PDA

View Full Version : photography question



DavidNH
03-30-2009, 12:37
I have a photography question for you experts out there. Often times, when I am out in very sunny blue sky weather I take a nice snapshot of the landscape and blue sky only to find that the sky turns out more white than blue, even though the sky looks very blue to then naked eye. This doesn't happen so much in winter conditions. Could it be that the camera sees more of the haze than my eye does?


Also, how about we have a separate white blaze forum strictly for photography related posts-- gear choice and picture taking advice?

DavidNH

Valentine
03-30-2009, 12:40
Your image is being overexposed. Try exposure compensation or landscape mode.

JaxHiker
03-30-2009, 12:54
What V said. You're probably letting the camera make the decisions for you. It's trying to balance the exposure for the entire scene and isn't doing a good job. Try exposing more for the sky (increasing your shutter speed). If you have a stable surface (rock, tripod, etc) take two shots. Expose one for the sky and one for the ground. Then merge the images when you get home.

bigcranky
03-30-2009, 13:08
1. Yes, the camera sees more haze than you do. Especially with shots made from the top of mountains -- there is more UV light at higher altitudes, which makes the sky whiter and can reduce the color of objects (saturation), though this happens at lower altitudes too. The so-called "UV filer" that is often sold to "protect" your lens isn't really all that good at filtering UV. If you are serious about shooting at altitude, in particular, you'll need a serious UV filter.

2. A polarizing filter will help darken the sky while keeping the proper exposure on the ground. It's the most commonly used filter in landscape photography these days, and it's the only filter I use with any regularity.

3. You may be overexposing the sky, as the above posters said. The polarizer will help with that in many situations.

weasel and bunny
03-30-2009, 13:13
2. A polarizing filter will help darken the sky while keeping the proper exposure on the ground. It's the most commonly used filter in landscape photography these days, and it's the only filter I use with any regularity.


And if you are using a point and shoot camer with no filter attachment available. Use a pair of polarized sunglasses. Odd but effective.

Funkmeister
03-30-2009, 14:40
Short version: the Cupid is correct. You have overexposed your image, making the deep blue sky washed out, turning it more toward white.

Longer version: The human eye has a far greater ability to see a range of briteness than current digital media, or film, for that matter of fact, has the ability to reproduce. When you see a scene, your camera may not have the ability to record that scene as you remember it.

Understanding this difference is what makes one a better photographer. There's more to photography than buying an auto-everything body, a nice zoom lens, and a large storage media and squeezing the button way too many times. I promise you will get lots of pictures, but no guarantees that all of them will be winners.

For the moment, let's not discuss film, because it has it's own inherint quirks; pushing and pulling BW and E6 emulsions, for example. Printing on different contrast grade BW papers as well. Zone system exposure, processing, and printing is another whole aspect that exceeds this post. Besides, few people still shoot film for most things. So there are exceptions, but they reside outside the current conversation.

A scene that has a long tonal range, that is, a vast difference between the brightest brights and the darkest darks will reproduce poorly on digital media. Your sunny landscape scene is a perfect example. While your eye can discern detail in both of the above regions, your camera cannot. Moreover, the screen on the back of your camera, your printer, your computer monitor (and if it's a CRT or flatscreen makes a difference) and your Wal-Mart email-printer has different parameters, and each will look noticibly different. Practice and a bit of dorky experimentation are the keys to understanding how they all play well together. And by 'dorky', I mean that you have to record some details to help you understand.

Just for the moment, imagine you holding your arms outstretched, crufix-style. The human eye has the ability to see this much information, from your left hand (the darkest areas) to your right hand ( the brightest areas). Now, keep one hand where it is, and move the other about 1/3 way toward your motionless hand. That represents what your camera has the ability to record. Whatever hand you moved determines what part of the bright sunny landscape scene you are sacrificing. If you moved your left hand, that means that you have decided to retain the detail in the brighter parts of your scene and have given away the ability to keep detail in the darker areas. If you move the right hand, you have done the opposite. How you (or your camera) have exposed the scene determines what part of the resulting image will retain detail.

Exposure and lighting are the more science-y aspects of photography. There's lots of verbiage in books and online regarding composition, but you didn't ask about that. That's much more art than science. You also didn't ask about depth-of-field or hyperfocal focusing, which is another story altogether. Your question was about exposure. We are also disregarding anything that has to do with supplemental lighting, either flash (strobe) or something more simple, like using a reflector (which could be as simple as a white t-shirt, keeping this in hiking thinking) or your flashlight as a 'paintbrush'.

Exposure is a fairly straightforward bit of science: a certain amount of light falls on the subject, and your goal as a photographer (or 'artist', depending on how far your nose sticks in the air when you say it) is to record the scene as you remember it. That means x number of photons must strike your 'film' plane to make a correct exposure. In most cases your camera will do a fairly good job, but like I said, you need to understand exactly how your camera thinks.

Let's stop for a moment. A camera doesn't think. It's an inanimate object, filled with algorithms on a computer chip. Back in the old days, the photographer carried a light meter, or maybe memorized a set of parameters based on the 'sunny 16 rule'. It was a simpler time. The algorithms were in the photographer's head. I can still think and breathe the 'sunny 16' rule. You've never heard of this? If you are serious about photography, then Google should be your next stop.

Outthinking your camera isn't as hard as you might think. Taking a photo class at the local community college is a good idea. Getting books to help you understand the how-to is great, too. Practice is good. Failure, with understanding of why you did so, is better.

A few days ago there was a thread about photography, and someone suggested using a ND filter. I disagree. I think carrying a polarizing filter is way better (circular or linear, depending on what type your camera necessitates) than a ND. As a commercial photographer, I have a full set, (though they are not the screw-on type, but square gel filters that may be difficult to use outdoors), and still I'd rather carry a polarizer. I also heavily endorse a graduated-density filter. Mine is made by Cokin, but guessing other brands are available. This filter is one of the few I carry, as it solves your root problem, where your sky is overexposed and the foreground isn't. There are also software fixes available, though they present their own problems. If you bracket your exposures, and this means moving your exposure from P or S or A to the dreaded M position, which requires actually thinking about photography. Some software will capture your images that you've shot without using a tripod, some--the more professional ones--require using a tripod, usually outside the scope of a hiking webpage. All have their inherent quirks.

In a roundabout way you asked about equipment, and here's my take: I have no vested interest in my opinion, but if you are halfway serious about photography and are willing to sink about $500 into your stake, I'd recommend a Nikon D40, with the lens that accompanies it, and a skykight, polarizer, and a G-ND filter (above). I make a living as a photographer, and it's my snapshot camera. It's light, and the lens is perfect for the casual hiker and family photographer. I use it to shoot wedding receptions (ie, party pictures), my hiking adventures, and usually carry it 95% of the time. It's not my mainline professional body, but for many situations, it's perfect. PERFECT. It has a fairly nitwitproof set of super-automatics: landscape, closeup, sport, portrait, and I forget the rest; I use the 'normal' automatic detents more often, like Apeture and (less frequently) Shutter priority. And when you stick it in full Manual, you have a fairly rugged basic camera body that snaps onto plenty of Nikon and Nikon-like lenses, including ones like I bought in the 70's. The body, lens, three filters, extra battery, and 4Gb of storage media is about a pound. It's not for everyone, but could be perfect for some.

I've had lots of 'perfect' cameras over time for backpacking: an Argus C3 when I was a 12-yo kid hiking in PA, a Nikon F2 with 24 and 50-135 lenses and orange filter, Tri-X, HC-110--B; a Pentax 67 with too many lenses, a 500CM, ditto on lenses, even Horseman 45 with 75/90/150/210/360 and lots of holders and orange and polarizing filters. The D40 is my current 'perfect' one. I'm so old I've even shot Kodachrome on 120--can anyone else say that here?

So I guess I strayed from your query, but photography is a large area. Your skies are overexposed: when you capture your exposure numbers, try for a lower set. Does that make sense?

Thanks for asking the question. You've allowed me a recess from tweaking a wedding where the bride asked me several times: 'Can you make me look thin?' Turns out I can do lots of things. Walking on water, changing water into wine, and making her look thin fall into the 'probably not' category. Hey, we all do funny things for a living. Back to work.

dloome
03-30-2009, 18:02
Sure, sounds like the sky is over exposed and white- But maybe the land looks fine. Even professional cameras have a hard time exposing correctly in certain situations, such as the one you describe. (Bright sky, darker foreground.) Expose for the sky and the land is too dark, and visa versa. Pro's fix this with the use of various filters, probably in this case a split neutral density filter.

Since you probably don't want to carry stuff like this, here's the easiest thing you can try, in my opinion: Even inexpensive compact digitals should have a spot meterng mode, where you can choose what exactly in your picture you want the camera to meter on, as opposed to 'center-weighted' and 'evaluative' settings also usually found on the camera. Pick something in the shot that is in sort of a middle area between the brightest and darkest things you can see in the shot, and meter on that. Not everything in the photo may be exposed perfectly, but chances are it'll be a good compromise.

warraghiyagey
03-30-2009, 18:03
Your image is being overexposed. Try exposure compensation or landscape mode.
Agreed. . .

Jim Adams
03-30-2009, 18:41
Try metering your hand in the available light and then shoot the photo with that setting.....or carry a 19% gray card.

geek

JaxHiker
03-30-2009, 19:44
You can also meter off the grass.

Tennessee Viking
03-30-2009, 19:53
The biggest problems for overexposure is having it on auto. Depending on your auto setting ISO focus your camera on something close or instead of far off landscape. Today's digital cameras will show an alert when there is too much light when shooting something far in the distance. So just keep focusing on something closer and closer until you get a good reading. Then experiment with your other settings.

Some of the easiest things to do is to take your picks in the morning and evening. When the sun is at its highest, the outside is going to overexpose your pics. In the that case, look for clouds and overcast days to help diffuse the sunlight.

Also shoot landscape with your back to the sun.

DavidNH
03-31-2009, 00:20
Wow, so much information Guys. And Funkmeister, you must have spent an hour plus writing all that.

For the record, I have used in the past (and still own) a Nikon N 80 camera. I am now mostly using a Canon Powershot G-10 digital camera which I am still learning to use. Normally, I leave the setting on Automatic and try to make the camera do the work. Looks like I am paying for it with over exposed skies! I don't really want to sink money into a digital SLR right now. When I do, I've got my eye on the Nikon D90 that does all sorts of neat stuff including HD video. Anything beyond that is quite simply beyond my price range.

On a bright sunny spring or summer day, and using a compact digital camera that doesn't take filters like an SLR does... how do I compensate for the exposure? Try a lower speed? change aperature? Would the landscape mode setting help? How about that dial that goes from -2 to plus 2 (I think it is exposure compensation or something like that)? Honestly I don't really know what to do with it. I experimented and hasn't seemed to make much difference.

Guess I should go out and take a good course to learn all this stuff. Or I could just keep posting here and have you guys teach mehttp://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

David

oops56
03-31-2009, 00:37
Just take put camera on tripod take all kinds picture right and left stright ahead same spot with ever type setting you got wright on paper as you go then look on computer a digital dont cost like film to do it.

JaxHiker
03-31-2009, 08:51
On a bright sunny spring or summer day, and using a compact digital camera that doesn't take filters like an SLR does... how do I compensate for the exposure? Try a lower speed? change aperature? Would the landscape mode setting help? How about that dial that goes from -2 to plus 2 (I think it is exposure compensation or something like that)? Honestly I don't really know what to do with it. I experimented and hasn't seemed to make much difference.

Lowering the shutter speed will allow light into the camera for a longer period in result in greater overexposure. You can try decreasing the aperture. A lot of landscape photography is done at f/16 and smaller.

Exposure compensation may help to a degree but it depends on the amount of overexposure you have. If you have have 4 stops latitude (and only 2 in the right direction) it may not be enough.

This is really where you need to experiment before you're on the trail. Take pictures around your backyard and play with the settings. Keep a log of what you're doing so when you look at them on the PC you can see the effects.

Hoop Time
04-01-2009, 21:18
Lowering the shutter speed will allow light into the camera for a longer period in result in greater overexposure. You can try decreasing the aperture. A lot of landscape photography is done at f/16 and smaller.

Exposure compensation may help to a degree but it depends on the amount of overexposure you have. If you have have 4 stops latitude (and only 2 in the right direction) it may not be enough.

This is really where you need to experiment before you're on the trail. Take pictures around your backyard and play with the settings. Keep a log of what you're doing so when you look at them on the PC you can see the effects.

I disagree. Two stops either way should be more than sufficient to solve the problem, especially if you can also experiment with different auto modes such as landscape, portrait, etc.

More than two stops and you run the risk that you'll get nice blue sky but everything else will be dark. That is one of the problems you will routinely encounter when the photo contains variable light levels. You cannot expose for all of them. Choose what you want properly exposed and be willing to accept that sometimes you just can't balance everything if there is a lot of variety in the lighting.

Filters, as mentioned, will do more to help than changing the exposure to expose the sky properly.

yaduck9
04-01-2009, 22:13
Try starting with the sunny 16 rule;

Shutter speed is the inverse of the ISO setting ( ISO 100, shutter speed 1/100 ) and set the apeture to f 16. If you use a polarizer, open the apeture one stop. Should work for sunny days. If your camera consistently under or over exposes, there should be a menu where you can compensate.

Best thing to do is read the camera manual and / or go to the library and get a basic photography book.

You may want to check out this site: www.kenrockwell.com

Good luck.

JaxHiker
04-02-2009, 08:59
I disagree. Two stops either way should be more than sufficient to solve the problem, especially if you can also experiment with different auto modes such as landscape, portrait, etc.

It all depends on the variables at the time. This is why he needs to experiment with different camera settings and lighting conditions.



More than two stops and you run the risk that you'll get nice blue sky but everything else will be dark. That is one of the problems you will routinely encounter when the photo contains variable light levels. You cannot expose for all of them. Choose what you want properly exposed and be willing to accept that sometimes you just can't balance everything if there is a lot of variety in the lighting.
What do you think the auto modes are going to do? They'll just adjust the shutter and aperture and yield the same results. I know you can't expose for everything all the time. That's why I said to take multiple shots exposed for each part of the scene and then blend them.



Filters, as mentioned, will do more to help than changing the exposure to expose the sky properly.IF the camera takes filters. Wasn't there mention of this being a P&S? If you can slap a ND filter on then fine. I carry a ND and a circular polarizer with me.

weary
04-02-2009, 10:19
What V said. You're probably letting the camera make the decisions for you. It's trying to balance the exposure for the entire scene and isn't doing a good job. Try exposing more for the sky (increasing your shutter speed). If you have a stable surface (rock, tripod, etc) take two shots. Expose one for the sky and one for the ground. Then merge the images when you get home.
Ah. Answers lead to more questions. How do I merge the tweo images when I get home I know? If I have to ask, I'll never know.

Weary

JaxHiker
04-02-2009, 15:53
I'm pretty sure you can do it with Gimp which is free.

JaxHiker
04-02-2009, 15:54
I suppose I should explain a little. I'll try to work something up when I get home. :)

Lyle
04-02-2009, 17:26
In a roundabout way you asked about equipment, and here's my take: I have no vested interest in my opinion, but if you are halfway serious about photography and are willing to sink about $500 into your stake, I'd recommend a Nikon D40, with the lens that accompanies it, and a skykight, polarizer, and a G-ND filter (above). I make a living as a photographer, and it's my snapshot camera. It's light, and the lens is perfect for the casual hiker and family photographer. I use it to shoot wedding receptions (ie, party pictures), my hiking adventures, and usually carry it 95% of the time. It's not my mainline professional body, but for many situations, it's perfect. PERFECT. It has a fairly nitwitproof set of super-automatics: landscape, closeup, sport, portrait, and I forget the rest; I use the 'normal' automatic detents more often, like Apeture and (less frequently) Shutter priority. And when you stick it in full Manual, you have a fairly rugged basic camera body that snaps onto plenty of Nikon and Nikon-like lenses, including ones like I bought in the 70's. The body, lens, three filters, extra battery, and 4Gb of storage media is about a pound. It's not for everyone, but could be perfect for some.


I'm strictly an amateur, and I agree totally. I really like my D40. Years past I carried a FM2 and loved it as well. In the interval, I carried an Olympus Stylus 600 which I was less than impressed with.

One caveat, While the D40 will accept most any Nikon lens, you will not get auto-focus or auto exposure with all of them. If you have older lenses you wish to use, check this out before buying. If you are just starting out with a SLR, this is a great, inexpensive dSLR. Takes great photos, much better quality than most point and shoots, even at just 6 mega-pixels. If you want, the D40x is the same camera, but at 10 mega-pixels. Both are still available. I also find the D-lighting feature works quite well on many images (lightens and shows details in the shadows after taking a high contrast photo)

To answer the original question, I would vote with the polarizing filter crowd. Bracketing your exposure would help too, but not as much in my experience.

Lyle
12-19-2009, 16:57
Edit: Opps, already posted. What I get for doing a search on old threads and forgetting they're old, kinda like me!!!!

Will add though, I just got my D90 today, haven't given it much of a work-out yet. Both the D40 and D90 have D-Lighting options. These options will correct the underexposed areas of your photo to bring out more detail. May help in situations like this, but a polarizing filter is still the best option for difficult sky and water.

Powder River
12-20-2009, 14:47
Wow, so much information Guys. And Funkmeister, you must have spent an hour plus writing all that.

For the record, I have used in the past (and still own) a Nikon N 80 camera. I am now mostly using a Canon Powershot G-10 digital camera which I am still learning to use. Normally, I leave the setting on Automatic and try to make the camera do the work. Looks like I am paying for it with over exposed skies! I don't really want to sink money into a digital SLR right now. When I do, I've got my eye on the Nikon D90 that does all sorts of neat stuff including HD video. Anything beyond that is quite simply beyond my price range.

On a bright sunny spring or summer day, and using a compact digital camera that doesn't take filters like an SLR does... how do I compensate for the exposure? Try a lower speed? change aperature? Would the landscape mode setting help? How about that dial that goes from -2 to plus 2 (I think it is exposure compensation or something like that)? Honestly I don't really know what to do with it. I experimented and hasn't seemed to make much difference.

Guess I should go out and take a good course to learn all this stuff. Or I could just keep posting here and have you guys teach mehttp://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif.

David

David,

There is a lot of information these guys are throwing out, I hope I can help. I hiked the AT with a G9, and now own a G11. So first things first, this camera almost always overexposes a third to two thirds of a stop. I keep the dial on top of my G11 (exactly like the one on your G10) set to -1/3 at all times.

Second, the type of scene you are describing is the most common scene I photographed on the trail, so I know the problem well with the G9. As others have said, the problem is the tonal range. If you are standing on a mountain looking over land and sky, then the land is darker, much darker than the sky. This cannot be exposed "properly" without some additional equipment, so usually you just have to compromise on the exposure.

HERE IS THE EASIEST WAY: When your camera is set to automatically expose, it is taking an average of the entire scene. (Assuming you are in the default metering mode) There are a lot of fancy complications to this process depending on the camera and the mode, but the idea is basically the same. What this means is that to influence the exposure, all you need to do is include more bright sky in your frame. Just press the shutter half way down to preview what the exposure will look like. If it is too bright/dark, then recompose with more or less bright sky in the frame and then half-press again. Once you are happy with the exposure, then compose for the final shot while holding the shutter button halfway down, and take the picture. The whole process takes less than a second, and you don't need to change any settings.

Hope this helps.

waywardfool
12-20-2009, 22:37
Consider shooting in RAW. Many P&S cameras don't have RAW mode, the G10 does. Bigger images, takes a little more time to load and process, but it's the full data from the image sensor. It's like getting the negative from a film camera to work with. Shooting in JPEG is like getting a print...before you even transfer from the camera, much image data is already lost, the camera makes the decision on what information to keep and what to toss. It is so easy to recover/fix images in RAW than a JPG -- where you'll loose even more data every time you make an edit.

If you don't want the hassle (among others, memory card space issues) with shooting everything in RAW, figure out how to switch back and forth easily between RAW and JPG...shoot raw if you are dealing with complex lighting, contrast, etc...you'll have more to work with later.

And I call "Auto Mode" something more apt: "Random Mode". Use it when it works, but be prepared and know how to work around it in situations where auto doesn't work.

bobbyw
06-16-2010, 23:15
All your questions are answered here: http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html

You're looking for photographics with 'HDR' or High Dynamic Range. This is super-super easy with cameras that have 'AEB' or auto exposure bracketing. Basically you set your camera to automatically take photos that can accept the dark data, the light data, and the middle data, then your use your computer to push all the data into one photo that doesn't have loss. (you can do more than three)