Understanding Exposure

[Crotographer]

It is more about the eye of the photographer and what you intend to portray. So you want certain highlights at the sacrifice of shadow? Or, vice versa. I want to take an exception with you as to film being easier to expose than digital.

Two things. Digital requires metering for highlights. Film (print, not chromes) requires metering for shadow. The math comes in when you have to decide the films latitude versus the f stop you want to use after deciding the DOF needed for the exposure. They are all different. Photography is as much science as art. Caution how you practice will give you a great future.

[KellyL]

Crotographer: I am very, very, very inexperienced with film. And you are correct, it is about the eye of the photographer.

This weekend I was hired to shoot the football portraits for our local Junior Football League. I did this last year, and I scheduled two evenings and everybody loved the shots. This year the director scheduled pictures yesterday, all day long. The shoot began at 8:00 AM and ended around 2:30 PM. Needless to say, I was VERY concerned about how to do this shoot.

The early morning shots did not worry me so much. I grabbed my 42" round reflector and threw the light up into their faces...and used on camera flash. I was very frustrated, however, that I could not get the blue sky blue. It was a gorgeous day.

A team would come, have their pictures taken, then go warm up and play. I would sit for about 45 minutes waiting for the next team to arrive for their pictures. As I sat, I was reading a book on Exposure for Digital Photography. I have read this book before, but sometimes it takes a couple of reads for something to sink in.

I read a section that made SO much sense to me after all the thinking I have put into understanding exposure. The book read, and I paraphrase, that the digital photographer must decide what detail he or she would like to emphasize in the picture. One will have to sacrifice on one end of the dynamic range or the other. Either lose detail in the highlights, or lose detail in the shadows.

I also put some serious thought into the range of darks to lights that have been discussed on this thread. Now that I have a day off tomorrow, I plan on going out and creating my "zone" reference guide. I think the visual knowledge would be very helpful as I assess photographs.

IF I were to expose for the sky, the foreground and grass began to look very unnatural and dark. I had to make a decision. What was the most important element to expose for.

For me, it was the face of the boys being photographed. I needed to do a reading off of their face, set the camera to evaluative metering mode, set my camera to the reading on their face and proceed from their.

The sun was brilliant all day long. I got a sunburn...which isn't so bad...but reminded me that I spend too much time indoors. As each group came, I had them face me with the sun to one side. I wanted to use the sun as a side light and keep the boys in a position where they would not have to squint. Nothing ruins a good football picture like a squint.

Once I metered, I decided that the faces were at least a stop darker than the background, so I opened up my flash by 2/3 stop. I was afraid to do much else. I had the Gary Fong diffuser on it, which roughly loses 1 stop so really, by setting the flash up 2/3 stop, the flash was about -1/3. Does that make sense?

I couldn't see the LCD panel, but I could read the histogram and see that I had a fairly even graph and was not blowing out the highlights.

I used manual exposure all day. Finally, on my last set, I decided to do as Bob has suggested, use P mode, set my ISO, and let the Camera do the work.

These two shots were taken roughly 45 - 60 minutes apart. The first shot, I was in control of everything. The second shot, the camera was in control of everything.

I still think that a little more skill development will help me get that sky a little bluer. I probably should have underexposed by one stop and turned my flash up 1 2/3 stops...

Regardless, I have learned a few things. I have seen the work that the other photographer used to do...not good. There is also a "contracted" photographer in the area who does all of the "proper" school sport photos, and the parents repeatedly ask when I will be able to do the photos. For some reason, he shoots a lot of ground and you just can't see the kid...and he has had the contract for YEARS.

Anyway, here are two of my recent efforts at taming the exposure beast.

[KellyL]

You will notice that when I controlled the exposure, the highlights on the shoulders blew out. But I had to make a decision. I didn't want to lose the exposure on the face. In the second one where the camera did all of the work, the face comes in darker, but the highlight details in the shoulders was preserved.

Notice also the position of the sun. YIKES! Almost overhead.

All in all, I was very happy with my day of shooting, and I made enough money to pay for my 30D.

[Crotographer]

Digital, expose for the highlights. Matrix metering does not work well here. I always deduct one half stop, at the least. Spot meter the highlights. Maybe 1 stop in this situation.

You have a digital, go out and recreate the exposure and take notes, take notes, take notes; did I say, take notes? You cannot remember all this data in post processing. You have to write it down. At least to frame and exposure. It takes time but is so worth it.

Post processing. You want to do as little of this as possible. Your photos are acceptable, in one sense. 1/2 to 1 full stop less would probably have made it work.

What are the exposures between the one on the left and one on the right with the blown highlights?

When asking me a question such as this, be apprised, I use a hand held meter for film and digital. This is what I have always done. This is what works for me. Actually, I will never change. However, take a look at the this post and let me know what you think. How close was I.

[Jason Hermann]

Kelly, you did a really nice job on these It's pretty incredible how good of a job the camera did on it's own though isn't it??

Personally I would have used matrix metering and then taken a shot. Chimped the histogram as you did to verify if any thing was blown or not. That should have done a good job with the background exposure. Also a polarizer would have really helped make the sky blue!! However I'm not to sure what it would have done to the subject?? I would have to guess though the fill flash would fix that?

Then I would have added some fill flash as you did to brighten up the subject, as he would have been a bit dark from using matrix mode. As far as how much flash to use I have no clue?? Trial and error. The only way to figure out the best method for me would be to do test shots and check them in the shade or on my Laptop.

For such harsh conditions they both look really good to me, and with some Post Processing would look great

Nice work!!

Best,

Jay

[cyclohexane]

You don't need a polarizer to darken the sky; in fact, you need to be 90-degrees from the sun for maximum effect. Sometimes you'll turn the thing and see little change.

Here's a link I often post that shows how to darken skies using, essentially, just your camera + lens and on-camera type/speedlight flashes:

Dave Black Photography - Sports Photography Worldwide

[kgphoto]

Kelly,

You should have closed down one more stop and added one more stop of flash and it would have been the best balance for those tools. Want to make it even better?

Silk the kids and set um an umbrella just off camera. Even better use a main and a fill.

Oh, did I mention, shoot manual.

[KellyL]

The conditions for this picture were not the same at the football pictures. This picture was shot around 11:00 in the morning. I set the meter for evaluative, exposed for the sky, reset my exposure in manual to have control. Using my Fong diffuser, I increased the flash to +2. One stop was to account for the lose of light with the diffuser, the second stop was to bring the foreground up. I read the article referred to me by Kirk by Will Crocket and tried to apply his principals of fill flash. ShootSmarter.com

It was a somewhat overcast day, and some sun was shining on their faces. You can see the position of the sun based on the shadows of some of the eighth grade students in the photo.

[Jason Hermann]

WOWOWO Now that is the best I've seen yet by far Kelly! I didn't think an exposure like that was possible with so much sky!

Fantastic work, and I will certainly be reading that article ASAP

Very well done my friend, and your incredible efforts are really paying off Kelly!

Best,
Jay

[Dean Johnson]

You're coming along just fine Kelly!

[KellyL]

Thanks Jay. I purposely put as much sky in the picture as possible so I could test myself. I have some pretty funky pictures from the day because I kept pointing the camera up to get in as much sky as possible.

[KellyL]

Thanks Dean. I want to continue to improve. I want my shots to be KILLAH!

[KellyL]

In looking at the picture, you can see how underexposed the kids in the background are.

[KellyL]

MY MISTAKE. GRRRRR. I was experimenting with so many things that I wasn't able to write everything down. Thank goodness for EXIF data.


File Name
_MG_2719.CR2
Camera Model
Canon EOS 30D
Shooting Date/Time
9/7/2007 10:33:24 AM
Shooting Mode
Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/250
Av( Aperture Value )
8.0
Metering Mode
Center-Weighted Average Metering
ISO Speed
100
Lens
17.0 - 55.0 mm
Focal Length
17.0 mm
Image Size
3504x2336
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
On
Flash Type
External E-TTL
Flash Exposure Compensation
+1
Red-eye Reduction
On
Shutter curtain sync
1st-curtain sync
White Balance Mode
Auto

[KellyL]

Finally getting around to the exposure stop/dynamic range test:

[KellyL]

Now I have to think...what have I learned from this experience? I hope that I have learned a little more about what a stop of light is and what effect it has on the exposure. Visualizing that is a little difficult. Surprisingly, at 100%, there was still visible detail in N-5. Detail stopped at N+3.

[KellyL]

Here are larger snapshots of N-5 and N+3. Three stops over, and it looks like I am losing serious detail. I have lost a lot of detail in N-5, but some detail is still discernable. At N+4 all detail is lost. Why is more detail kept in the N-5 image? Is it because it is a white subject?

[KellyL]

Yes, I know, I am talking to myself, but this thread is my exposure journal, and anybody commenting is welcome to ride along and share their thoughts.

From what I have learned, I must be very careful not to blow the highlights. From what I have seen in this test, highlights are blown quickly. There is an adage out there, "expose to the right" but I don't think that is a very good idea, since based on this test it would be more difficult to tease detail out of an image that has been exposed to the right.

It seems to me that by underexposing by one stop the range of detail from highlight to shadow would be greater.

I am also struggling with the application of this exercise. I need an Obi Wan to help me understand.

[KellyL]

And Max, if you are listening, check the EXIF data of the exposure test shots.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by KellyL

And Max, if you are listening, check the EXIF data of the exposure test shots.

...so you finally found time to connect that now 'old-technology' 30D to your computer and add Owners Name to the Body - AND ALL YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGES

Well done, son!

Kindest regards!

Max@Home