Outside photos of areas with different levels of light

aaneiros · Dec 31, 2010

Hi. I was trying to take some photos of this port on a beautiful sunny day with a mostly cloudless sky when I run into one of my usual problems with light.

The problem was that the level of light in the boats area and in the background buildings was different so I had to choose between underexposing the boats or overexposing the buildings. I finally took advantage of a moment when some clouds partially covered the sun and took the shot below, which I think is a bit darkish and OOF (among other technical considerations).

#1

WB: Auto
Shutter Speed: 1/161
Program: Manual
ISO: 200
Aperture: F16 (should I use a smaller aperture??)

In the next photo I run into more or less the same problem. I was in a square with a nice building, of which I wanted to take a photo. The problem was that only part of the building was in the sun. Not knowing what to do, I just took the sunny part

lmao

.

#2
WB: Auto
Shutter Speed: 1/128
Program: Manual
ISO: 200
Aperture: F14

I guess the obvious answer to this problem would be choose a different time of the day to take those photos. Maybe that would have solved the problem with #1 but in #2 the building is never fully in the sun (use a cloudy day, maybe??)

So the question is, what would you do here?

Also, feel free to C&C the photos

I promise not to bother you with any new topics until next year (yeah, I know, bad joke).

Happy New Year for all, guys!!!

Antonio.

orb9220 · Dec 31, 2010

Yep always a problem. And you already pretty much covered what to be done with time of day. And cloudy vs. sunny. The only other option is to use a graduated ND filter that will knock down the sky brightness so you can get a better exposure for the shadows.
.

barleymalt · Dec 31, 2010

Dont forget abt pp..and exposure blending. Shoot raw!

KenC · Dec 31, 2010

Yup, nothing quite as good as a cloudy day. I occasionally take a day off work to go shooting and I'm always watching the long-range forecast to see if I can catch a cloudy, but not rainy day.

The first would have been better with more water and less sky - the reflections in the water are much more interesting than the sky.

clanthar · Dec 31, 2010

This is the perennial problem that's been plaguing photographers since the day after photography was invented.

The short answer to your question is; Stop wanting something you can't have and be happy. Learn to see what won't work and do something else instead. The long answer follows.

Lay a 12 inch ruler on the table in front of you. Let's say that's the range of tone in a sunny day scene from black shadows to the lightest white in a puffy white cloud. Now look at just the first four inches. That's the range in tone from the blackest ink we can possibly make to white paper. Hold that thought.

Now saw off 5 inches of that ruler. That's the range of tone on a cloudy day. Saw off 2 more inches and you've got the range of tone on an overcast rainy day.

Back to the paper print. No way are we stuffing 12 inches into the space of 4 inches. The first step in the process is to make a cut. We have to give up on one end or the other or both. If we lose highlight detail we get white holes in our photo. If we lose shadow detail parts of our photo will be solid black. The second option will usually work; the first will never work. So we expose to retain diffuse highlights and let the darkest shadows go. Then we begin tone compression -- again best done on the shadow end. Tone compression is the process of shaving off the real space between tones so that we can stuff three into the space of two. As a result the shadow sections of our photos have less contrast than the rest of the photo -- it works.

If we start out trying to stuff 7 inches into 4 the process is easier. 5 into 4 is a walk in the park.

Now back to the 12 inch ruler -- that's a sunny day with the sun shining on the subject. Note that the darker shadows have to be let go -- they're going to go black. Let's go from a sunny day to a backlit subject on a sunny day; now the sun is shining toward the photographer. Now you've got a 15 inch ruler. Good luck trying to stuff 15 inches into 4 inches. Here's a constant: We're not going to get any better at making black ink blacker or white paper whiter.

So with this information in hand the engineers who design our cameras programmed software into them to try and best capture that 12 inches and process the result to the 4 inch print target. The result of this effort is an 8 bit JPEG photo that hopefully holds the highlights and looks OK with some very black shadows.

Can our cameras actually capture the full 12 inches of tone let alone 15? No way, but they can certainly manage 7 and cameras that capture in 14 bit RAW can break 10. HOWEVER the target remains the 4 inches of tone in the print. So if you do manage an extended tonal range capture you're still faced with the task of cutting and stuffing and massaging what you got into a finished form. Here's an example:

The top photo is the camera JPEG untouched. The bottom photo was produced from processing the RAW file. The lighting contrast is very high (I tried to talk them into a different race time and course, but they wouldn't listen to me). The camera meter started to stumble on this much contrast and would have blown the highlights. I intervened and reduced the exposure by 2/3 of a stop which only made the shadows darker -- but the detail needed was in the RAW capture. This was work because I had to cut and stuff 10 inches into 4 inches and there's no way to automate that process yet.

Joe

orb9220 · Dec 31, 2010

Nice example clanthar. And yep has been the plague of photographers. And that pesky real world Dynamic Range of light!. But who knows another half or full decade and camera's may reach a point of full dynamic range. Until then it's jumping thru hoops for me. And making decisions of whats important to save or sacrifice in the frame.
.

703Methane · Dec 31, 2010

clanthar said:
This is the perennial problem that's been plaguing photographers since the day after photography was invented.

The short answer to your question is; Stop wanting something you can't have and be happy. Learn to see what won't work and do something else instead. The long answer follows.

Lay a 12 inch ruler on the table in front of you. Let's say that's the range of tone in a sunny day scene from black shadows to the lightest white in a puffy white cloud. Now look at just the first four inches. That's the range in tone from the blackest ink we can possibly make to white paper. Hold that thought.

Now saw off 5 inches of that ruler. That's the range of tone on a cloudy day. Saw off 2 more inches and you've got the range of tone on an overcast rainy day.

Back to the paper print. No way are we stuffing 12 inches into the space of 4 inches. The first step in the process is to make a cut. We have to give up on one end or the other or both. If we lose highlight detail we get white holes in our photo. If we lose shadow detail parts of our photo will be solid black. The second option will usually work; the first will never work. So we expose to retain diffuse highlights and let the darkest shadows go. Then we begin tone compression -- again best done on the shadow end. Tone compression is the process of shaving off the real space between tones so that we can stuff three into the space of two. As a result the shadow sections of our photos have less contrast than the rest of the photo -- it works.

If we start out trying to stuff 7 inches into 4 the process is easier. 5 into 4 is a walk in the park.

Now back to the 12 inch ruler -- that's a sunny day with the sun shining on the subject. Note that the darker shadows have to be let go -- they're going to go black. Let's go from a sunny day to a backlit subject on a sunny day; now the sun is shining toward the photographer. Now you've got a 15 inch ruler. Good luck trying to stuff 15 inches into 4 inches. Here's a constant: We're not going to get any better at making black ink blacker or white paper whiter.

So with this information in hand the engineers who design our cameras programmed software into them to try and best capture that 12 inches and process the result to the 4 inch print target. The result of this effort is an 8 bit JPEG photo that hopefully holds the highlights and looks OK with some very black shadows.

Can our cameras actually capture the full 12 inches of tone let alone 15? No way, but they can certainly manage 7 and cameras that capture in 14 bit RAW can break 10. HOWEVER the target remains the 4 inches of tone in the print. So if you do manage an extended tonal range capture you're still faced with the task of cutting and stuffing and massaging what you got into a finished form. Here's an example:

The top photo is the camera JPEG untouched. The bottom photo was produced from processing the RAW file. The lighting contrast is very high (I tried to talk them into a different race time and course, but they wouldn't listen to me). The camera meter started to stumble on this much contrast and would have blown the highlights. I intervened and reduced the exposure by 2/3 of a stop which only made the shadows darker -- but the detail needed was in the RAW capture. This was work because I had to cut and stuff 10 inches into 4 inches and there's no way to automate that process yet.

Joe

Very helpful glad you posted this. Great example. :thumbup:

aaneiros · Dec 31, 2010

clanthar said:
This is the perennial problem that's been plaguing photographers since the day after photography was invented.

The short answer to your question is; Stop wanting something you can't have and be happy. Learn to see what won't work and do something else instead. The long answer follows.

Lay a 12 inch ruler on the table in front of you. Let's say that's the range of tone in a sunny day scene from black shadows to the lightest white in a puffy white cloud. Now look at just the first four inches. That's the range in tone from the blackest ink we can possibly make to white paper. Hold that thought.

Now saw off 5 inches of that ruler. That's the range of tone on a cloudy day. Saw off 2 more inches and you've got the range of tone on an overcast rainy day.

Back to the paper print. No way are we stuffing 12 inches into the space of 4 inches. The first step in the process is to make a cut. We have to give up on one end or the other or both. If we lose highlight detail we get white holes in our photo. If we lose shadow detail parts of our photo will be solid black. The second option will usually work; the first will never work. So we expose to retain diffuse highlights and let the darkest shadows go. Then we begin tone compression -- again best done on the shadow end. Tone compression is the process of shaving off the real space between tones so that we can stuff three into the space of two. As a result the shadow sections of our photos have less contrast than the rest of the photo -- it works.

If we start out trying to stuff 7 inches into 4 the process is easier. 5 into 4 is a walk in the park.

Now back to the 12 inch ruler -- that's a sunny day with the sun shining on the subject. Note that the darker shadows have to be let go -- they're going to go black. Let's go from a sunny day to a backlit subject on a sunny day; now the sun is shining toward the photographer. Now you've got a 15 inch ruler. Good luck trying to stuff 15 inches into 4 inches. Here's a constant: We're not going to get any better at making black ink blacker or white paper whiter.

So with this information in hand the engineers who design our cameras programmed software into them to try and best capture that 12 inches and process the result to the 4 inch print target. The result of this effort is an 8 bit JPEG photo that hopefully holds the highlights and looks OK with some very black shadows.

Can our cameras actually capture the full 12 inches of tone let alone 15? No way, but they can certainly manage 7 and cameras that capture in 14 bit RAW can break 10. HOWEVER the target remains the 4 inches of tone in the print. So if you do manage an extended tonal range capture you're still faced with the task of cutting and stuffing and massaging what you got into a finished form. Here's an example:

The top photo is the camera JPEG untouched. The bottom photo was produced from processing the RAW file. The lighting contrast is very high (I tried to talk them into a different race time and course, but they wouldn't listen to me). The camera meter started to stumble on this much contrast and would have blown the highlights. I intervened and reduced the exposure by 2/3 of a stop which only made the shadows darker -- but the detail needed was in the RAW capture. This was work because I had to cut and stuff 10 inches into 4 inches and there's no way to automate that process yet.

Joe

Very illustrating explanation. Thanks a lot and happy new year. (to the posters of the other answers too, of course

)

aaneiros · Dec 31, 2010

The first would have been better with more water and less sky - the reflections in the water are much more interesting than the sky.

Yes, you are right. The problem is that the part of the water closest to me was in the shadow and I feared it would have been totally black in the shot.

Thanks and hapy new year!!!