|
yetanotherdave
Nov 16, 2005, 3:31 PM
Post #1 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Photo n00b question: on our recent Red Rocks trip my wife and I took a few shots from shade that include sunlit areas, and lots of them look a bit washed out.
example:
http://squirrel.mine.nu/...dark_shadows_rap.jpg
full-size image is http://squirrel.mine.nu/pics/red_rocks_05/dscn0281.jpg
Would forcing the flash on help correct this?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Nov 16, 2005, 6:03 PM
Post #2 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
The problem is that the difference between lit/shade areas is higher than film/digital sensor can capture. There is a reason sunset/sunrise called golden hours for photography, because the difference is not that large.
in some cases fill flash might help. portraits in front of sun for example. In this case the shaded valley still will be very dark.
Another solution may be using graduate (split density) filters.
You can also try shooting 2 images, one exposed for the shade and the other for the sunlit areas, and combine them.
You can also try using contrast masking, or digital split ND using photoshop or gimp
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Nov 16, 2005, 6:12 PM
Post #3 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: Photo n00b question: on our recent Red Rocks trip my wife and I took a few shots from shade that include sunlit areas, and lots of them look a bit washed out. Would forcing the flash on help correct this? thanks
More than likely, an on-camera flash (especially with a smaller point-and-shoot camera) will not be powerful enough to do much in a daylight fill-flash situation. Try to avoid extreme variations of brightness in a photo, and make sure to expose for the subject that you want detail in. In the example photo, you exposed well for the climber and lost some of the background detail. There's not much you could have done in the situation.
Some things to try... If you're shooting with a D-SLR or other camera that can output a RAW file, you may be able to salvage some of the detail in Photoshop, but the bottom line is that the exposure latitude of a digital camera sensor is just not that large. Bracketing 1/2 to 1 stop can be a good idea with tough lighting too.
With non-moving subjects (tough with climbing shots) you can look into ND Grad filters or taking multiple shots at different exposures and combining the properly exposed portions in photoshop.
~Adam~
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 16, 2005, 6:47 PM
Post #4 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
If you have the equipment? Motor drive, fill flash, high sync speed.
If not? Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Nov 16, 2005, 7:15 PM
Post #5 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
:shock: ?
|
|
|
|
|
outsideguyzak
Nov 16, 2005, 7:45 PM
Post #6 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Posts: 169
|
you just need some good polarized sunglasses, uv protected bullets and the right scope. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Nov 16, 2005, 11:22 PM
Post #7 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Meter for the shade (spot metering mode, if you have it), and try to get as tight with the framing as you can. It will be tough to have the climber and the sunny area exposed well, so try to make the focus on the climber, and the background will be just that - background. Use your lens wide open to blur the background as much as you can. Then a little PS action can help bring down the highlights. Fill flash would help as well, but you might need a good flash unit, depending on how far away you are.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Nov 17, 2005, 12:09 AM
Post #8 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Well, you say you're a photo n00b, and if I can take that to mean you don't mind being a photo n00b and are just a casual photographer trying to make the most out of his small point n shoot, then most of the tips here might be more than you really need.
For vacation pix, where you just want a snapshot of the memory, get as much of the subject in the shade as you can, then crop out the washed-out junk. The pic you posted would work well for that, since you're completely in the shade. A small point n shoot won't have a strong enough flash to do much to a shot like that, and might make it look worse, if it bounces off the foreground rock in a certain way.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2005, 7:41 AM
Post #9 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
the photo you show as an example would not completely improve if you forced the flash.
you, the foreground, would look more in sync with the light colored area but your valley in shade would still be very dark.
using a high sync speed flash works well if you are shooting with a light background and a shaded foreground that the flash can cover. you'd expose for the background and the flash would light the shaded foreground. But a mixed background doesn't work
the eye can distinguish something like 20 stops of light while the film or dsensor can only capture around 5 stops total. basically about 2.5 on either side of the mid tone.
filtration or merging photos can help solve this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Nov 17, 2005, 8:04 AM
Post #10 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
As previous posters have pointed out, this is a tough situation because you want to catch both the shadows and the highlights and most cameras won't be able to capture that range of brightness.
You could use flash, but unless the foreground is separated from the background (e.g. head shot) there will often be a strange looking lit up area in the foreground (the rock in this case) that tapers off as the flash intensity falls with distance. This partial illumination tends to look odd and since the flash light has a different temperature than the ambient light things usually look unnatural because of the mismatch.
Bracketing and combining exposures to make a composite image is the best way to get a good shot but it takes some work to merge the images and make it look good.
If you have to work with a single shot, I'd try exposing for the highlights because if you overexpose there's nothing you can do about it - the information is lost (with film it may not be quite as bad as with digital). The dark areas willl be very dark, but you can generally recover a fair amount of detail by selectively brightening them up. Shooting RAW willl maximize your chance of recovering shadow detail. The problem is that the brightened areas will tend to look rather grey and colorless, so you might be best off exposing for the subject and living with the blown out background (as you have done).
Overall, I'd say that the shot you have is pretty good. There's good detail in the foreground and the background isn't totally blown out.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 17, 2005, 8:12 AM
Post #11 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Bracket a bunch of shots fast and stitch them.
Or just photoshop the mess.
Doesn't matter, really.
Personally I usually found it easier to bracket. I'm really lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 17, 2005, 8:16 AM
Post #12 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
I looked at the above example again, and just getting a slightly steeper angle (or asking the rapelling climber to snug in a bit), followed by cropping out the blown-out part. As it stands, your only hope is Photoshop; but if you get used to thinking of things in terms of "will fit into the exposure latitude of my camera" versus "won't fix (too contrasty)", you can get away with less work.
As a counterpoint, all 3 of my top-rated photos were shot in shitty light and fixed later in Photoshop or the Gimp. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Nov 17, 2005, 8:22 AM
Post #13 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: This partial illumination tends to look odd and since the flash light has a different temperature than the ambient light things usually look unnatural because of the mismatch. out.
Just use a Gel Filter over your flash to warm the flash. Too warm a flash is rarely a problem. But the cold light often is.
I forget the spectrum level I have permenantly on the flashes but it is several hundred K warmer than the flash itself (I think it's in the 4000K range). I'll ocassionally add a second gel with a even warmer temp.
Matching flash to ambient temps is not all that tough.
|
|
|
|
|
yetanotherdave
Nov 17, 2005, 3:59 PM
Post #15 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2005
Posts: 243
|
Wow - thanks all for the suggestions. And on a day I had trophies to hand out, too!
Now I just need a fix for the 'Dave didn't give the autofocus enough time' problem pictures ;)
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Nov 18, 2005, 2:16 AM
Post #16 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
In reply to: Just use a Gel Filter over your flash to warm the flash. Too warm a flash is rarely a problem. But the cold light often is. I forget the spectrum level I have permenantly on the flashes but it is several hundred K warmer than the flash itself (I think it's in the 4000K range). I'll ocassionally add a second gel with a even warmer temp. Matching flash to ambient temps is not all that tough.
That's a great idea! Why didn't I think of that :)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Nov 22, 2005, 8:58 AM
Post #17 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
What I notice in this picture is the high depth of field.
Would a much smaller DoF modify the contrast between the light and shade, or not?
|
|
|
|
|
deepplaymedia
Nov 24, 2005, 11:26 AM
Post #18 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2005
Posts: 192
|
"If you have to work with a single shot, I'd try exposing for the highlights because if you overexpose there's nothing you can do about it - the information is lost (with film it may not be quite as bad as with digital). The dark areas willl be very dark, but you can generally recover a fair amount of detail by selectively brightening them up. Shooting RAW willl maximize your chance of recovering shadow detail. The problem is that the brightened areas will tend to look rather grey and colorless, so you might be best off exposing for the subject and living with the blown out background (as you have done). "
SPOT ON ALEX
shoot later or earlier in the day, or on a day with a good cloud cover (= nice diffused light) but if you are shooting inreally harsh light like this, the fill flash is good if you know how to use it well, but the quickest way is to;
a) do what alex says (underexpose by a couple stops)
b) take one pic exposed for each different component of the pic and stitch them in photoshop
c) or use an ND grad filter
having said that, theres loads of ways to fix this...but really if you're just after some happy snaps to remember your climb by, i wouldnt worry too much!!
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Nov 24, 2005, 8:12 PM
Post #19 of 19
(4156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: "If you have to work with a single shot, I'd try exposing for the highlights because if you overexpose there's nothing you can do about it - the information is lost (with film it may not be quite as bad as with digital)
minor correction: you shoot for hightlights with a slide, and for shadow with negative film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
