Overexposed & Underexposed area in the same picture

[Braineack]

I've had good luck recovering blown out skys shooting in raw:

 

[Kolia]

In cases like this I shoot in raw, expose for the sky and adjust the darks accordingly in post. It's easier to bring up the darks in a photos than correct for blownout highlights.

Aren't there more info to be recovered in the highlighted areas of a RAW file ? Something about the first stop using almost half of the total data.

I usually have better results recovering a blown sky than dark areas. It's a noise feet in these dark parts.

This is were I had gotten the notion of more data in the top stop of the image:

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

 

[vintagesnaps]

I do like Lew - adjust the framing to get less sky in the picture. This one seems to be from a lower vantage point so the camera seems to be pointing upward and might have been metering for that light coming from behind the building.

I sometimes will lower the camera somewhat to get a meter reading of the subject (such as the building), set the aperture and shutter speed and the ISO (usually 100-200 outdoors, 400 indoors as a starting point). Then I raise the camera and reframe and focus.

I may take more than one shot, varying the aperture or shutter speed one stop each way to make sure I'll have a photo with a proper exposure.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

You can use a filter but if you have access to post processing programs like lightroom or photoshop or gimp you can just expose somewhere on the middle and then make highlights/shadows adjustments to your liking. That's what I do most of the time.

 

[EIngerson]

Along with all the other great tips here, (when possible) go out of your way to pick the best time of day for your subject. Low early/end of day sun produces better light than mid day high sun. It's much easier to work with.

 

[Silchuki14]

Thanks for the awesome replies guys! I would like some clarifications on some points made in your answers;

1. I understand that the GND Filter would be useful for Landscape Photography, which I like to do sometime (20% of my photography maybe?) Would the investment be worth it or I should stick with Photomatix/HDR?

2. From the link posted about the HDR (Beginner Guide) Photomatix is said to be the best. Which one? Pro, Essential, Plug-In for LR only?

3. AEB has been suggested. I understand that I'll have to play with it to make my idea of it but generally speaker, it is a good method of should I always carry my Tripod and do it manually? Thing is, I don't have that problem everywhere, so the Tripod would be unwanted weight in some situation.

4. Like stated in my first post, I pretty much alwas shoot in Aperture Priority. Someone suggested to "expose in the middle". Would that mean switching to Manual or the Exposure Compensation is enough? (Again, generally speaking as it is new stuff I'll have to test.)

5. Lastly: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...elp-overexposed-sky-underexposed-objects.html
Same question as mine, someone suggested using Flash, which has not been said here yet. Comment on that? Good/Bad idea? (Following his instructions) He uses an external flash, is the camera flash enough to make a difference?

Sorry for all those questions, I do really appreciate all the help that you guys gave me!

 

[weepete]

1. GND's can be usefull but work best when your horizon is straight or allmost straight, as they work in a gradient with light at the bottom and dark at the top. Plus you'll only get a couple of stops of a difference before it will start to look weird. I use GNDs to enhance a slightly overexposed sky, as opposed to tame a blown out one. Whither you choose to try it is up to you but I take mine when I'm traveling.I' will also use HDR if it suits so it's not a straight choice between the two

2. I'll leave that one for others as I've only used the trial plug in

3. You can do it with steady hands if you have a good burst fire mode, however you will need to keep an eye on the lowest shutter speed so you don't get blur from camera shake. A tripod is best but not allways possible and don't forget cable release or wireless trigger if you do (then shutter speed is not an issue

4. I'm not sure what they mean, but I'd say you want your brightest bright in your photo around 2 stops over and your blacks 2 stops under, it's easier than trying to estamate middle grey

5. Flash works really well for small objects like a person or smaller, for big objects you'd need multiple strobes but yeah they can work really well if you have time to set them up.

 

[kchoi]

Hi guys, I need your help on something.

I can't choose how much light the sun will give me when I travel so I have to deal with what I have when I'm there. With that said, when it's clear/sunny outside and you want to take a landscape/nature/outdoor picture, what do you do to avoid have an blown out/overexposed sky and/or an underexposed picture (With okay sky)?

Long and weird question I know but sometimes it seems I have to choose between a blown out sky or an underexposed subject. It's so bad I can't bring it back with LR5...

Is there any tricks I'm missing? Filter I could use? Help?


I'm shooting with a Sony SLTA37 (Lens doesn't matter, happen with all of them) in Aperture Priority. Lastly, I do not use any filter of any sort. ISO is kept as low as possible.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Aperture priority and ISO as low as possible is okay. I am also shoot like this.

Normally, in this case, I will try to take a picture a bit underexposed. Check the histogram to see if there is any white clipping. You will set the camera to flash the clipped area in red. It is because white clipping is so much more obvious than black clipping. And also detail in white clipped area cannot be revealed in any post process software. Then I will check if there is black clipping. No matter yes or no, I will also take two to three image with different exposures.

After I go home I will pull the images into Lightroom 5 and then choose the one with no clipping (hopefully I get one). If all image have clipping occur, I will combine a few of them into HDR in photoshop and save as 32-bit tiff. Then you will find that the HDR 32-bit tiff image is so much more adjustable! All detail will be there.

Hope it helps.

 

[Ysarex]

Thanks for the awesome replies guys! I would like some clarifications on some points made in your answers;

1. I understand that the GND Filter would be useful for Landscape Photography, which I like to do sometime (20% of my photography maybe?) Would the investment be worth it or I should stick with Photomatix/HDR?

The GND filter seems to be an easy and inexpensive solution in theory. In practice it's another story. A cheap screw-in GND filter will come with a fixed position for the horizon -- when the time comes to actually use the filter that fixed horizon position will be wrong for your composition (Murphy's law). That pushes you toward a filter system like Singh and it's no longer inexpensive. Now you can position the horizon but when it comes time to use it there will be something raising up above the horizon that will be partially in and out of the ND zone and it'll show in your photo. Great in theory; poor in practice.

2. From the link posted about the HDR (Beginner Guide) Photomatix is said to be the best. Which one? Pro, Essential, Plug-In for LR only?

3. AEB has been suggested. I understand that I'll have to play with it to make my idea of it but generally speaker, it is a good method of should I always carry my Tripod and do it manually? Thing is, I don't have that problem everywhere, so the Tripod would be unwanted weight in some situation.

Photomatix is the most popular product, but there are many others available in a wide range of prices. As you've noted here HDR implies a tripod. The various software programs that do the blending are trying real hard and with some success to deal with slight registration errors between the multiple frames, but there's a bottom line here and it's a tripod. If you're really going to invest in the HDR route then start planning to lug the tripod everywhere you go.

4. Like stated in my first post, I pretty much alwas shoot in Aperture Priority. Someone suggested to "expose in the middle". Would that mean switching to Manual or the Exposure Compensation is enough? (Again, generally speaking as it is new stuff I'll have to test.)

Aperture priority or any other shooting mode that fundamentally relies on the camera's internal metering system is fine. Using EC to modify that exposure is likewise fine.

The problem you're having has been correctly identified by others here as a lighting contrast or dynamic range problem, hence the HDR recommendation -- the sample photo you posted was backlit. Beyond the two options noted above you can:
1. use flash with small and close subjects like a portrait.
2. walk away and use your time profitably to photograph something that is well lit. (I like this one).
3. capture a raw file and learn to expose and process it for maximum DR.

That final option doesn't require buying filters or special HDR software. You do need a good raw converter (you mentioned LR) and you need a supplemental image editor (like Photoshop) that can manage sophisticated masking. Using this option you want to get as much exposure on the sensor as possible without clipping the highlights. Runnah noted exposing for the sky and lifting the shadows and Kolia noted that you have max sensor data recorded at the highlight end. This suggests an exposure methodology known as ETTR (expose to the right) which references a histogram and the highlight or right side of the graph. In your original post you noted the noise you get from trying to lift the shadow detail too far. You're beginning with a very high contrast scene and to get maximum benefit from the camera sensor you want to make maximum efficient use of the sensor's recording ability.

Here's an example:



This photo is backlit with the light coming from the left and toward the camera. On the left you see the JPEG as delivered by the camera's image processor. The highlights are blown and if I had activated the camera's "blinkies" when I took the photo they would have been blinking. The camera histogram would have indicated the clipped highlights that you see in the sky near the horizon. This is an important point: The histogram you see in the camera references the camera's JPEG processing of the sensor capture and is not a fair indication of the actual data the sensor is recording. (Got to test your hardware). On the right is the photo I processed from the sensor raw capture using PhotoNinja and Photoshop. The camera sensor did in fact record full detail in the highlights which I was able to manipulate.

Using ETTR and raw captures can go along way to making HDR methods and GND filters unnecessary but it requires time, effort and skill. I still prefer option #2.

Joe

 

[JoeW]

Your problem is a common one. And it illustrates the difference between taking a snapshot and creating a picture. In creating a picture, you make all sorts of decisions "pre-shutter" that can influence this. Time of day you shoot at (avoid high-noon with extreme light and shadows). Weather (shooting on a cloudy day to avoid extreme light). Framing the shot (to cut out the sky that you know will be blown out or the cave entrance that will just look like a black hole). So part of this is about being a smart composer of your work and knowing before you take the lens cap off, what challenges you're going to face.

There are some technological ways to compensate. Use a GND as others have suggested (which helps with the sky being blowout). Use exposure compensation. Nikon cameras have what is called "D-lighting" which allows you to minimize (simultaneously) blowout and underexposed areas...so shadows show more detail and highlighted areas are big globs of white in the photo. You can intentionally underexpose and then use post processing to add light or exposure to an area (always easier to compensate for underexposure than overexposure). And yes, HDR is a possible option (though a lot harder of people are moving or the scene is dynamic). Another option is to use fill flash (when you have a bright background so your meter will have you underexposing the foreground) or a reflector.

 

[astroNikon]

FYI -- for landscape type photos I also may use a CPL filter. But you have to learn how to use them - angle to the sun. but they are a quick fix. and as mentioned quality counts. I use B+W but there are many other good brands.

This is a classic problem of photography having to do with dynamic range. The camera can record only so many levels of brightness. If the range is too great, you will lose detail in either the highlights or shadows. This is most often encountered with a bright sky and darker foreground subject. This is not an issue of lens or settings. There are no settings that can take a scene outside of the camera's dynamic range and make it fit. It's the nature of light and cameras.

As a photographer all you can do is make a choice. You can't change the dynamic range of the camera, but you can choose how you record the scene. You can choose to keep the sky and let the foreground go dark. You can choose to expose for the foreground and blow out the sky, or you can make choices that enhance the dynamic range of the capture, such as capturing a bracket of exposures that encompass the full range of the scene and then combining them in post (HDR), or using a neutral density filter to hold back the brighter part of the scene in camera. In some cases, you may be able to use an ND in software, such as Lightroom, to bring back the highlights, if you shoot RAW. Photography is all about choices.

I think I finally understand Dynamic Range. thanks

and the post about the blinkies answers another question about my camera Preview

slowly but surely ... step by step ... now I only have to figure out which end of the camera to look into and point with

 

[DiskoJoe]

When shooting in midday you want to meter for the sky to prevent it from getting blown out. Once you blow out the sky it cant be fixed. But if you meter the sky properly then the other objects should be underexposed and you can bring that up som in post. But really there is no replacement for good timing when it comes to light. Not all touristy shots are going to be master pieces but choose an important spot to be at when the light is good and those pics should be perfect.

I used this method on this shot and its pretty decent.


_DSC9058 by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

 

[Kolia]

I find it much better to recover over exposed area than try to boost the under exposed, dark areas. The noise levels go up quickly when increasing exposure in post.

I aim to barely clip the preview (jpeg based) instead of a proper sky exposure. The picture will have a white sky but that will be easy to darken in post.

You'll to see how much dynamic range your camera can still cover in that case.