In photography why does this happen?

[episodic]

I love this shot I took of this stand of pine trees.

The sky was blue. The trees well defined. Most of the time when I take this kind of photo the sky will be blown out almost white - and the tree will be fine. I know it has alot to do with the direction of the light outside. I realize that when it is 'white' that means it is overexposed. If I lower the exposure compensation though, the subject often becomes too dark. Photos like this seem to magickly happen sometimes. What part am I missing.


http://public.fotki.com/episodic/artist...nd/artistic_stuff/20060129_055717.html

 

[imported_Rat]

That one's a bit underexposed.

 

[Heisenberg]

The camera can only adjust for a single light level. If it lets more light in so the trees aren't dark, the sky will look too bright. If it lets less in so the sky isn't overexposed, the trees will appear dark.

 

[Ika]

Possibly adjust the contrast.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
The camera can only adjust for a single light level. If it lets more light in so the trees aren't dark, the sky will look too bright. If it lets less in so the sky isn't overexposed, the trees will appear dark.

That is basically what I was saying. So why does sometimes it magically will get the sky and the subject?

 

[vi edit]

Fill flash?

 

[NTB]

what sort of camera are you using? p&s or dslr? just wondering. I get the "blown out sky" bit alot with either one; I find that if I meter on the sky and *then* shoot, things usually come out OK.

If you're trying to cover a really wide dynamic range (really bright and really dark in the same shot), you can use 2 pictures and photoshop to get a composite that might be better than either original:

take one shot that is exposed to show the bright part correctly, and another exposed for the dark part, then use photoshop or something similar to blend them:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Nate

 

[JulesMaximus]

Try taking the picture earlier in the day. Dawn or just after dawn is a good time to take shots like this.

Also, you might try a polarizing filter.

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
The camera can only adjust for a single light level. If it lets more light in so the trees aren't dark, the sky will look too bright. If it lets less in so the sky isn't overexposed, the trees will appear dark.

That is basically what I was saying. So why does sometimes it magically will get the sky and the subject?

Ah, sorry I misunderstood. I dunno - I'd guess it has to do with the particular lighting for the shot.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Fill flash?

Yea, in a perfect world where I have tons of cash. . . . Unfortuantly I've got a P&S with a limited flash range. I did not use a flash for this pic for instance.

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: NTB
what sort of camera are you using? p&s or dslr? just wondering. I get the "blown out sky" bit alot with either one; I find that if I meter on the sky and *then* shoot, things usually come out OK.

If you're trying to cover a really wide dynamic range (really bright and really dark in the same shot), you can use 2 pictures and photoshop to get a composite that might be better than either original:

take one shot that is exposed to show the bright part correctly, and another exposed for the dark part, then use photoshop or something similar to blend them:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Nate

It is a P&S. I hate carrying tripods is my only problem with this method. . .

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
The camera can only adjust for a single light level. If it lets more light in so the trees aren't dark, the sky will look too bright. If it lets less in so the sky isn't overexposed, the trees will appear dark.

That is basically what I was saying. So why does sometimes it magically will get the sky and the subject?

Point and shoots can sometimes meter strangely. What's probably happening when it does come out right is that you have just managed to compose the shot in such a way that the camera's metering lands in between the sky and the tree.

ZV

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: NTB
what sort of camera are you using? p&s or dslr? just wondering. I get the "blown out sky" bit alot with either one; I find that if I meter on the sky and *then* shoot, things usually come out OK.

If you're trying to cover a really wide dynamic range (really bright and really dark in the same shot), you can use 2 pictures and photoshop to get a composite that might be better than either original:

take one shot that is exposed to show the bright part correctly, and another exposed for the dark part, then use photoshop or something similar to blend them:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Nate

It is a P&S. I hate carrying tripods is my only problem with this method. . .

What about something small, like an ultrapod? Not quite as useful as a full-sized tripod, but better than nothing. Your only other option would probably be a new, image-stabilized point and shoot. Or a DSLR with an image-stabilized lens


EDIT: you can also, in cases like this, try metering on the plants, then pushing the exposure compensation down a little bit. let me see if I can find my copy of Understanding Exposure real quick...

found it: try metering on the green, then set the exposure compensation for -2/3-stop under-exposure.

Nate

Nate

 

[tfinch2]

The sensor on your camera doesn't have enough dynamic range. It just so happened that you metered off the sky, rather than the tree. That's why the tree is underexposed. Meter on the tree and the sky will be blown out. The trick I use is to meter on both, then adjust the shutter speed to a happy medium. The results work.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/63791428.HGgFO8h5.nina.jpg

Another example:

Metered on the sky only (building is underexposed):

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/66657958.uNdasOrM.capitol.jpg

Happy medium manual metering:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/66657935.63iMpVOv.capitol2.jpg

 

[yllus]

The problem you're describing can't really be resolved. You can meter for the tree or for the sky, but not both at once without a fairly ugly compromise picture.

The two options you have are to take the picture at a different time of day where the difference in light level isn't so large, or to take two exposures, one metering the sky and one metering off the tree. I guess the situation is even more complicated by the fact that it might be really hard to manually instruct your camera on what to meter off of.

 

[episodic]

So in a canon point and shoot - when you say meter on an object - Im taking it that this means to use spot metering rather than evaluative metering - or should I use center weighted average?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
The camera can only adjust for a single light level. If it lets more light in so the trees aren't dark, the sky will look too bright. If it lets less in so the sky isn't overexposed, the trees will appear dark.

That is basically what I was saying. So why does sometimes it magically will get the sky and the subject?

Because the light levels differ drastically, but your eyes don't see that much of a difference since they adjust easily.

If you take the picture early or late in the day, the pictures will come out nicely since the sky is deeper blue and the subjects on the ground aren't lit by the sun that intensely.

Yllus summed it up nicely here: "You can meter for the tree or for the sky, but not both at once without a fairly ugly compromise picture... take the picture at a different time of day where the difference in light level isn't so large"

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Dynamic range, dynamic range, dynamic range.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/high-dynamic-range.htm

 

[Anubis]

becayse the cameras dynamic range cant pull that all in and takes a middle grouns basicaially which normally lets the highs blow out

 

[yhelothar]

uber HDR

 

[DBL]

There is a reason a dedicated photographer will seek out either the early morning or late afternoon light.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
uber HDR

But the plants are way underexposed.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
The sensor on your camera doesn't have enough dynamic range. It just so happened that you metered off the sky, rather than the tree. That's why the tree is underexposed. Meter on the tree and the sky will be blown out. The trick I use is to meter on both, then adjust the shutter speed to a happy medium. The results work.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/63791428.HGgFO8h5.nina.jpg

Another example:

Metered on the sky only (building is underexposed):

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/66657958.uNdasOrM.capitol.jpg

Happy medium manual metering:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/66657935.63iMpVOv.capitol2.jpg

I've always been a fan of slight underexposure. Maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of a stop. This is shooting E-6, not digital. Oddly enough, I've got our digital set to -.7 EV at all times and that has produced the best images for my taste. Flash, fill flash and no flash.

I would say it's very odd that the shot of the boat is properly exposed in every way, but there is NO detail on the port side shadow area. Because the sky is deep blue, the sidewalk is perfect, but there was nothing that could be pulled from that port side shadow? Odd to me. Might be my monitor.