In an properly exposed image that has primarily dark tones, I would expect the histogram to show values largely on the left side of the histogram and for a fairly bright image, the values would be more on the right side. There is no "magic" of being centred or nicely peaked. If your image is that way, then the histogram should reflect that. In other worlds, if there are values that are close to black in the histogram, I would expect to see data close to the left hand side and if there are values that are close to white, I would expect to see values towards the right hand side.

Exposure compensation is nothing more than a tool to give the photographer the ability to override meter readings that are incorrect. If I take a winter scene with lots of snow, the camera's light meter will be fooled into underexposing the image and even though snow is white, the histogram will likely not show values that are close to white. Adding + exposure compensation will give the correct exposure and the snow will actually look white.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

I think the biggest conundrum with respect to exposure for this image is as to whether you wanted it to look as if it was shot at night or you wanted to get the best shot you could in the lighting condition you had. The problem with the scene is that there is nothing within it to give the suggestion of 'night time'.

For me it simply looks as if you have attempted to control exposure as a method to restrict/limit the intensity of the specular highlights (or correct term).

As for the image highlights these are very easily, accurately and quickly tackled if you have software that can produce masks from 'threshold' layers and a clone tool. Here's two minutes effort, note I have not adjusted anything other than the blown pixels.

Original

[Mike Buckley]

If the exposure compensation is set to -1.0 and the histogram is pretty much centered and peaked nicely is that proper or improper exposure?

My way of responding to that question: The ideal histogram is one that displays data that is consistent with the tonal values in the scene and the ideal exposure is one that captures all of the tonal values in the scene. (If your sensor doesn't capture all of the tonal values in the scene, it's impossible to produce an ideal histogram. There is no such thing as a "nice peak" in and of itself; the ideal histogram of a scene that has equal amounts of all tonal values will display no peak whatsoever.) The exposure compensation in and of itself has nothing to do with the quality of the histogram or the exposure, as it is just one of several tools that can be used (or not) to accomplish the exact same exposure.

[JBW]

I have gimp and capture 1. So the answer is 'I might'.

[JohnRostron]

You really don't want to feel a slimy frog. The 'slime' is often a protective covering that burns the mouth of a predator. Our Doberman only tried to eat one frog and then spent a lot of time rinsing out his mouth in the fish pond,

Our European toads have that effect as well, but it is because of the secretions of a gland on the neck. Toad skin is otherwise quite dry. Poison Arrow frogs/toads are famous for their noxious slime.

John

[Cogito]

Just to broaden this discussion out a bit. How does this tie into the histogram? If the exposure compensation is set to -1.0 and the histogram is pretty much centered and peaked nicely is that proper or improper exposure?

Try This article