How to avoid blowing whites..

[SCraig]

:er: No...
What if the person is wearing black? Red?
Telling you... if you spot meter someones white shirt, you will underexpose. Hell.. you need to spot meter people differently if they have bright skin, olive, dark skin, super dark skin etc.

That's why I said center-weight and not spot. Spot IS too sensitive or a situation like that but matrix isn't sensitive enough. It's a difficult situation because if there are any dark areas it's going to be right at the dynamic range limits of a camera. You blow the whites and save the darks or blow the darks and save the whites. I'd rather save the whites personally.

 

[TamiAz]

Ok, here are two test shots with my daughter... There was a shady patch in our backyard near the back wall. I used my shoot through umbrella. The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

I used my camera to expose her correctly and then underexposed her and used the flash.

I appreciate all your help!!

These are SOOC.

 

[paigew]

:er: No...
What if the person is wearing black? Red?
Telling you... if you spot meter someones white shirt, you will underexpose.

This has always been my experience as well. If I meter for so the clothing is exposed the face is/skin is most often times underexposed. Which is why I no longer let my kids wear white during photoshoots .

 

[paigew]

Ok, here are two test shots with my daughter... There was a shady patch in our backyard near the back wall. I used my shoot through umbrella. The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

I appreciate all your help!!

These are SOOC.

I think her shirt has a weird hue to it....green/blue?

 

[SCraig]

Ok, here are two test shots with my daughter... There was a shady patch in our backyard near the back wall. I used my shoot through umbrella. The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

I used my camera to expose her correctly and then underexposed her and used the flash.

I appreciate all your help!!

These are SOOC.

Look at the histogram, especially the ends. There is no true white nor is there any true black. That is what is making them look flat.

 

[TamiAz]

Ok, here are two test shots with my daughter... There was a shady patch in our backyard near the back wall. I used my shoot through umbrella. The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

I appreciate all your help!!

These are SOOC.

I think her shirt has a weird hue to it....green/blue?

She was right under a citrus tree..Could that have caused that?? Her skin looks a little green in the first picture..Do you see it?

 

[TamiAz]

Ok, here are two test shots with my daughter... There was a shady patch in our backyard near the back wall. I used my shoot through umbrella. The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

I used my camera to expose her correctly and then underexposed her and used the flash.

I appreciate all your help!!

These are SOOC.

Look at the histogram, especially the ends. There is no true white nor is there any true black. That is what is making them look flat.

Should the histogram be touching the side, but not climbing it..It's very close to both side, just not touching.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Most photograph will have blown white. You just cant avoid it. My schwetty forehead can be in the sun and I have a bright white spot reflection... it is fine if that is blown. Same thing with white shirt, it is find to have a small spot blown.

But all of this discussion doesnt matter since you are introducing flash into the equation.

 

[SCraig]

Should the histogram be touching the side, but not climbing it..It's very close to both side, just not touching.

Here's what I'm seeing, but I don't have a calibrated monitor or any decent software here at work so it may be off:

Note that the data at both ends of the histogram doesn't extend all the way to the edge. The dark side is closer but still there is no true black. The white side is well off the edge indicating that there is no true white, and her shirt should really be close to white or very light gray. When the histogram data doesn't completely fill the dynamic range that is available that's when we perceive the photographs as being "Flat".

Edit ... Just an FYI, when shooting in cloud or fog this is the EXACT situation that arises. Look at the histogram and it will have everything bunched in the middle since the fog softens all the colors. If you want to get rid of the fog, extend the histogram all the way to the edges it will make the fog disappear like it wasn't even there.

 

[jwbryson1]

:er: No...
What if the person is wearing black? Red?
Telling you... if you spot meter someones white shirt, you will underexpose. Hell.. you need to spot meter people differently if they have bright skin, olive, dark skin, super dark skin etc.

Use center-weighted metering and meter on the brightest part of the white dress. Spot metering would probably be too sensitive but you can try it as well. Read the meter values, set them up in manual mode, and shoot.

This is exactly correct. Meter for the brightest part of the dress in the light you will be using. Set the camera up for manual exposure and make sure that the brightest part of the dress is not blown by referring to the histogram. Then shoot the whole image in manual mode at that exposure reading or faster.

I'm just trying to reiterate what I read in Neil van Niekerk's book. Maybe I didn't say it right but that's my understanding.

 

[TamiAz]

Should the histogram be touching the side, but not climbing it..It's very close to both side, just not touching.

Here's what I'm seeing, but I don't have a calibrated monitor or any decent software here at work so it may be off:

Note that the data at both ends of the histogram doesn't extend all the way to the edge. The dark side is closer but still there is no true black. The white side is well off the edge indicating that there is no true white, and her shirt should really be close to white or very light gray. When the histogram data doesn't completely fill the dynamic range that is available that's when we perceive the photographs as being "Flat".

hmmmm...Mine was showing closer than that. Weird. This is good to know..I use my histogram, but didn't really understand this part. Thank you. So for the whites to look really white I should have increased my exposure, right? Soooo much to learn in photography!!

 

[SCraig]

hmmmm...Mine was showing closer than that. Weird. This is good to know..I use my histogram, but didn't really understand this part. Thank you. So for the whites to look really white I should have increased my exposure, right? Soooo much to learn in photography!!

Again, the difference could easily be this old monitor. It is quite cold and everything looks blue on it. I don't do anything color-sensitive on my computer at work so it's normally not a big deal. Both my monitors at home are calibrated and things I see here look much different when I get home.

No, increasing the exposure won't necessarily help. Increasing the exposure will shift everything to the right leaving a larger gap on the left side. If it were me I'd set the shadow under her teeth to right at black and the brightest spot on her shirt to right at white and I bet it would look better. That is, of course, done in post processing.

If you are shooting with a Nikon you can increase the Active D-Lighting processing and it will probably help. I don't know if Canon has something comparable or not but they probably do.

 

[480sparky]

Not all cameras can do this (my D7000 does, but my D60 doesn't), but if you have the histo showing on the monitor, try zooming in on a suspected highlight and see if the histo changes as you zoom in. If it does, then the histo is showing the data for just the portion of the image you are zoomed in to.

 

[KmH]

The lighting looks flat to me. Shouldn't there me more shadows on her face? How's my exposure? I'm also not sure how close to put the umbrella..Do I move it forward and back until it looks right?

It is flat. There are shadows, but they are hard to see because of where you placed the umbrella. One of the drawbacks to using a speedlight is you can't see before hand where the shadows are falling.

Yes the tree is adding a green cast. Blue sky can add a blue cast.

Moving the umbrella closer and further has 3 effects. Closer makes the light source as larger making shadow edges more diffuse, the light softer, and you don't need a much flash power because of the Inverse Square law.
Moving the umbrella further away makes it apparently smaller so shadow edges get more defined, the light is harsher, and becuase of the increased distance (Inverse Square law) the flash power has to be turned up to get the same exposure.

In that location the open sky beyond the shaded part she is in is to bright, because she is squinting.

 

[TamiAz]

Should the histogram be touching the side, but not climbing it..It's very close to both side, just not touching.

Here's what I'm seeing, but I don't have a calibrated monitor or any decent software here at work so it may be off:

Note that the data at both ends of the histogram doesn't extend all the way to the edge. The dark side is closer but still there is no true black. The white side is well off the edge indicating that there is no true white, and her shirt should really be close to white or very light gray. When the histogram data doesn't completely fill the dynamic range that is available that's when we perceive the photographs as being "Flat".

hmmmm...Mine was showing closer than that. Weird. This is good to know..I use my histogram, but didn't really understand this part. Thank you. So for the whites to look really white I should have increased my exposure, right? Soooo much to learn in photography!!

I just realized that I was looking at the RGB histogram..That's why mine was different..I just changed it on my camera and it matches this one..