Understanding Exposure

[Jason Hermann]

Again, I want to thank everybody for participating in this thread!! I'm glued to it along with many others

Kelly, I just wanted to add that your band shots are terrific!! We all now if you had time to pose them and use specialized equipment they could have come out a bit better. But with the situation and conditions your shooting under, Plus the fact that there RAW images your posting makes them very very good!! Some minor edits and all of those pics would be terrific IMO.

So anyways, I had a nice opportunity yesterday to try and apply what I learned here
I was on my home from work and the water skiers were out having some fun The lighting conditions IMO were pretty tuff. Very similar to Kelly's situation where I have no control over the subjects, but have to try and get the best shot possible. Also I have no experience shooting moving objects other than my dogs so it was a challenge in that regard for me as well.

What I did was set the camera to partial metering mode and survey the scene. My camera was telling me it needed to be at 1/800 to get the proper exposure of the skier and the surrounding water. I couldn't zoom in enough to just isolate the guy or his face so I had try my best. So I figured that the bright white water was probably fooling the camera a little bit making the scene look brighter than it actually was, so I set the Exp comp to +1/3 Av mode f/7.1 Tamron 28-300. My goal was to have the guy look good and also maintain the detail in the bright water.

Here is what I got raw:


Looks a bit under exposed to my eye, but none of the highlights are blown at least. Now with just a click of brightness in Lightroom I got this:




Still this looks a little bit underexposed I think? But the guy looks good light wise IMO. Now this is no PP besides a brightness Click. If I went into photoshop and spent a few minutes on this image I could get a pretty solid picture I think.

About 10 minutes in photoshop:


Now, Looking at these I think I could have upped the exp comp a bit more, but other than that any suggestions??

ALso, would having better equipment allow me to up the exposure comp even more due to a wider Dynamic range? If so, how much?

Would a better lens like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM for example result in a much better image quality wise right off the camera?? If so how much ??

I notice that the Tamron seems to be a bit flat on the colors in these conditions, but Maybe the Canon would be the same??

Kelly, your photos look way better than mine right off the camera so Congrates to you my friend!!

Thanks again for any info and sharing all

Jay

[KellyL]

...a bit more precise, please

...do you mean limited to 1/250sec maximum speed? Both on-camera, but easier on your 580ex you can set HiSpeedSync which takes that treshold away, but be careful, if you shoot (a lot) faster, the shutter-curtain is closed before the full flashlight-blow is recorded...

...or do you mean in Av you ONLY get 1/250 ?? in that case you have a CustomFunction active! On 20D C.Fn.3-Flash Sync Speed in Av-mode: 0 = auto, 1 = fixed at 1/250, on 30D the same C.Fn. ...

Max, I had been warned that working with high speed sync was poor practice as it negated much of the effect the flash would have. So I wanted to avoid high speed sync. I don't know if the Metz has that capability, but I would take a quick look in the user manual to determine the possibility.

[KellyL]

..at quite a distance OUTDOORS the Fong renders the flash worthless, even for fill, unless you point the 'lid' straight at your subjects and use FEC +2 - +3... distance too far, flash too weak, light too diffused... a 'betterbeamer' would have helped you more...

...you have done GREAT studies with the Metz, why not do these over with the 580 and the Fong ?? Take notes on how you 'pointed' it, as that won't be in EXIF ...

I have done quite a bit of work outdoors with my fong, and yes, it does cut down the flash so much that with this lens it is useless...which is the primary reason I didn't try to use it on this particular day.

I would use the Metz, but I still don't know how to correctly control that beast. I shot some shots yesterday with the Metz...thinking...what does it matter if I blow these band pictures. I usually take 2 - 3 thousand of them during their season...a little practice won't hurt.

[Jason Hermann]

Originally Posted by Dean Johnson

I don't have lots of time right now but I wanted to chime in....

I think this is a great thread....LOTS of good information here.

However, I think that much of this is going over the heads of some of the readers here.
And I also think that too much information is being dumped on people that really just need to understand a few simple concepts before delving deeper into the more complicated things. You don't teach algebra to students that are still trying to grasp multiplication.

I would suggest to those that are feeling overwhelmed with all the information here and in books, to just step back for a while and spend some time with your camera and just observe what's happening.

Pick up your camera and set it to AV (aperture priority) for starters. And maybe set the metering mode to Evaluative (or matrix or segmented) and just pay attention to what the meter inside the camera is telling you.

Here's a little exercise to try. Take your camera and a white sheet of paper and go outside to your yard.
With camera in AV mode and Meter mode to evaluative (or equivalent) compose a shot that includes only grass and set your aperture to 5.6 or whatever and then dial in the shutter speed that puts your exposure indicator in the middle.
take note of whatever aperture you used and the shutter speed you set. Now turn the camera to manual and dial in those settings.
Point the camera and compose the same scene...snap a photo.
Now, look at the histogram. ...and remember what it looks like.

Now, put your white sheet of paper in the same scene and compose so that the paper makes up around 1/3 of the image. Now, snap another photo without changing any settings.
Now look at that histogram. If you remember where the pixels were in the first shot you snapped you can now identify those same "average tones" in the scene but you will also have pixels to the right of those grass tones on the histogram, these pixels represent the white paper that you included in the shot.
Try to learn how to "read" a histogram and identify the various tones in a scene.

Now, set your camera back to AV mode and compose so as to include the paper in the scene as did previously. While watching what the camera's meter is saying, move the camera around to include more of the white paper, and then move it to include less.
You should see the meter moving around as you scan over the white paper and back to the grass.

The camera's meter is seeing that white and is trying to set an exposure that will "average" the scene, as a result the white paper would be underexposed, and the more of that white paper that is in the scene (zoom in and out on the paper) the more the camera is going to suggest exposures that will make that white paper "average".

Set the camera back to manual and set the aperture and shutter speed as it was before, this will give an average exposure of the average grass.
Now look around and compose different shots that include some grass and something other then grass...(keeping in mind that if you started with grass in full sun if you move to grass in shade it's gonna change things).
Take some different shots and study the histogram...yes, I said "study"!
You already know where the average tones are display there...now try to identify the other elements that are showing in your various compositions.

Now, try varying the exposures to bias the exposure towards any other objects you are including in the scene.
If you're not completely bored with the white paper by now, take some exposures that will render the paper as white (and not average gray).
Start with your base exposure for the grass and take a photo with one more stop of light added. To keep it simple just work with shutter speeds at this point.
Then take another shot opened up two full stops.

Study the histograms on those frames...see how the pixels shifted towards the right?

With some experience and some effort, it will soon become very easy to "read" a histogram and know where the various elements and tones are showing up.

Dean,
This is excellent advice for somebody like me I'll certainly try this and study it in depth!! The way the camera compensates for the white is what seems to be confusing me and making theses type of exposures difficult. I really think this practice you suggested will help clear up that mystery

Thanks,
Jay

[KellyL]

Jay...here is what I appreciate so much about your post. First, you present the raw image, next you demonstrate what you would do in each program you are working with.

There is a myth that all too many people believe. It is that images posted are images originally caputered. There seems to be this belief that nobody should see what we actually get out of camera. By keeping those things secret, we do each other a disservice. I have a niece who wants to learn how to be a master photographer but does not want to use any software to manipulate her images. I have tried to explain to her that all images have PP, but she refuses to believe me and thinks that any PP is not pure photography and cheating!

Regardless, I think you did a great job with the capture. You kept the highlights from being blown out and adjusted accordingly. I have noticed that I need to pay more attention to the highlights in my pictures. Once I quit blowing out highlights, I think I will have some decent stuff. Brooks did a good job of illuminating my mind on how to think about avoiding highlight blow out.

Thanks again for posting all three pics.

I would encourage many more people to share what they are doing to create better exposures.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by KellyL

I have a niece who wants to learn how to be a master photographer but does not want to use any software to manipulate her images. I have tried to explain to her that all images have PP, but she refuses to believe me and thinks that any PP is not pure photography and cheating!

Find a local class on film photography and darkroom techniques for her. Let her figure out what "post process" means in the film world and she'll begin to see the equivalents in the digital format.

[KellyL]

A sample from yesterday's band practice.

This time I metered the background, used the Metz flash set at 2 stops under background exposure. I wanted to avoid the flash look but wanted to be able to match skin with background. I will post in the same manner as Jay.

The first image is just the way it came out of the camera, the second with a clarifying action applied, the third with levels adjusted, the fourth with brightness and contrast adjusted.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by KellyL

A sample from yesterday's band practice.

This time I metered the background, used the Metz flash set at 2 stops under background exposure. I wanted to avoid the flash look but wanted to be able to match skin with background. I will post in the same manner as Jay.

The first image is just the way it came out of the camera, the second with a clarifying action applied, the third with levels adjusted, the fourth with brightness and contrast adjusted.

In all honesty, if you have to make that much of a correction based on metering off the background, something is not right. It looks at least 2 stops underexposed on the original shot.

I hope that's not a regular thing.

[KellyL]

That is why I started this thread. I'm not doing something right and I need to figure it out.

[kgphoto]

Kelly,

Also the lighting conditions are completely different. You can't use the same recipe both days and get good results both days.

[Brooks]

Kelly,

Perhaps you should look into getting an incident light meter for this kind of shoot.

Reflected light meters such as your in-camera meter and a spot meter really do require more operator input in choosing an area to read and deciding how to interpret that reading.

An incident meter is easier to use in many situations because it measures the light falling on the scene : provided you are in the same light and/or can position the meter in the light falling on the subject. An incident meter doesn't read light reflected from the subject and so it's reading isn't influenced by the tones of the subject in the way that a reflected meter would be. And you don't have to interpret the reading from an incident meter in the same way.

For the lighting situation you are faced with in these outdoor band practices, an incident meter would be easier to use. Incident light meters are also relatively inexpensive.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by KellyL

That is why I started this thread. I'm not doing something right and I need to figure it out.

Sorry. I'm too damn lazy to read through ten pages of this stuff. I saw a few seemingly unrelated "pop quizes" in there, too.

I'll take the cliff notes version if ya got it.

[KellyL]

Brooks, the light meter I have is both. I used it tonight on my shoot and I think my exposures are much better. Of cousre, I incorporated a gray card. Hello?!

[KellyL]

Brian, I understand. At this point, so deep into the thread, I doubt we get too many newcomers. But I am going to keep at this until I finally get it nailed.

[KellyL]

Can we say GRAY CARD??

Finally, out of the camera, an exposure that looks half way decent.

Gray card, gray card, gray card, gray card. Kelly has been lazy gray card.

I used my $500 spot/incedent meter to meter the gray card. Set the camera according to the settings and went to town. This was without flash. All natural light.

[brice]

Originally Posted by KellyL

A sample from yesterday's band practice.

Nice original exposure and great PP. I think you're really using what we're all learning here to improve.

Brice

P.S. I am using Opanda IEXIF to read the EXIF data right in the browser It's free and works great.

[KellyL]

Brice,

I think my work is improving because of the great folks here who have been so willing to help.

[felix.reichardt]

Kelly, great thread.

This is what I don't understand or maybe misunderstand:

Originally Posted by KellyL

I used my $500 spot/incedent meter to meter the gray card. Set the camera according to the settings and went to town. This was without flash. All natural light.

Do I understand it right that you spot meter the gray card? Why not using the meter it as a incident meter by metering in front of the persons face with the dome towards the cam position? Then make another fram with the gray card involved? Forgive me if I missed something or understood you wrong.

The picture looks nicely exposed though.

Cheers

[KellyL]

Yes Felix, you are correct. I don't understand how to meter someone's face. I don't know where I should put the meter. On the highlight? On the shadow? In the middle? Shame on me for not knowing. I also never thought of using a gray card as a starting point for exposure...up until now I had only used it for white balance. And this is a Kodak gray card. I have read somwhere that a Kodak gray card is one of the worst ones to use.

[felix.reichardt]

Kelly, I just assume that what I do in the studio should work for your last image as well.

Just hold the incident meter somewhere at the nose with the dome directed at the cam position. Then take a reading. Then change to manual mode and apply the readings from the meter. Now ask the model to hold the gray card up (somewhere 1/2 covering the face. Take a reference shot like that with the gray card. Shoot until the position/lighting changes, then do it all over again.

Later in PS raw conversion or curves adjustment just click with the eyedropper on the image with the gray card to adjust the wb, then copy this wb to all same shots after your wb reference shot. That way you dont need to bother with whitebalance settings during the shot. Much easier.

If your shooting includes fill flash I am not 100% sure how to correctly meter that. But your meter can read ambient and flash light so it should somehow work the same? I read somewhere that in such case you would meter the ambient light first and then adjust the flash until the meter reads the same for the flash as for the ambient but that was not for portrait. Not so sure if that is correct or wrong. If somebody can correct me here I would be very happy to learn .