BOOK CLUB: UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE - Chapter 4 (LIGHT)

[bayhli]

Objective: Chapter 4 (Light) of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson:

Exploring the Types of Light (pages 94-113)
Metering (pages 114-127)
Low Light and Night Photography (pages 128-135)
ISO (pages 154-55)Timeline: Finish up by Christmas, whatever that means to each of us! :):eek:

All righty then..... post your questions, comments and practice right here in this thread. (I can't help it, it's the "teacher" in me! ;))


Chapter 1 - Defining Exposure
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29371

Chapter 2 - Aperture (part 1/2)
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30025

Chapter 2 - Aperture (part 2/2)
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30434

Chapter 3 - Shutter Speed
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31181

[nkeevers]

LOL! Pat, your're a great teacher!! :D

[GaryK]

Yes ma'am. :D:D

[bayhli]

If we're all done clowning around..... :twisted:

I don't know how the rest of you are doing but between the cold and/or snow I'm not getting out with my camera. Kind of hard to keep the momentum going without related practice so thought perhaps we can at least get some general discussion going.

I took these back in the middle of November when the lakes were only partially frozen. Judging by the settings I used, I was falling-down drunk that day! Other than straightening and taking out the worst dust spots I left the images as-is given the topic. WB was on auto.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1veF1axtb9YvJm1H1OWi7kKmSsvg5n0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1veF1axtb9YvJm1H1OWi7kKmSsvg5n0)
1. Manual Mode, SS 1/10, AV 22.0, Evaluative Metering, ISO 100 17-85mm @ 85.0mm

I was on the other side of the highway fooling around with a trivial subject - happened to turn around and see beautiful colour that I was totally missing, so mad! Luckily my camera was on a monopod but trying to recall what to do with settings before the scene disappeared was stressful.

I probably metered off the sky even though I was in evaluative, figuring I would be getting a silhouetted foreground. Probably should have used spot or partial metering...

It was only about 4:30 pm, still quite light out as you can tell from the sky. I would liked to have captured this scene as it was naturally, with the foreground properly exposed as well as the sky. If it were more planned would it be possible to do this with a neutral density filter for the sky? Or is this a case where you take multiple exposures for the sky and for the foreground and blend them together?


http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1zhR97rUoNXRWc57dNWgu7w0UtXNL0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zhR97rUoNXRWc57dNWgu7w0UtXNL0)
2. Aperture Priority, SS 1/60, AV 20.0, Evaluative Metering, ISO 1600 17-85mm @ 70.0mm

I wandered down to the lake attached to the creek in the image above, and had the same thoughts. What do I do with the settings to have this exposed as it really looks, which meant it was still light enough to see the whole scene, not underexposed as it turned out.

In my wisdom I decided to pump up the ISO and as a result I have grain, grain, grain. I've read various recommendations for ISO from 100-400 for dusk/sunset images, not sure where to go with that.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1NzO5cL7VNv3gamjD2dE1kyOlia0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NzO5cL7VNv3gamjD2dE1kyOlia0)
3. Aperture Priority, SS 1/50, AV 16.0, Evaluative Metering, ISO 1600 17-85mm @ 61.0mm

More of the same, except now we bring in some of the surrounding snow to see what would happen. I'm pretty sure with this one that I just focused on the coloured reflection on the water and metered the whole scene to experiment.

In my part of the country it is hard to escape the reflection of the horizon trees in the water, which leaves you with a silhouette that is an ugly wide dark band, that spoils sunset images. I would be nice to have some detail in the trees reflection in the water, but how given you have the dark horizon surrounded by the bright sky and the bright sky reflection in the water also. Suggestions?

How do you meter for a sunset, water reflection and snow?

If you'd like to enlighten me with your comments, please do.

In temporary lieu of practice, perhaps we can post images that aren't exposed correctly, for us to test out what we might have done instead based on what we're reading. Do you have any you are puzzling over?

In another thread, Laurie suggests capturing the same scene in the different lights as the day progresses. An excellent learning exercise if you are lucky enough to have the weather for it right now.

[bayhli]

Elizabeth, did you manage to pick up a copy of the book?

[lexcell]

Pat,
In response to your questions...
1. It would not look all that natural to have the foreground well lit and the sunset perfect. The silhouette subjects are backlit by the sunset and if they were lit up, people would know that you added light. That's ok if that's what you want but your first image is actually quite good...a little darker would have brought out more of the sunset color. There is a bit too much dark on the right side but overall good start.

2. Actually, another good job. I like the separation of the grasses in the foreground from the dark horizon. You could probably bump up the saturation/ color of the sky and you've nailed it.

3. If you want the snow and grasses to be lit and capture the sunset you will need to introduce flash or take two images and blend them in Elements. As a single capture another good job. There is some detail in the foreground, the sunset could have more color and you can get that by underexposing the image a bit or by enhancing it in elements to look like what you originally saw.

Keep up the good work.

[bayhli]

Thanks for the critique Laurie. It will be fun to see what I can do with your editing advice, haven't tried the blending of images as yet. I've sometimes changed the WB to cloudy for a more colourful sunset but you tend to lose the "blues" which I like.

Forgot about flash as an option - now that I'd like to experiment with.

[GaryK]

Pat

Not much more to add other than to say I like the photos.

The silhouette look is perfect. I thought you exposed fine.
As Laurie said a a bit darker even, to get some more colour. I'm not sure I would want the foreground lighter in the third photo (Im not taking the picture though ;))

One thing you can try as a semi substitute for the dual photo. Is to open the photo in camera RAW, lighten it to your liking, save it as different name, then open the original and the lightened version and try merging them.
This won't be quite the same look as exposing it lighter but it will give you an idea of what and how to blend the two.

Good idea about posting some older photos. I am having a heck of a time getting out. The fact I leave for work at 5am and get back at 530pm is making it hard to get out in any type of daylight. Plus a few other things going on are eating my weekends. I'm off the week of the 17th so I'm hoping most of my time commitments wll be done and I can get out that week.

[Chuck S.]

Gary, your suggestion of processing an image twice through ACR is intriguing. What techniques would you suggest for doing the merging?

[GaryK]

Chuck

With PE it will pretty much be selection based unless you can find a blend mode that works. That would likely depend on the photo.

In CS (not sure of the versions, 3 for sure though) you could use the blend if mode, and split the sliders to help smooth out the transitions.

While it won't be a true dual exposure and might look a bit "processed". it will give you a good handle on what you would need to do in a dual exposure situation.

[bayhli]

Gary,

I guess with that first one, I thought if the trees were a little lighter to show some coloured detail (but still on the dark side) it would look natural - it looked so pretty to the eye. Laurie made some good points about that so now I'm not so sure - I am going to manipulate a couple of images so I can actually see what it is I think I want to see in the image.

What about using a mask to hide and reveal various parts of the two manipulated photos? That's what I was thinking I'd try but haven't got to it yet.

It's a busy time of year period. I don't know how your temps are but ours have dropped right down and it's just too cold to be out fumbling around experimenting with exposure. It frustrates me like you wouldn't believe!

[GaryK]

Pat

A layer mask would work fine as well.. thought about that after posting.:o

Had a 70th bday party for my mom today so been out all day and need to get a second car so was looking for a beater yesterday.
Temps here are just around 0 (highs) so not too bad.

[bayhli]

Gary, was the family portrait you had on another thread, your mom's birthday gift? If so how did that go. Or are you saving it for Xmas... Kind of redirecting this thread but I thought it was such a lovely thought as I'm sure your mom will.

[GaryK]

Pat

Yup, for her bday. The photo went over well. Party was quite nice as well. All her available family (except two of my cousins) showed up.
So a very nice turn out this time of year.:)

[bayhli]

I decided to try out the editing suggestions on a photo from the same series I posted.

I liked the blue tones from the original "as-shot" image, but when I improved the sunset colours I lost some of the blue areas to gray. I created two variations of the same image, dragged one atop the other and used a mask to combine the two for the best of both worlds.

Neat exercise...

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1s426Rt2gpZW1XvseQENNaOXmhLl_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1s426Rt2gpZW1XvseQENNaOXmhLl)

[GaryK]

pat

Georgeous.. so what exactly did you do??

I mean what parts are masked.

[bayhli]

Thanks Gary, so much playing and looking at it I wasn't sure of the result anymore.

Any of the yellows and oranges in the sky and the water reflection have been "added" from a boosted saturation image, to my original "blue" image.

I started with the image copy in which I boosted the saturation and then I dragged in the original image (top layer). I masked anywhere I saw the weak oranges and yellows (pinks etc also) so that those boosted colours came through from the first layer image. (I lowered the opacity and worked slowly to touch up the blending edges of the two images) Hope that makes sense.

It helped a lot that I was working with a lot of black silhouette - would be a lot harder with a daylight image I'd expect.

[Elemobe]

Pat, beautiful shots. Speaking from ignorance here, but to give a little more detail in the foreground, could you use fill light" very slightly, in Lightroom?

Love the colours and I also really like the silhouette effect.

I have read part of the lighting chapter and really like the exercise to photo the same place throughout the year.

Work is taking priority at the moment, but will search out a couple of poor lighting examples, I am sure I have plenty to choose from!

[JulieM]

I love the result of sandwiching the two "exposures". It is a really beautiful image. Like Linda, I was wondering about the possibility of using LR to accomplish a similar effect. Could you have boosted the oranges and yellows using the HSL section?

[bayhli]

Hi Julie & Linda!

I actually did use Lightroom to process the two images initially. After I processed the original in LR, I made a virtual copy and boosted the sky colours on that copy. After that I exported the two images to Elements for the "sandwiching" and use of the mask for selected parts of the image.

The problem is that LR applies the tweaks globally to the image. So when I boosted the sky colours, the blue in the sky on the right-hand side went greyish while the blue of the ice on the lake was over-saturated. By combining them I was able to adjust just the areas I wanted to with a mask.

Same with lightening the foreground Linda - when I did that sort of thing it also lightened the sky and washed out the colours. I should be able to do it now though with this method of masking.

Good thoughts.... thanks for the input. Nice to hear from you both.

Looking forward to your images being posted when you find the time... I understand about busy. I haven't gotten too far with the reading myself. I like to go out and practice as I read but have been unable to do so because of the cold or snow just about every day. I'm waiting for that unusually warmer day!

[Elemobe]

OK, I really, really shouldn't be doing this. I am marking homework and have a deadline. However, I hope you don't mind Pat, but just had to have a play:)

I did a fill light to just bring a bit of detail back in and then did HSL, using the target thingy, spotlighting the sunset colours in the sky strangely to keep the rich colours I decreased the orange and yellow - probably something to do with the red. Not sure. Anyway this is what I ended up with. Not a huge difference, which is a good thing, as the photo is beautiful as it is.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1AlriowXUVe0V7mj2qzmgl5OxftRk0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1AlriowXUVe0V7mj2qzmgl5OxftRk0)

[bayhli]

I misunderstood your original post Linda... I thought you were referring to the first set of images I posted, to lighten the foreground of that first image that I said I would have liked more naturally, day-time lit.

Good job with the target thingy.... I haven't used that very much yet but it looks like I need to get braver with it. You definitely did bring up more foreground detail combining that with the fill adjustment.

Thanks Linda... now get back to those papers! :D

[Elemobe]

I think I misunderstood myself actually!! I did just have a go at the earlier set and they are much more difficult to change. Fill light gives them that foggy hazy look, and not in a good way.

I'm back to marking, 2 more to go tonight and then Its time for a glass of wine;)

[JulieM]

Pat & Linda,

I wish we had more LR users here. It would be fun to try a challenge where a picture is posted and participants have to alter it somehow using LR. With all the develop presets there is so much room for creativity!

[Chuck S.]

Pat & Linda,

I wish we had more LR users here. It would be fun to try a challenge where a picture is posted and participants have to alter it somehow using LR. With all the develop presets there is so much room for creativity!

Julie, great idea!

[Elemobe]

Yes, I agree. We could do that in the Lightroom forum here. I love the presets and making my own changes of course.

So, do you want to get the ball rolling Julie?:)

PS - And it's much better than marking scripts!!:D

[JulieM]

We're approaching critical mass here! :D Pat, are you in?

I'll post something in the LR Killer Tip subforum today...

[bayhli]

I'm in..... there may be more users than we think. Even with just a few of us participating we'll learn something from each other doing the exercise.

[JulieM]

Great. Stay tuned...

[elizabeth]

Elizabeth, did you manage to pick up a copy of the book?

Thanks for checking Pat. Sorry but I have been totally out of the loop for the past couple of weeks. I haven't been on-line much at all. Hours and hours in the basement workshop building two 'treasure boxes' for my great-nieces. Need to finish before we leave for California in a few days. (hold a good thought for us - last year we got stopped by snow right on the coast!)

I will try to get the book in California then check back in in mid-january when I finally get on high speed internet again. I really hope to have some time to work throught some of the ideas and read the old threads. Don't think I will get completely caught up, but am sure I will learn something.

Have fun with the new chapter.

elizabeth

[bayhli]

Hi Elizabeth, nice to hear back from you.

Handmade treasure boxes, what a beautiful gift! I will hold that good thought for you and hope you travel well.

Do check back; the way most of us are going we'll probably be in the exact same place! ;) The book is worthwhile in any event and hopefully the threads will be of some help to you.

Have a great Xmas!

[JulieM]

Elizabeth, I can pretty much guarantee that I'll won't have made much progress by the time you return. ;) Have a wonderful holiday. Hope the weather cooperates!

[elizabeth]

thanks, folks. I will check back in. And thanks for the good travel wishes - alto we could have used some today. Little problem with the interior lights in the car turned out to be 'THE MAIN COMPUTER'!!! Of course the part has to come from Toronto. So - if it gets here - they will install on saturday and all is back on course. If not - I may have lots of time to review the chapters. YIKES!! I may also try to get a few shots of the treasure boxes and post them. Not exactly PSE - but it would involve me practicing exposure and DOF in my 'studio' (WorkMate, black background paper, and a work light beside the freezer in the basement - aw, the glamour of studio photography!)

elizabeth

[bayhli]

You don't seem to have much luck at holiday time Elizabeth; you may have to travel off-season! :D

If you want the practice and have time, I'd love to see the treasure chests!

I do hope your car troubles get fixed up.

[lexcell]

Nicely done Pat,
It's interesting to hear all the variations on how you can adjust the image...it just brings to mind how many different ways there are to get to the same end result... :) The key is to find the method that you understand and find works for you.
As stated in an earlier post, these are your images and only you know exactly what you are trying to communicate. We can offer advice but in the end it's your call.

[mrod]

Please forgive this probably-basic question, as I try to get my mind around this stuff. May I go back a few chapters?

On Page 24, in the Defining Exposure chapter, Peterson says towards the top of the second column:

"After adjusting your shutter speed, you get a correct exposure of 1/500 sec...There are other combinations of apertures and shutter speeds you can use...If you cut the lens opening in half (f/4 to f/5.6) you'll need to increase the shutter speed a full stop (to 1/250 sec.) to record a correct exposure." (emphasis mine)

My question: why is it referred to as increasing the shutter speed when 1/250 is a slower speed than 1/500?

I seem to be missing something here...:confused:

Mike

[GaryK]

Mike

My take on it is you are increasing the time the shutter is open.


Sound good???:D

[NickLewis]

My question: why is it referred to as increasing the shutter speed when 1/250 is a slower speed than 1/500?

I seem to be missing something here...:confused:

MikeI don't think that's correct usage - you've decreased the shutter speed and, as Gary says, increased the time the shutter is open.

Missed at sub-editing I think....

Nick

[Chuck S.]

1/500 second is really not a speed at all, it's a time - but it's considered a faster shutter 'speed' than 1/250 second. I guess the way I can rationalize that is that the camera takes the picture faster at a 1/500 second than it does at 1/250 second; the shutter is open for a shorter time in the former, so I have my picture in last time.

It's common usage: 1/30 second is considered the 'slowest speed' at which you can safely handhold a normal lens. 1/1000 second to 1/6000 second are considered very high 'speeds'.

What Peterson was right on the numbers but incorrect on the usage of shutter speed, as Nick and Gary said. It might have been okay for him to say, "increase the amount of time the shutter is open from 1/500 second to 1/250 second", but in the common parlance he should be directing you to go to a slower shutter speed when the lens opening is stopped down from f/4 to f/5.6. He made the mistake a second time in the same paragraph, so he obviously was having a bad day....

Come to think of it, the f/stop can be confusing as well: the larger the number, the smaller the opening. Sheesh....too early on a Sunday morning to be thinking about this stuff...:rolleyes:

[Edmund]

Pat I hope you don't mind that I edited your image. I just wanted to show everyone that Nikon Capture NX is a very powerful program. I used four control points to edit the sky, the dark shadows, the snow and the foreground.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1SQjrC0dLD4NNminzvrLnszykfgEq1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1SQjrC0dLD4NNminzvrLnszykfgEq1)

Eddie

[Elemobe]

Eddie, software looks really interesting.

A 30 day trial download is available:

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61

At the moment this isn't available for Leopard OS (but is for earlier Mac OS & PC of course), but will be soon. I will give it a go then I like the look of it and seems straightforward to use.

[JulieM]

Eddie, your results with that are super!

[lexcell]

Capture NX rocks!!! I do alot of my work in Capture NX before heading to Photoshop. You are making changes to the RAW data and therefore the loss of image quality is virtually non-existent...unless you are making heroic changes....

[bayhli]

Eddie,

I don't mind at all and just amazed at what you did with that software.

Thanks for the link Linda, worth looking into.

I've been "off the air" and have fallen behind with just about everything; sorry it took me so long to respond.

[Linda559]

Hi all,
I'd like to join the group. I read "Understanding Exposure" several years ago and thought it was fantastic. I requested a copy for Christmas and now I can take part in your study group.

I'll watch the board to see when you get going again.

[JulieM]

That's great, Linda. The more the merrier! I'm sure after the holidays things will pick up again...

[Elemobe]

Hi Linda, welcome to our group. I am working on getting some night shots to post, hopefully next week. Just waiting for the weather to change - a bit wet and windy at the moment.

Feel free to post any photos, questions or opinions you might have, not many of us around at the moment, so replies might be slow and/or few initially, but as Julie said, it will pick up after the hols.

[bayhli]

Another Linda - Welcome to the Group!

I had good intentions but the holidays and the cold weather took over. I'm also planning to pick up the Chapter next week and get going again - it's definitely one I want to spend some time with.

Feel free to review the threads for the Chapters we've already covered and post any questions or thoughts you might have. It will be good for us as well.

[bayhli]

OK, I got back to the book today. I'm starting with snow, what else!

I tried out Bryan's "Brother Blue Sky" technique on page 124. It did not work out for me. The blue sky we had briefly today was very light in comparison to what he had in his example photo, could that be the reason? Or did I do something wrong? I did find a clear patch of blue, metered and then recomposed my shot using those manual settings. Here's what I got, obviously underexposed except for the sky. Biggest difference between the settings is the much faster shutter speed for this one.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1pRJo7G387kxHow63gXKVj97EA9S0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1pRJo7G387kxHow63gXKVj97EA9S0)

Manual Mode / f 22.0 / 1/200 / ISO 400 / EV 0 / 66.0mm Lens 17-85mm for both


I did the rest of them my usual way - Beginning at +1, I kept increasing the Exposure Compensation until just before the histogram showed highlight clipping. Worked better for me I think - comments?

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/12E7MpHddImzO73iHGCF3K9dr4i_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=12E7MpHddImzO73iHGCF3K9dr4i)

AV Mode / f 22.0 / 1/60 / ISO 400 / EV +1 / 66.0mm
I have applied a little "in-camera" developing to the RAW file in Lightroom but didn't touch the exposure.

I have a couple more to post - what else am I going to do with them...

These were taken yesterday, heavily overcast - no wonder we're all depressed by January up here! Grey, grey, grey; all the images look black and white so I looked for a bit of colour. Lense was 70-200mm

Edit: All the pictures are looking somewhat lighter than they do on my computer - none of these are clipped but they look it. Weird! That's a train coming in, across the lake in the first one.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/12yGTjzqEa7u6fzcSZjoFdZx7tzze0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=12yGTjzqEa7u6fzcSZjoFdZx7tzze0)

AV Mode / f 22.0 / 1/60 / ISO 250 / EV +1 / 85.0mm

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1WpRId9ISSom6RxD2seqY66Vas8up10_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1WpRId9ISSom6RxD2seqY66Vas8up10)

AV Mode / f 11.0 / 1/80 / ISO 400 / EV +2/3 / 89.0mm

[Chuck S.]

Pat, you're right - when you exposed for the sky, the camera had no choice but to underexpose the snow-covered trees. Not sure what you can do, other than combine two exposures.

Lightroom does a pretty effective job of pushing the exposure of the whites while allowing you to reduce the luminance of the blue sky:

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1ZBL53CAIZjAoQ7vL6mK2Q9ESgf_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1ZBL53CAIZjAoQ7vL6mK2Q9ESgf)

[bayhli]

Chuck... what did you do exactly to get that blue sky and not lose the white of the snow? Fantastic!

[Chuck S.]

Pat, set the exposure for the snow (about +1.00 is what I chose), then go down to the HSL area. Choose luminance, then push the Blue slider to the left. I went all the way to -100.

[bayhli]

I'm still wondering about Bryans "Brother Blue Sky" technique for snow and why it didn't work - will have to try it again when the sky is more intensely blue. Maybe there is something I'm missing in my reading...

[Chuck S.]

I'm still wondering about Bryans "Brother Blue Sky" technique for snow and why it didn't work - will have to try it again when the sky is more intensely blue. Maybe there is something I'm missing in my reading...

I'll read (re-read) the section and see if I can figure it out as well.

By the way, the image you posted can really be made to sparkle with some masked curves adjustments in CS3; I'll bet you can do a bunch with the original RAW image.

[bayhli]

Curves Adjustments :eek: Scare me to death!

I've just installed PS3 and haven't even looked yet.

I'm anxious to play with this image actually as I like the simplicity of it.

[Chuck S.]

Pat, don't forget to use a Curves Adjustment Layer rather than applying curves directly to your background layer. That way, you can play with them to your heart's content without 'bruising the pixels'. There are books written on curves; it's an incredibly powerful addition to your toolkit.

[Elemobe]

Pat, great tree......and the snow, oh how I love snow - probably wouldn't want it for 5 months of the year though - lol

I think your photo has worked fine. Is it a true reflection of the sky that day? The snow looks perfectly exposed.

When it is a bright sunny, blue sky day, I am sure following the same technique you will get the bright blue sky and white snow. The impression I get from this photo is that it was a fine day, but not particularly bright - is that correct? If not, and it was indeed a wonderfully bright sunny day - then something has gone wrong!!!

I am following your photos of snow and technique questions with interest, I am going skiing in March and looking forward to practicing "snow shots". I will be taking the brothers"Blue Sky" along with me;)

I had planned to get out and take some night shots, but it has hardly stopped raining for days now. I took some photos indoors of Father Christmas and have posted them here. They were both F4, the difference was that the blind was down on the first shot, diffusing the light coming in (albeit grey) from the window. I had placed one of the fairy lights to the left (how wonderfully amateur:)).

The metadata was photo 1. 1/15 F4 ISO 800 (mistake!!) 2 1/40 F4 ISO 800 (still forgotten to check ISO!).

For me, a very simple and not exciting exercise, but shows how light can make such a difference.



http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1jJGfx3EriTlmDwaTegiTObJM2Iqrc1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1jJGfx3EriTlmDwaTegiTObJM2Iqrc1)
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1mfiQb9Rtn0c3slLgE39fR4AaSZXk1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1mfiQb9Rtn0c3slLgE39fR4AaSZXk1)

[Elemobe]

Just in case you were not complete bored with my Father Christmas yet, I have more of hime:eek::D

Last night, I was thinking I could surely do more to make him more interesting, after all, I have seen artistic photos of barbed wire! I then thought of side lighting and just had to have another go.

I actually like the one that is slightly under-exposed, more dramatic. If they seem a little out of focus, whilst I was taking these (and there were a lot), our youngest dog decided to have a drink from the tree water. I wondered why the tree was shaking suddenly:confused:

I took these at night, turned the lights out and used a reading light to give the side light. I then took the exposure closer to the light source and then recomposed on the ornament.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1PGJvvutiNQJqbT47kJefSSakiUi_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1PGJvvutiNQJqbT47kJefSSakiUi)

[JulieM]

Linda, I like your Father Christmas experiments. My favorite is the last one...

[TonyW]

Well I hadn't read that bit in the book but I did get a break in the snow so had to give a shot in the snow a try. Wasn't that blue a sky and it was still snowing a bit but I used a gray card (came free in a Photo Mag I picked up recently) and was quite pleased with the exposure it picked. Shot RAW and made the usual adjustments in Camera RAW 4.2.1

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1gScnwrnUzFTpI8SNuvpieFW1f5C1L0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1gScnwrnUzFTpI8SNuvpieFW1f5C1L0)

Tony

[bayhli]

Hi Tony, great to have you contribute. The grey card worked very well indeed, I see white snow on the trees and a nicely coloured sky.

I appreciate you posting your image - I was just reviewing all the snow pictures and plan to try out a grey card and my palm tomorrow since it's supposed to be warmer and not snowing. This is encouraging.

Did you have to use exposure compensation at all? Likely not I suspect.

Linda your experiments with light are interesting to follow as well. You are making good use of your new tripod I see! Now, did you use partial or spot metering instead of matrix (pattern)? If I'm understanding correctly you metered from a spot closer to the light source and then used those settings when you recomposed directly on the ornament?

What I am most surprised about lately, is how high of an ISO I'm using outside to get the shutter speeds I'm needing. I really am not very good at judging the light level at all, wow.

I took my decorations down today but would still like to try some low-light stuff as well.

[TonyW]

Did you have to use exposure compensation at all? Likely not I suspect.



Actually that was the odd thing. I used a -0.7 exposure compensation because that works best with matrix metering on a D80. Nikon set the D80 up so it tends to overexpose by that amount with matrix metering - long story as to why and some think it's a bug while others think it's a design feature. Anyway I left it at that but when I looked at it in the RAW editor it looked underexposed and I boosted the exposure by 1 stop so what looked right to me would be if I'd shot it with no exposure compensation. Maybe it's because I metered off a gray card rather than an actual scene.

So what I used was 1/800, f5.6 ISO 200 but the correct exposure should proably have been 1/400, f5.6 ISO 200. I shot with a fast speed because it was snowing a bit and I wanted to catch the snow flakes. They were there and if I look carefully I can just about see them but it sure doesn't look like it did to my eye and I'm not really sure why :confused: Maybe when frozen by the camera they just look don't look like snow.

Tony

[GaryK]

Tony

I have an almost identical shot I took sunday after some neighbourhood shoveling.:)

It is on the other computer I'll try to get it posted tomorrow.


Pat

I have a couple of snow scenes (as metered and after the adjustment) I'll try to get those up as well.:)

[Edmund]

Tony, Just out of curiosity, what did the histogram look like in raw before you boosted it up one stop. I generally set my exp. comp. to -0.3 on my D-80. Never more then -0.5. For me it seems to keep my highlights properly exposed.
Eddie

[Chuck S.]

I would think that the exposure compensation for a snow scene would need to be on the plus side if you were spot metering the snow. Back when I lived where there was snow (!), I had a few pictures of gray snow....and I was so sure it was white. :rolleyes:

[TonyW]

Tony, Just out of curiosity, what did the histogram look like in raw before you boosted it up one stop. I generally set my exp. comp. to -0.3 on my D-80. Never more then -0.5. For me it seems to keep my highlights properly exposed.
Eddie

Eddie: this is what it looked like with the Camera Raw Defaults straight out of the camera. Does look like there's room at both ends.

1782

Chuck: That would be true if you were metering off the snow - I think 2 stops would be about right. But I was metering off a gray card so thought I'd use my standard exposure compensation. I'd have been right I think if I metered off the gray card and used no exposure compensation. I'll have to try again as it looks like it's going to be a sunny day and there's still lots of snow :)

Tony

[Chuck S.]

Tony, that does look like about a third or half stop of 'headroom' at the highlights end. Tough to get much in the blacks end in a snow scene with snow falling. Have fun today! (actually below freezing in parts of Houston this morning, but no snow....)

[Chuck S.]

I read somewhere that the Exposure slider in ACR (and Lightroom) is 'calibrated' to exposure value (EV), so if you slide it to the right to +1.00 you're increasing the effective exposure by one f-stop. That's really handy for analyzing the effect of exposure compensation on the image.

[TonyW]

I read somewhere that the Exposure slider in ACR (and Lightroom) is 'calibrated' to exposure value (EV), so if you slide it to the right to +1.00 you're increasing the effective exposure by one f-stop. That's really handy for analyzing the effect of exposure compensation on the image.

I guess I've always assumed that that was the case and it does seem to work that was. That's one reason I like working with the ACR editor. It's much more like making in-camera adjustments than the regular editor. Exposure, white balance etc.

Tony

[Edmund]

Tony, Thanks for the look at the histo. When I looked at the picture I couldn't see any detail in the snow so it looked as if it were over exposed. Good example of shooting in the snow. Live and learn. I never used a gray card, too cumbersom, usually I meter the blue sky or find a mid-tone and spot meter.
Eddie

[TonyW]

OK - I did the test and used three methods.

First used the gray card, spot metered, sitting in the sun. No exposrure compensation, ISO 200 and it gave 1/160 and f16

Second used centre weighted metering of a patch of snow in the sun and an exposure compensation of +2.0, ISO 200. That gave 1/60 at f10

Last I centre-weighted metered off the blue sky, no exposure compensation, ISO 200. That gave 1/100 and f11

The end result, the first was underexposed, the second was overexposed and the third was pretty much spot on. I shot RAW plus JPEG and the JPEGS clearly show the difference. The RAW files just take a tweak of the exposure to make them all look pretty much the same but I did come to the conclusion that the blue sky method appears to be the best. Here's what the best exposed one looked like:

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1LxbzH4eutK1COBXkSUwculBm1i_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1LxbzH4eutK1COBXkSUwculBm1i)

Tony

[Elemobe]

Tony, thank you. That is a great picture, the snow so white, the sky fabulous blue. So reassuring that the sky brothers analogy works.

I read that chapter quite thoroughly, but I am going back to it to refresh, especially after seeing this picture. Also interesting it was a better result than the grey card!

It is actually snowing outside as I type, with any luck, I will get to practice myself tomorrow. However, I am also "snowed" under with work, so won't have much time:(

[TonyW]

Linda: Thanks but I couldn't resist throwing in a bit of red.....:D

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1SLRpzXXUzvcOC8ttMIlOX3Egp4N1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1SLRpzXXUzvcOC8ttMIlOX3Egp4N1)

Had to do it to send to my relatives in New Zealand to show them what a real winter looks like (got a pic from them of Santa in his sleigh, elves in short sleeves, everything green :))

Tony

[GaryK]

Hi Guys

got home and the furnace had conked out..yipee:rolleyes:

Just got it going so I'll post a few.

First..tree for Tony.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1wYlXnTiuD97xRDMYRfcRWNqZ5B4p1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1wYlXnTiuD97xRDMYRfcRWNqZ5B4p1)

[GaryK]

Second a couple of snow shots

As metered by the camera

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1HBVq5xLOs6DWUpxsUImGYt0XLc7GF_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1HBVq5xLOs6DWUpxsUImGYt0XLc7GF)

ISO 100 f/8 1/160 sec


Next with a bit of adjusting in camera. just shy of a +2

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1FZefUTYYQvgVnOR4cWABcvOl9tuGR_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1FZefUTYYQvgVnOR4cWABcvOl9tuGR)

ISO 100 f/8 1/50 sec

It was still overcast so no mr blue sky or shadows.

[TonyW]

Hi Guys

got home and the furnace had conked out..yipee:rolleyes:

Just got it going so I'll post a few.

First..tree for Tony.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1wYlXnTiuD97xRDMYRfcRWNqZ5B4p1_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1wYlXnTiuD97xRDMYRfcRWNqZ5B4p1)

Perfect weather for the furnace to go - coldest night of the year :D. I recognize that tree - just like our Blue Spruce in the front yard. Sure looks cold but the exposure looks right.

Tony

[GaryK]

Tony

That was from the 1st.. weather here was nice. Probably just under freezing. The whole street was out shoveling and blowing and wishing each other an happy new year. That was from a little park at the end of my street.

The furnace guy walked me through some testing on the phone and told me what part to order. I cleaned some things up and it is working now ..not sure for how long... at least I know what to do to get the house warm if the part totally fails before I get a new one.

[lexcell]

Great dialog going here on metering for snow. Since our meters in our cameras give us an 18% gray, we need to compensate for white snow and for black subjects.
I find that matrix does a great job at getting me a technically correct exposure but, I do tend to tweak the exposure using exposure compensation for my own taste depending on the lighting and the mood I am after in my image.

Metering on grey days results in grey images. Adding a little bit of exposure brightens things up a bit.

Also, if the exposure is more than around five stops, something has to give. There will either be blown out highlights or blocked up blacks.

Use either the histogram or the highlight warning to determine exposure because the rear lcd is not good enough to tell just based on looking at your image.

[Elemobe]

Oh Laurie how true and such a well timed post re. grey days. Went out today, determined to take some pictures, no matter the weather and this is one of the results. All the elements are there (no pun intended) dogs, mountains, snow, smiling hubby and green grass - but the light was so grey. Shot is horribly out of focus (hand held) and I should have had a higher ISO - it was 200.

My question, if I had used a tripod and slower shutter speed, apart from the focus, would it have been any better? I mean it was a grey day. Should I just not bother when the light is so low?
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1pBOnkGVuK6zODxED6QhJxyMuIZva0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1pBOnkGVuK6zODxED6QhJxyMuIZva0)

[Chuck S.]

Linda, I looked at the EXIF data for your photo (it was still embedded in the image you posted on Pixentral). The parameters were:


ISO: 200
Aperture: f/14
Shutter speed: 1/10 second
Lens setting: 39 mmThe shutter speed is what caused your lack of sharpness; 1/10 second is well below the minimum recommended for hand-holding a camera. Even if you had opened the lens to f/8 and changed the ISO to 400, you might still have trouble with the shutter speed ~ 1/30 second. If you went below f/8, you would have started to have trouble with getting the foreground and background in simultaneous focus (depth of field.)

Your original settings would have worked if you had used a tripod. It would still be gray because of the weather, but a levels adjustment in Elements would take good care of that.

[Chuck S.]

By the way, just running your image through Camera Raw (no Elements Editor adjustments) does some nice things:

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1MEIHyODrnvPlI6fkL6Vaas1JZT6Nk_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1MEIHyODrnvPlI6fkL6Vaas1JZT6Nk)

Sliders used: exposure, fill light, clarity, recovery, vibrance, and sharpness.

[Elemobe]

Thanks Chuck, that answers my question - a tripod is absolutely necessary for grey days. I purposely didn't take it today because it was so cold and knew that nobody (including dogs) wanted to hang around whilst I fiddled about with tripods.

I really love dramatic skies and weather, so of course in order to get those photos, in bad light, I have to go out on my own and freeze - but the light will still be grey? It's not what I see though, I see varying shades of grey, with areas of light - not the flat grey I photograph. Maybe I am too ambitious

That's really clever, I didn't know you could get the data that easy - I'm amazed and impressed!

[Elemobe]

Oh, that's good, much improved. I swear hubby's smile is brighter as well:D:D

[Chuck S.]

Linda, in this picture the sky is pretty far away from you; the nuanced detail might be hard to resolve. When you see a sky that appeals to you, try shooting a picture of just it. Then try adding some of the land and see where the exposure values go. Isn't it nice that we don't have to burn any film or paper costs?!:)

[bayhli]

Tony, what a difference a blue sky and some shadows make in an image - your shot is beautiful. I too am reassured that the blue sky metering does work, just need some!

I can really relate to your shots Gary, exactly the same as mine. Everything I did looks black and white and without contrast, especially since the trees were frosty as well. I like it but not for everything winter. I used way higher ISO than you ... but I remember now that I was also doing some experimenting with my zoom lens so I needed to pump that ISO to get the shutter speeds up.

Linda, your slow shutter speed did you in as Chuck says. I do it all the time - just today again. For some reason it's something I forget to check on before I shoot. When I get frustrated enough with myself I finally slap the shooting mode into AV (shutter priority) and set it for at least the distance of my lens and take whatever aperture. Not good practice though. :eek:

There's a formula out there but what I do is raise the ISO until I get the shutter speed up to at least the distance of the lens I'm using. (If I don't want to use a tripod.) So if I'm shooting at 200mm I want a shutter speed of at least 1/200, if shooting at 55mm then I want at least 1/55 to handhold. Try taking your monopod with you instead of the tripod, it can help as well. I continue to ruin so many shots though because I always forget to check that before I start shooting.

Lovely composition though, you're right you have all the elements! Absolutely love the mountains in the background, wow. And I love seeing green foliage every bit as much as you love seeing the snow in our images! :D

ps. go to http://opanda.com/ and download OpandaIExif 2.3 for free and you'll be able to view the exif data of images posted just by right-clicking on them. (if it is available in the image). I just did the other day and what a handy little program.

Thanks for posting everyone, great information and examples to make available.

[Chuck S.]

ps. go to http://opanda.com/ and download OpandaIExif 2.3 for free and you'll be able to view the exif data of images posted just by right-clicking on them. (if it is available in the image). I just did the other day and what a handy little program.



Pat, that's the very same program I used to extract the info from Linda's photo. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for images that have been processed via Save for Web, as that route strips out the EXIF data. But when an image has been Saved As...JPEG, there's a goldmine of information and lessons learned!

[mrod]

OK, can I jump in with a different question, but from the same chapter? The answer is probably obvious--I must be missing something...

On Pages 128-130 Peterson has several examples and explanations on how he shot them. Let's take the the shot of Paris at night on page 130 as an example. He says:

"I at first set my aperture wide open to f/2.8. I then aimed at the sky to the left of the tower and adjusted my shutter speed to 1/4 sec. However, since I was interested in getting a streaked effect from the traffic...I needed a much longer shutter speed...I therefore stopped the lens down from f/2.8 to f/16 and--to maintain a correct exposure--chose a shutter speed of 8 seconds..."

My question: why not meter with the aperture you plan on using--f/16 in this case. Why start wide open, then stop down to what you plan on shooting with in the first place? I don't understand the need for the extra step.

Thanks!
Mike

[Chuck S.]

Mike, I can't think of why he might have done it that way, unless he was initially thinking he might have enough light with the aperture wide open to take the photo hand-held. However, 1/4 second is too long for that, so he changed his emphasis to the streaky lights. I would say he could have done just as you describe: set aperture at f/16, aim at sky, accept shutter speed proposed by meter.

[NickLewis]

Chuck/Mike - it might be that he was using a camera whose meter wouldn't couple to such a slow shutter speed. I vaguely remember some cameras having that issue a while back.

Nick

[Chuck S.]

Ah.....good thought, Nick.

[Elemobe]

Pat, Chuck thank you both for such helpful answers. Apologies for not replying sooner for 2 reasons. 1. I have not been getting e-notifications due to a technical issue with this forum and Apple and 2. I found this light subject and my experience/practice quite thought provoking.

I realise now that the images I want to produce are going to require technical know how, creative vision, time and patience - I am still on learning technical know how!!!

If I want dramatic skies and mountain shots, then of course I can't expect dogs and husbands to sit around in the cold for a long time whilst I phaff around, chanting (check shutter speed, aperture, what is my ISO etc) framing and studying histograms - not logical (now I can see that).

This week, my photography magazine arrived and it has a big article on taking shots of grey skies. Looking at these wonderful photos they all have some strong foreground interest as well - an element missing from my shot.

Pat, thank you for the tip about shutter speeds and focal length. I have heard you say this before, but confess I didn't get it. Your wonderful "Janet & John" explanation was extremely helpful.

[bayhli]

Still grey skies and snow every day. I got desperate last night and caught an hour between snow falls to photograph yet another tree off my outside deck at 10:00 pm. It's front-lit from the outside light on the house, which is encased in a dark amber reflector thus the yellow cast to the light. Not great images and I did have to adjust the white balance in LR but practice just the same. The snow was too deep to get the upward shots I would have liked to.

The 2nd image is cropped from a slightly larger one. The hardest part was finding a spot for the camera to focus on and then getting back into place. Used a tripod and shutter release cord. Matrix metering (tried spot and partial metering but it didn't seem to make any difference)

Used the same settings for both images:
Manual Mode / f6.3 / Shutter 30.0 sec / ISO 100 / @17mm

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/17WK70EhI9S4uNf1noItfPKM0ur0C2_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=17WK70EhI9S4uNf1noItfPKM0ur0C2)

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1c1PAUMCcAQAqKuhM7QkwvFLO36Uj0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1c1PAUMCcAQAqKuhM7QkwvFLO36Uj0)

[bayhli]

I recently took this photo late in the afternoon, full sunset about an hour away. I was interested in the road so metered for that and the snow - Matrix, +1 2/3 exposure comp and focused on one of the snowbanks.

I'd like to catch a nice sunset a little later in the day at this spot, expecting nice colour in the sky and reflected colour on the snow. Would I meter any differently? I'd want to retain the colours in both the sky and the snow and not have the snow go dark if I meter off the sky.
My thought is that both the snow and the sky are bright so perhaps it wouldn't matter which I metered from? Too darn cold to stand around experimenting for any great length of time so I'd like to be as prepared as possible.
Any thoughts...?

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1FbrvWCTYElc04vhvINC7IK0GX8cP0_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1FbrvWCTYElc04vhvINC7IK0GX8cP0)

[nkeevers]

I haven't been on this thread for a bit...been real busy lately.

But Pat I wanted to tell you how much I've liked seeing your images. From reading the book, you are doing an great job and your images show it! I've not been practicing enough lately, though I have been using manual most of the time. I've read the book but still have trouble remembering everything. I think I need to make up a cheat sheet!:eek: I'll have to do a bit of practicing maybe this weekend. Love your tree and snow pictures. No snow to practice on here unfortunately. Your trees came out beautiful and very clear and sharp! I don't have a decent tripod yet so I'm unable to practice using one...mine moves when I click to take an image.

If I need any help, I know who to go to now!:D

[JulieM]

Pat, I must have missed the two images you posted of the snow covered trees. You did a great job on them. I especially like the crop on the second one as well as it's color tone.

[bayhli]

Norma,

How nice of you to post such lovely thoughts. I really appreciate your kind words, glad you enjoyed them.

Now you must remember that you are usually seeing my successes, not the 50 tries that I botched to get to that one I post!

I understood more in the book this time round for sure, but I agree it's sure hard to remember and apply. Practice has helped me the most however I am still a long way from consistently being able to take any type of shot. Keep getting out there with your camera when you can - that's what I plan to continue to do.

Thanks again...

[Not4wood]

I gots to say; very nicely done.

Matter of fact, my book just got in from the library and I can now look around at what you guys are talking about.

Nice shots btw. One question about the snow covered road. You said your time wise was sunset? How bout trying that shot at the real best time for sky shots, the Sunrise?? Gives a new perspective on things.

Also, the tree shots. I just started reading the book, so I am not sure where you guys are at the moment except Chapter 4 but I'm no where near you. LOL, I would also say that for interesting effects, you could also play around with the triangle. Start changing the ISO and keep playing on how sensitive your sensers are.. You could start by bring up the ISO to 400 or even 800 and see how that changes things. Granted I am not up to where you guys are, and granted I still don't know if you've already done this :D Its just a suggestion on where I'm at and was just introduced to. LOL

While reading an article on the net about Flash Exposures, I was introduced to draggin the shutter. Which means slowing the shutter down for normal Flash shots. By raising up the ISO, which also gives another perspective on what kind of triangle you have for flash combined with ambient light. I don't mean to confuse the issue because your following the book, but at Night time exposures you sometimes want to capture the ambient light as well besides the correct exposure for your subject if your using flash. Yeah, I know. To me it looks like your talking about capturing existing light without flash.

The great part about night time exposures is, what you expose for will sometimes give you benefits to your shots you haven't seen before. Your slow shutter speads create halos or even lines due to subject movement. Extremely slow shutter speeds using the Bulb, will give you apertures that can focus on a whole lot more then just your subject to keep those unexpected intrusions and make for more surreal shots that are breathtaking. Example, light reflecting on moving water like Niagra Falls.

[bayhli]

Thanks for some great ideas Mark... will be interesting to pursue. Like the sounds of the bulb exposures at night. I'd love to catch a sunrise, especially on the snow - problem is that I'm not a morning person so haven't accomplished it yet, but it's on my to-do list!

We've more-or-less finished the book now but there is some good information in the thread so glad you're reviewing it. I'd be interested in your further thoughts or questions as you go along so please do post back.

Metering is still an issue with me so I just may be posting on this thread again...

[Not4wood]

Metering is still an issue with me so I just may be posting on this thread again...

Why is Metering a problem?? Do you have a seperate Light Meter besides using the camera? Any time a person has a problem using or for some reason cant get the Meter right, I always ask them to check out a small Light Meter. There not expensive, usually you can find them cheap at Flea Markets or Garage Sales. Also, at a Garage Sale the people usually don't know what it is, so you can practically walk away cheap.