exposure problems and white out

steven owen · Jun 11, 2008

Ok I come accross this problem often and normally sort out this problem by re composing the photo, but sometimes when shooting dark and light areas in the same photo you either get under exposure in the dark areas or the light areas get over exposed causing whiteout when trying to brighten up the dark areas, now a graduated filter would sort this problem out in certain circumstances, like shooting dark undergroth in the forfront and sky in the background, but what other ways can this be resolved, flash is not an option.
Steve

Mike_E · Jun 11, 2008

Shoot film. Or try HDR.

Welcome to the forum by the way!

BTW: Have you had a chance to check out this site?
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

Hey, it might help.

Garbz · Jun 11, 2008

Don't try HDR. It looks like pure dorky artistic image manipulation most of the time.

You can use exposure blending in photoshop allowing you to create a virtual ND Grad filter, but customised so you don't actually need a single gradient but can apply the darkening to selected areas. This can be done in most image manipulation programs that support layer masking.

Just use a tripod (saves you having to align the layers afterwards) and exposure bracketing +/- 1 or 2 and then select the photos that you think best suit the light and dark areas. Stack them on top of each other, align the layers, and blend.

The results can be extremely dramatic or http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/483765402_4d568d4399_b.jpg incredibly subtle. In this case only just making the green trees visible in the "foreground" quoted because this image technically has no foreground.

Big Mike · Jun 12, 2008

The easy answer is to make an artistic choice and expose for the areas of the scene that are most important. This is how photographers have been doing it since the beginning.

Your meduim (film, digital etc.) has a limited dynamic range and you need to work with that limitation. That is part of what makes photography both challenging and rewarding.

That being said, there are ways to extend the range of your images, whether it's adding or subtracting light before the shot or making adjustments after the shot. As mentioned, you can also take separate exposures and combine elements of them to get the final result that you are after.

Bifurcator · Jun 12, 2008

Garbz said:
Don't try HDR. It looks like pure dorky artistic image manipulation most of the time.

You can use exposure blending in photoshop allowing you to create a virtual ND Grad filter, but customised so you don't actually need a single gradient but can apply the darkening to selected areas. This can be done in most image manipulation programs that support layer masking.

Just use a tripod (saves you having to align the layers afterwards) and exposure bracketing +/- 1 or 2 and then select the photos that you think best suit the light and dark areas. Stack them on top of each other, align the layers, and blend.

The results can be extremely dramatic or http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/483765402_4d568d4399_b.jpg incredibly subtle. In this case only just making the green trees visible in the "foreground" quoted because this image technically has no foreground.

Awesome example of exposure blending! I dunno about HDRIs being dorky tho or if it has more to do with the person at the controls and their personal tastes. I have seem some pretty gaudy ones to be sure tho!

Here's two HDRIs from me which I guess wouldn't be too suspect:

from: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126488 (7 exposure HDRI) and

from: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125681 (4 exposure HDRI).

Like most techniques, filters, tools and such it depends allot on who is using them and what they're going for. BTW, I don't like it either when it's misused - erm, used for an artsy-fartsy result. On the other hand if some of those were mixed with black line levels it would look almost exactly like the black light posters from the 60's and I loved those.

Alfred D. · Jun 12, 2008

Garbz said:
Don't try HDR. It looks like pure dorky artistic image manipulation most of the time.

...if done badly!
That 'dorky artistic' effect is caused by editors who clearly could not restrain themselves. They simply overdid it by a mile. Many people see a slider, or a knob, and push it to the max. Small wonder it gets dorky.

Like with everything: if you apply the technique subtly, third party observers won't be able to tell it was done using HDRI. SUBTLETY and craftsmanship are the key words here.
It's the same as with silicone boobs: often you can clearly see it. Those are botched, cheap boobjobs done by charlatans. But I can tell you from personal experience and exhausting research that there are also silicone boobs that look absolutely magnificent! Perfectly natural looking. You can't even feel they're fake, knowing that they are (yes, I do field research myself...

).

So if you can restrain yourself and apply HDR subtly, it will be a great new PP tool for you.

christopher walrath · Jun 12, 2008

Just know what your equipment is capable of. Exposure Latitude. Also known as a film's textural range. The film's/sensor's ability to record detail in extremely contrasting tonalities. Reversal (slide) film has an exposure latitude of about 3 1/2 stops, that is to say that there are about three and a half stops difference between the highlights with useful detail and the shadows with useful detail. Digital sensors aren't much better, perhaps 4-4 1/2 stops. Color negative film about 5-5 1/2 stops. Black and white film, 7 stops of detail.

Garbz · Jun 13, 2008

Yeah sorry. I always talk about HDR should be done either so subtly that it's effect is transparent to the viewer or so blatantly obvious and dynamic that it is absolutely amazing like the guy's work at www.stuckincustoms.com

The one time I leave that clause off everyone pulls me up on it.:er:

steven owen · Jun 13, 2008

What is HDR I am only getting use to lightroom, and am still a novice, I have a good eye for composing i have been told but I do like contrast and big light diffrances and always end up with blown out or under exposed somthing all in the same image as I try to compensate, and read that the sky is way to bright and the undergroth is way to dark.
Can you do any adjustments in light room, I actuall need it explained in simple step by step terms.

I have just got new kit (another canon) idsmk3 with 16-35mm f2.8 l usm lens, and 70-200 f2.8 l is usm and well chuffed with them have ordered up pro 1 pol filters, but might need to think about a graduation filter but do not think yu can get the thread type, but anyhow any advice on these problems, I normally shoot aeril stuff where this is seldom a problem, actually quite the reverse on lots of occations.

I also need to get to grips wth cs3 but never really went near it from date of purchase any courses that are worth looking in to?

Sorry for all the questions but very hungry for answers.

Thanks Steve

Helen B · Jun 13, 2008

christopher walrath said:
Reversal (slide) film has an exposure latitude of about 3 1/2 stops, that is to say that there are about three and a half stops difference between the highlights with useful detail and the shadows with useful detail. Digital sensors aren't much better, perhaps 4-4 1/2 stops. Color negative film about 5-5 1/2 stops. Black and white film, 7 stops of detail.

Sorry Chris, but you are WAY underselling the dynamic range of film. Most reversal films can hold detail over at least five stops, many colour negative films can hold detail over at least 10 and up to 13 stops (some manage 15 stops) and B&W depends on the processing, but 11 stops is easily obtainable if you want it.

Best,
Helen

Battou · Jun 13, 2008

Helen B said:
Sorry Chris, but you are WAY underselling the dynamic range of film. Most reversal films can hold detail over at least five stops, many colour negative films can hold detail over at least 10 and up to 13 stops (some manage 15 stops) and B&W depends on the processing, but 11 stops is easily obtainable if you want it.

Best,
Helen

Yes, but I have noticed that getting that much out detail out of the film in digital convertion using consumer grade scanning equipment is a bit of a task, Usually shows it self to be about half of what the film can actually hold.

Helen B · Jun 13, 2008

Battou said:
Yes, but I have noticed that getting that much out detail out of the film in digital convertion using consumer grade scanning equipment is a bit of a task, Usually shows it self to be about half of what the film can actually hold.

OK, so is it right to judge film by the limitations of a cheap scanner, rather than by what the film is capable of? There are consumer-grade scanners, like the Epson V-700 and Microtek M1, that will handle the full density range of all negative film and almost all the density range of reversal film.

Film can also be printed non-digitally, and slides can be projected.

Best,
Helen

Battou · Jun 13, 2008

Helen B said:
OK, so is it right to judge film by the limitations of a cheap scanner, rather than by what the film is capable of? There are consumer-grade scanners, like the Epson V-700 and Microtek M1, that will handle the full density range of all negative film and almost all the density range of reversal film.

Negative film can also be printed optically, and slides can be projected.

Best,
Helen

I was not saying that it is it right to judge film by the limitations of a cheap scanner. I was just throwing it out ther into the open. I had been makeing the same mistake you where pointing out for some time untill I found that little detail. I was always just blowing off shots like this one as limmited film when it was actually the scanner that could not keep up.

And yeah I know of the optical enlarging, that is why I pointed out specifically digitizing. Optical printing and projecting are superior but a diffrent ball game in todays market.

christopher walrath · Jun 14, 2008

Thanks, Battou. Helen's been on my ignore list for just that kind of nagging 'You're wrong, I'm right' kinda follow ups. And yes, you could probably get a little more than what I said outta reversal film. But good luck and don't count on it. Best to err on the side of caution, something Helen seems to have forgotten over the years.