Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / May 2008
Very dark images
|
|
Thread rating:  |
(not quite so) Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 02:40 GMT I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me please, I'm something of a novice. I was shooting today outdoors in bright sunny conditions. I was on Apperture Priority mode with ISO set to 100, the apperture locked at F8 and no filters in use. The camera is a high-end Fuji bridge camera with more or less the same specs as a low-end DLSR.
All the images I took were excessively dark and required quite a bit of photoshoppery to bring them back up again. Is this common with apperture priority mode? Or have I missed something glaringly obvious?
Jeff - 09 May 2008 04:23 GMT > I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me please, > I'm something of a novice. > I was shooting today outdoors in bright sunny conditions. Is there a lot of sky in your pictures? Your camera is probably trying to expose for that.
But you have some control over the exposure. Look at the image after you take it, look at the histogram. If it isn't right, make an adjustment.
You can:
a) Set your exposure compensation. Even relatively cheap cameras have that.
b) Point the camera more directly at what you want to be more properly exposed, hold down the shutter part way to lock that in, and recompose.
c) Choose a different metering option. Most decent cameras have multiple options.
But what you really need to learn is that a good picture is as dependent on the quality of light as it is the subject. Wait for better light. There are very few good landscapes that are taken in the middle of the day on bright sunny days.
Oh, and its "aperature" priority.
Jeff
> I was on Apperture Priority mode with ISO set to 100, the apperture locked > at F8 and no filters in use. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is this common with apperture priority mode? > Or have I missed something glaringly obvious? Usenet Police - 09 May 2008 05:10 GMT > Oh, and its "aperature" priority. "Aperture"
 Signature Brought to you by Merriam-Webster
The One - 09 May 2008 09:37 GMT >> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jeff What does he meter from?
Jeff - 09 May 2008 15:02 GMT >>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > What does he meter from? Not that exposure is unimportant, but setting it is so much easier in digital, where you don't have to wait for the film to be developed.
My pocket camera, an old Canon A95, has "evaluative","center weighted average", and "spot".
There's a few ways of looking at this, since most digitals have less range than negative film, you have to decide if you want to clip highlights and block up shadows. That is a real possibility in such harsh lighting as the OP is shooting in. But typically, you decide what you want to be the same darkness as an 18% gray card and expose for that.
All this is really moot with digital, as you just shoot, look and adjust.
That is not to say that there aren't those who still use the zone system on digital. Even if you don't use it, I think its important to have some familiarity with it it.
With all this said, there are many people shooting digital today that make 2 or 3 exposures(with each exposure a couple stops different) and reassemble them to get detail in extreme highlights and shadows. I've just seen something similar done with focus, where the software picks the sharpest bits from each exposure.
Digital gives you the possibility of making a near perfect image.
Myself, I just prefer not to shoot in such conditions.
Jeff
The One - 20 May 2008 12:21 GMT >>>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Myself, I just prefer not to shoot in such conditions. ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
More bigheadedness. One day someone will be able to back up their 'vast' knowledge with some decent photos.
(not quite so) Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 14:14 GMT >> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >> please, I'm something of a novice. >> I was shooting today outdoors in bright sunny conditions. > > Is there a lot of sky in your pictures? Your camera is probably trying > to expose for that. Hmmm, Yes, there was...
> But you have some control over the exposure. Look at the image after > you take it, look at the histogram. If it isn't right, make an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a) Set your exposure compensation. Even relatively cheap cameras have > that. Ah...Never thought of that...
> b) Point the camera more directly at what you want to be more properly > exposed, hold down the shutter part way to lock that in, and > recompose. I tried that, but I was shooting fast moving kids, and I'm quite slow witted so I often messed up.
> c) Choose a different metering option. Most decent cameras have > multiple options. Time to dust off the manual :-)
Jeff - 09 May 2008 15:18 GMT >>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmmm, Yes, there was... I just looked at what you shot. I think you did a pretty good job of fixing these.
With the backlighting you have, this is tough shooting. Consider:
A) Fill flash. B) Someone with a large reflector to fill the shadows (it can be almost anything). C) Shooting with the light, instead of against it. D) Waiting for better light.
It may be that only option A will be readily available. That is the easiest way to fix this.
Best of luck with your project.
Jeff
>> But you have some control over the exposure. Look at the image after >> you take it, look at the histogram. If it isn't right, make an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Time to dust off the manual :-) (not quite so) Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 19:02 GMT >>>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I just looked at what you shot. I think you did a pretty good job of > fixing these. Thanks Jeff. The full set can be viewed here http://flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/72157604965707024/
> With the backlighting you have, this is tough shooting. Consider: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It may be that only option A will be readily available. That is the > easiest way to fix this. Yeah, I think the fill flash would have been the way to go. I niavely assumed that as it was a bright day, there wouldn't be a problem with lighting. Direction of light didn't even enter my head.
> Best of luck with your project. Thanks :-)
tony cooper - 09 May 2008 05:20 GMT On Fri, 9 May 2008 02:40:46 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me please, >I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Is this common with apperture priority mode? >Or have I missed something glaringly obvious? White balance setting set for something other than natural light?
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
(not quite so) Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 14:15 GMT > On Fri, 9 May 2008 02:40:46 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" > <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > White balance setting set for something other than natural light? It was set to auto. I normally don't have a problem keeping it on auto.
The One - 09 May 2008 09:32 GMT > I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me > please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is this common with apperture priority mode? > Or have I missed something glaringly obvious? Give it a month, he will be trying to flog his images for £30 an A4 print off photobox in an attempt to make a name for himself.
(not quite so) Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 14:12 GMT >> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Give it a month, he will be trying to flog his images for £30 an A4 > print off photobox in an attempt to make a name for himself. I sincerely doubt that. I'm nowhere near good enough to earn money from my photography. Besides, I don't have time for that as I'm too busy in other areas like campaigning to save my home from being swallowed up by a huge quarry. That's what yesterdays photoshoot was for. see here http://www.SavePentney.co.uk
Jeff - 09 May 2008 15:45 GMT >>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's what yesterdays photoshoot was for. > see here http://www.SavePentney.co.uk OT, but I just looked at your HTML. Nicely done!
Jeff
Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 21:51 GMT >>>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > OT, but I just looked at your HTML. Nicely done! Cheers. Web development is my game. Photography is just a fun distraction for me.
Fat Sam - 09 May 2008 21:51 GMT >>>> I'm probably missing somethnig really obvious here, so bear with me >>>> please, I'm something of a novice. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > OT, but I just looked at your HTML. Nicely done! Cheers. Web development is my game. Photography is just a fun distraction for me.
|
|
|