Bed Headboard

[mjhoward]

BTW, Joel and I spoke by telephone yesterday, and I have agreed to mentor him via PM, and via a photography instruction book we will have in common.

Derrel is off the market?! Dam*it!

[Ads]

[TCampbell]

The camera's meter was "fooled" by the fact that nearly everything in this photo is "white".

A true "incident" light meter (a hand-held device that you hold in the same light where you plan to shoot your subject) measures the amount of light falling on the scene. It's measuring only the amount of light delivered to that location from the light source. It is always correct.

A camera doesn't have an "incident" light meter. It has a "reflected" light meter. Whereas an "incident" light meter measures light falling onto the scene from the source, a "reflected" light meter measures light falling onto a scene from the source and then REFLECTING off that scene, into the camera lens, and ultimately to the camera's meter. The "problem" with a "reflected" meter is that not all materials reflect the same amount of light. A matte black fabric doesn't reflect much light at all. A solid white scene reflects quite a bit of light. This happens EVEN if both subjects were placed in identical lighting (so the true amount of light isn't changed... only the subject is changed, and yet the camera's "reflected" light meter will report that the two scenes metered differently when they SHOULD have metered identically.

Camera's are calibrated to a "middle" gray. It's a bit arbitrary as to what this means, but Ansel Adams claimed that "middle" gray was a gray with 18% reflectivity. More modern interpretations suggest the number is closer to 12% -- and different cameras are calibrated differently -- but usually in this range.

The key takeaway for YOU is that different subjects reflect a different amount of light even if the light source was the same for both. Realize that since dark scenes hardly reflect any light, the camera (which is struggling to achieve "middle gray") will tend to over-expose dark scenes. And since white scenes should rightly produce a histogram with most of the pixels to the far right (to the whites) the camera ... again, trying to achieve middle grey, will tend to under-expose those white scenes.

Now that you know this is happening (and why), there's a feature on your camera called exposure compensation. You can tell the camera to deliberately over-expose or underexpose a shot ... by several stops if you want. If you shoot in manual, just shoot the scene so that you're over-exposing the white head-board by at least 1 full stop (maybe a 1-1/3 stops.) If the headboard and wall were completely black, then you'd be deliberately underexposing by the a stop (or more). If using any of the auto-modes (program, aperture, or time/shutter value) then the computer will control the exposure... so instead you have to use the aperture compensation control on your camera to tell it to either overexpose or underexpose the shot.

Sekonic (maker of hand-held incident light meters) has a series of instruction videos (extolling the virtues of their products) but they are actually VERY educational and, if you watch them, you WILL understand why that white headboard looks rather dingy and dim. The link is here: Control the Light and Improve Your Photography: Part I

[baturn]

Place a naked lady in front of the headboard and meter off her.

[Bitter Jeweler]

... so you have some light coming in from an angle, which you don't want.

Actually, light at an angle shows more detail and depth than straight on light.

[bratkinson]

Years ago when I was shooting 35mm, I had an incident meter. I used it very little, as most of my work was outdoors back then. When I sold it all off about 2002, the meter was part of the package deal.

Since I don't have an incident meter now, for the headboard shot, I'd go with the 'keep trying until I get what I like' method. Fortunately, headboards don't move and don't fall into the category of 'missed opportunity' shots. So there's lots of time to keep trying.

As mentioned above, adjusting exposure compensation on your camera is a quick and effective solution. But if you're shooting in A, P, Av or Tv modes where the camera decides all or most all settings for you, it may not come up with the what could be the best choice. For example, if you adjust the EC, the camera may simply increase the ISO, when a longer exposure at the same ISO might produce a better result.

My method is to look at what settings the camera actually DID use on the shot, and then go full manual, using those settings as a starting point. That way, I can play with exposure, aperture, and ISO to my hearts’ content, and if I am using flash, play with the power settings there, too. I may end up taking 50, 60, even 100 shots if I have the time and motivation. Then it’s simply pick the best one once I can look at each of them more closely on my computer. If you have the option of having your computer hooked directly to the camera (I don’t), you can decide which way to go on each of the settings with fewer results ‘out in left field’ somewhere.

For what it’s worth, I consider myself a ‘well experienced’ rookie, even with 30+ years of film and 10 or so digital shooting behind me. I still delete far more pictures than I keep. Not having to pay for rolls of film and processing is so much better! These days, I do most of my indoor shooting in aperture priority, although if the shutter speed the camera chooses is too slow (for handheld or moving subjects), I’ll either go to a monopod or crank up the ISO to get the shot.

If you have a fast lens (f2.8 or lower f-number) and a tripod, I’d consider trying a few wide open to get a super thin depth of field, focused right on the headboard. Precision focusing would be an absolute requirement, and would require the sensor and the headboard be perfectly parallel with each other.

[enzodm]

In addition to previous hints, I tried to just enhance your original image. It is possible that there are two light sources, e.g., sun from a window + electric light on? If so, remember that is better not to mix light sources, because white balancing becomes very difficult. Here I had to decrease saturation to have a more or less neutral color: one side tends to orange, the other to light blue.

DSC_0006.JPG

[SoCalTiger]

In addition to previous hints, I tried to just enhance your original image. It is possible that there are two light sources, e.g., sun from a window + electric light on? If so, remember that is better not to mix light sources, because white balancing becomes very difficult. Here I had to decrease saturation to have a more or less neutral color: one side tends to orange, the other to light blue.

DSC_0006.JPG

The problem with adjusting a badly underexposed image like this is that is generates a lot of noise in the darker areas though which you can see in the shadows. Definitely would be much easier for OP to just reshoot and expose properly in this case since it is a static object.

[Theninjaseal]

A different way of saying what everyone else is:
When your camera sees white, it tries to even it out to gray. Often when something is "white," it's because it's a blown highlight or something of that nature. The camera sees white in either case, and darkens the picture. If the white is a blown highlight, this is good and beneficial. But since your subject is actually the color white, you have to tell the camera "no really, this isn't a blown highlight or anything, it's supposed to be bright white so let it stay that way"

The way you do that, exactly, depends on your camera. Posting your brand/line/model would be helpful. Often there is a button for EC - it usually looks like this
Exposure-Compensation.jpg

Once you hit that, move the slider to the right with your weapon of choice - dial, scroll button, touch screen, etc. - and let the good times roll
Take a few test shots and see how you like them
Tweak the exposure in post (usually photoshop or lightroom) so that it looks the best
Use the histogram as a reference, not a guide. Not sure if that makes sense, but what looks best is what should determine exposure. Not what it auto-exposes to


Also, are you using your camera in a semi-manual mode? Av, Sv, Man? Because if you're in Auto mode then you're SOL til you learn how to use some others :P

Happy shooting,
Jimbo

[50mm]

WOW!
This thread is just what I need. Thanks everyone for the best lesson of the day.

[truephotoga]

This also might depend on what metering mode your camera was set to. Were you set to evaluative or spot metering?

[cgipson1]

Yoeli,

As suggested above....try about +2 Exposure compensation... and set a custom white balance, if there is any "artificial" light source. Make sure there is only one light source... otherwise you can get color cast issues. For instance, if you mix daylight and incandescent, it is hard to correct for.

[dbeeler]

pin or tape a sheet to the wall behind the headboard, if you have a green screen even better. if you have a black sheet great otherwise pick something darker than white.

[JOSHardson]

The JPEG compression didn't play nicely, but this is your photo (mostly) corrected in post. As other have stated, to get it to look like this in camera, you need consistent light temperature and a little more light. I would also suggest flash with a lot of diffusion to cut some of the hard shadows.
bed.jpg