How do I avoid photos like this?

[snberk103]

Can anyone explain why there is such a difference in how the sky came out in these 2 photos, shot straight after each other, both on auto

Both were focussed at the building.
First shot ISO 400, shutter 1/125 and f5.6
Second shot ISO 200, shutter 1/160 and f6.3

So many photos I have been trying to take particularly of houses come out like the top pic and the blown highlight of the sky is really bugging me! It is the one thing that is spoiling the experience of DSLR ownership for since I got the D40 about a month ago, and I would love to know how to correctly expose daytime shots of buildings (like my previous point and shoot would do no problems) before I go traveling around Europe this summer (where I will obviously be taking loads of photos of cool buildings in the sunshine).

Thanks again!

Those two shots are not the same at all. In the top image the building is in shadow, and therefore "dark". The meter is attempting to bring the bulk of the image up to a midtone by adding light. This means that more exposure is also being added to the sky. In the 2nd shot the sun is shining on the building, thereby making the building lighter (considerably lighter, probably) than the first shot. The camera, to put the the building into the midtone, reduces the exposure compared to the first shot. This means the sky is now getting less exposure too, and hence is darker. Also, there is not as much difference between the sky and the building in the 2nd shot, so the camera can capture detail in both the highlight (sky) and shadow.

If I've done the calculation right there is a ~2 stop difference in the two exposures.... or 4 times the amount of light. If you were to desaturate (ie take the colour out) both images you will probably find the the grey tones on the buildings are pretty similar.

This is not digital stuff, this is basic photography. I teach this stuff. Go back to the basics to understand what is happening. I don't know about this particular camera, but it would not surprise me if the computer was set to ignore the sky if it detected a high contrast scene. Its is usually more important to record the subject, not the sky.

In the first shot (of the 3 fellows - hope you guys have good voices, would have loved to hear that May 1 serenade!), I would say it was simply overexposed - thats all. My best guess is that your friend went to Exposure Lock (or whatever that camera calls it) while pointing the camera at something dark. The camera then brought that up to midtone by adding exposure to everything else.

Read up on 18% Grey.

Good Luck

 

[Shacklebolt]

1st one (of the three guys): outside, in direct sunlight, you can take a lot more liberties with your camera settings. Turn down the ISO (200), open the aperture, if you can (3.5?) and turn the shutter speed up (>1/400). This is all stuff that your D40 should be able to do, as to me, the first picture also feels like it is simply overexposed.

 

[hector]

Hi guys thanks so much for all the replies, I am learning a lot from your posts.
I have been meaning to buy Understanding Exposure for a while now, I guess I should just stump up.

To clarify, the 2 shots of the buildings are of the same building, so yes of course they are different photos which were at different settings. I understand that, but just surprised that the sky came out so much better on the second one, even though the sun was in different places. It wasn't that bright out, sun was behind clouds, it was at about 18:30 or 19:00 just when the sun was going down which I had been led to believe was generally a really good light to be taking photographs, as the sunlight is not too harsh.

The first one of the 3 guys was shot in not particularly bright sunlight, in RAW (I have tried to bring some detail back to the sky on the computer but to no avail).

All 3 shots were DEFINITELY in matrix mode, a few have suggested it was in spot/centre weighted metering but I am almost 100% positive that they wont have been, as I have only ever played around with different metering types once since I have had the camera and I changed it back afterwards. The girl who took the photo of us had no idea what she was doing, just pointed and shot after I had to show her how to push half way down to focus...

I really don't like the idea of using flash at the best of times, especially not outdoors when there is plenty of light. I guess I will just need to get more confident with the histogram and manual settings.

Can anyone point to a good link explaining how to use the histogram properly? It doesn't really make sense to me, I understand that if it goes off to the right then some parts of the image will be white and black if to the left, but I wouldn't know what to do past that.

Thanks again, and sorry for the essay!

 

[PkennethV]

this video seems to explain the histogram pretty well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d6oWndayEE

 

[sonor]

when shooting people outsite ALWAYS use a flash

Just curious, but why would you recommend that?

I completely hate using flash. I only use it when I don't have sufficient light available. And in the conditions of the first photo from the OP I think that there was more than sufficient light.

The reason it's a very good idea to use flash outside when shooting people is that it allows you to reduce the dynamic range/contrast in the scene. If you have a powerful enough flash, you can correctly expose the people you're shooting and at the same time reduce the exposure of the sky or other bright background...given enough power you can even underexpose the sky for a nice deep blue background. It gives you much more freedom to expose the whole scene the way you want it, without risking blown highlights. The brighter the sun - the more you need to use flash.

If you're not in the shade, it's generally better to have the sun behind or to the side of your subjects. If they're backlight it's pretty much essential to use flash or a reflector.

And a touch of flash or a reflector is always useful with indoor or outdoor portraits for filling in shadows.

 

[Mantat]

Sonor has answered for me ;-) thx!

 

[66217]

Hecto's essay

At first I also struggled a lot with understanding the histogram. When post-processing my photos I find these tips the most useful. (I use Aperture)

1- If the histogram is all in the left side, you need to increase the exposure. Or viceversa.
2- If the histogram is kind of centered but the photo is still dark then increasing the brightness is the best option, this will shift the center part of the histogram to the right, without affecting the far left or right side. Tho I find increasing the brightness produces a lot of noise. And I often also find myself increasing the contrast after increasing the brightness.
3- If the histogram is evenly distributed, but there is a gap at the far left and right side, then this means you need to increase the contrast.

This is when post-processing. While you are at your camera you basically just need to create an evenly distributed histogram. Just make sure you don't over-expose or under-expose too much, because then you won't be able to fix the photo later on.

Hope this helps a little.

 

[66217]

If you're not in the shade, it's generally better to have the sun behind or to the side of your subjects. If they're backlight it's pretty much essential to use flash or a reflector.

And a touch of flash or a reflector is always useful with indoor or outdoor portraits for filling in shadows.

I guess it is a matter of taste. I understand what you are saying, and I know using a flash can help, but I have never liked how the use of a flash makes the overral scene appear.

Now, if you have all the pro equipment (like external flashes and good lighting equipment) we are speaking another completely different thing. I especially love how the use of a gold reflector makes the photo come out. If I remember correctly they use those in the Sport Illustrated shoot outs.

 

[sonor]

I guess it is a matter of taste. I understand what you are saying, and I know using a flash can help, but I have never liked how the use of a flash makes the overral scene appear.

Now, if you have all the pro equipment (like external flashes and good lighting equipment) we are speaking another completely different thing. I especially love how the use of a gold reflector makes the photo come out. If I remember correctly they use those in the Sport Illustrated shoot outs.

Well ideally you want to use it with a shoot-through umbrella or a portable softbox.

Lots of great off-camera flash advice and examples here http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

 

[seenew]

Can anyone explain why there is such a difference in how the sky came out in these 2 photos, shot straight after each other, both on auto

Both were focussed at the building.
First shot ISO 400, shutter 1/125 and f5.6
Second shot ISO 200, shutter 1/160 and f6.3

So many photos I have been trying to take particularly of houses come out like the top pic and the blown highlight of the sky is really bugging me! It is the one thing that is spoiling the experience of DSLR ownership for since I got the D40 about a month ago, and I would love to know how to correctly expose daytime shots of buildings (like my previous point and shoot would do no problems) before I go traveling around Europe this summer (where I will obviously be taking loads of photos of cool buildings in the sunshine).

Thanks again!

the most obvious reason they don't look similar is that they're shot from two different sides of the building. The sun facing you in the first one (so you're shooting the shadow side of the house) and you're shooting away from the sun in the second one (so that the sky is normal and the house also appears warmer).

You can't expect same results from this if you're shooting auto.

 

[ChrisA]

Can anyone explain why there is such a difference in how the sky came out in these 2 photos,

The root of the problem is that if the brightness of the building's surface and the background are very different then the camera has to choose which of them to properly expose. Nikon's matrix meter is very complex and it chooses based on many factors but one of them what part of the imag is in focus. It will try to properly expose the in-focus subject.

In the first case this was the dark colored shirts and in another it was the bricks of the house. If you use the sspot meter or center weighted meter then YOU get to decide which part of the image to correctly expose.

The way to fix this is to make sure the subject and the background has about the same amount of light. You can use fill flash to lighten the subject. Not much you can do when the subject is a house. You can shoot raw foormat and hope to corect it later in Photoshop.

 

[mrkgoo]

Also, unless you are very experienced, don't let your eye be the judge of how bright something is. Just because you say it 'wasn't that bright', doesn't mean much, as your eyes are much more capable at registering a wide dynamic range than your camera sensor. It's probably a lot brighter than you think.

 

[compuwar]

I guess it is a matter of taste. I understand what you are saying, and I know using a flash can help, but I have never liked how the use of a flash makes the overral scene appear.

Well-balanced fill flash shouldn't affect the overall scene, just the subject's faces- giving you good catchlights and filling in some shadows. If it affects the whole scene then you're using way too much flash power and should dial in lots of negative flash compensation.

 

[James L]

Just a few random thoughts from this thread:

1) Dynamic range has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. I am not sure on the exact numbers, but I believe the human eye can see a 16 stop range of light. Most digital cameras on the market today can only see 5 or 6 stops of light. This means that while your eye can see the dark shadows in the bushes, the blue sky, and the bright reflection.... your camera cannot. So, your camera is programmed to make a choice on what range of light to see and expose properly. Because it is so much more limited than your eye it will choose to expose a section correctly, and the rest is either under or over exposed. You just need to get used to the behaviour of your camera.

2) Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

3) Outdoors in bright light is actually one of the most common places to use flash, and one of the most effective. With no offense to anyone here, I find that people who say they dislike using flash simply have not worked with it enough to understand and control it. Flash is an excellent tool to use, when used correctly. Photography is recording light. Being able to control the light you record is a great thing.

Here is an example of using flash outdoors on a bright sunny day. The first photo is an ambient light photo only, no flash. The camera could not record the wide dynamic range, so you will see that the sky is blown out.

The second photo is with one flash. Using this flash allowed me to purposefully underexpose the photo to maintain the blues in the background, and then I used the flash to light the subject.

I am very much an amateur photographer, and these aren't great photos, but which one of these is more pleasing to the eye? These were taken at the same time of day btw.

 

[snberk103]

Just a few random thoughts from this thread:

1) Dynamic range has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. I am not sure on the exact numbers, but I believe the human eye can see a 16 stop range of light. Most digital cameras on the market today can only see 5 or 6 stops of light. This means that while your eye can see the dark shadows in the bushes, the blue sky, and the bright reflection.... your camera cannot. So, your camera is programmed to make a choice on what range of light to see and expose properly. Because it is so much more limited than your eye it will choose to expose a section correctly, and the rest is either under or over exposed. You just need to get used to the behaviour of your camera.

2) Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

3) Outdoors in bright light is actually one of the most common places to use flash, and one of the most effective. With no offense to anyone here, I find that people who say they dislike using flash simply have not worked with it enough to understand and control it. Flash is an excellent tool to use, when used correctly. Photography is recording light. Being able to control the light you record is a great thing.

Here is an example of using flash outdoors on a bright sunny day. The first photo is an ambient light photo only, no flash. The camera could not record the wide dynamic range, so you will see that the sky is blown out.

The second photo is with one flash. Using this flash allowed me to purposefully underexpose the photo to maintain the blues in the background, and then I used the flash to light the subject.

I am very much an amateur photographer, and these aren't great photos, but which one of these is more pleasing to the eye? These were taken at the same time of day btw.

Points 1 and 3 - Absolutely! Point 2 - don't know (or have read) Ken Rockwell, so no opinion.

James: Your shots make me think you're on the far wet coast ... even before I cheated and looked at your flickr photos. Your image "Little Bridge" is stunning. How does it hold up enlarged and printed? Did you get to the Truth Beauty show at the VAG?

Cheers

 

[James L]

Points 1 and 3 - Absolutely! Point 2 - don't know (or have read) Ken Rockwell, so no opinion.

James: Your shots make me think you're on the far wet coast ... even before I cheated and looked at your flickr photos. Your image "Little Bridge" is stunning. How does it hold up enlarged and printed? Did you get to the Truth Beauty show at the VAG?

Cheers

Thanks Snberk. It hasn't been printed yet actually, but it is slated for my living room wall at some point.

Do you have a flickr? I'd love to see it if you do.

 

[snberk103]

Thanks Snberk. It hasn't been printed yet actually, but it is slated for my living room wall at some point.

Do you have a flickr? I'd love to see it if you do.

No Flickr, sorry. But if you are ever coming to Salt Spring, I have a photo gallery there. Do the forum rules allow me to post the gallery web address? I don't know. Doesn't matter, I never get a chance to post my own images to the site anyway. Though that is my chore this week - new website. Google Galleons Lap Photo and Salt Spring. Maybe that's obscure enough to not get me in trouble? If you need a couple of excuses to visit the island there are a couple of photo shows coming up. One in June, and the other in September I believe.

Do you do your own printing? I assume you are digital. Find a good lab, and work with a tech there. A good printer (person) is just as important as the photographer in putting a really good image onto a wall. Some of those images from the aquarium should be on people's walls too.

 

[James L]

No Flickr, sorry. But if you are ever coming to Salt Spring, I have a photo gallery there. Do the forum rules allow me to post the gallery web address? I don't know. Doesn't matter, I never get a chance to post my own images to the site anyway. Though that is my chore this week - new website. Google Galleons Lap Photo and Salt Spring. Maybe that's obscure enough to not get me in trouble? If you need a couple of excuses to visit the island there are a couple of photo shows coming up. One in June, and the other in September I believe.

Do you do your own printing? I assume you are digital. Find a good lab, and work with a tech there. A good printer (person) is just as important as the photographer in putting a really good image onto a wall. Some of those images from the aquarium should be on people's walls too.

I love Saltspring! I worked there for a year actually, a long time ago.

 

[numbersyx]

For me the ISO is far too high for an outside shot which explains some of the clipping and overexposed look. Also looks like the metering system took account of the dark clothing.

For shots like this, make sure the group turns its back on the sun and use some fill flash to illuminate the faces. Use the rule of two thirds to ensure the view of the sky is limited.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

I will chime in with the fact that the D40 and D80 seem to over expose, while the D70s and D50 come out underexposed - It's all a matter of knowing your camera and adjusting from there, even before you go out to shoot.

 

[nostaws]

I completely hate using flash. I only use it when I don't have sufficient light available. And in the conditions of the first photo from the OP I think that there was more than sufficient light.

Several have already indicated that flash can be useful even on the most sunny days. But just to add: You don't have to use your flash at it's maximum setting. It is all about controlling the light... all the light. Maybe I want a little extra light to fill in the shadows, but I don't have to max out the flash.

Also,
My d50 always seemed to underexpose.

 

[nostaws]

Oh, and I forgot to add. Though I don't agree with everything Ken Rockwell has to say...
...Ken Rockwell is not an idiot.

He is a good resource to people new to DSLRs, but anyone who relies wholly on one source for information is asking for trouble.

 

[hector]

Just a few random thoughts from this thread:

1) Dynamic range has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. I am not sure on the exact numbers, but I believe the human eye can see a 16 stop range of light. Most digital cameras on the market today can only see 5 or 6 stops of light. This means that while your eye can see the dark shadows in the bushes, the blue sky, and the bright reflection.... your camera cannot. So, your camera is programmed to make a choice on what range of light to see and expose properly. Because it is so much more limited than your eye it will choose to expose a section correctly, and the rest is either under or over exposed. You just need to get used to the behaviour of your camera.

2) Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

3) Outdoors in bright light is actually one of the most common places to use flash, and one of the most effective. With no offense to anyone here, I find that people who say they dislike using flash simply have not worked with it enough to understand and control it. Flash is an excellent tool to use, when used correctly. Photography is recording light. Being able to control the light you record is a great thing.

Here is an example of using flash outdoors on a bright sunny day. The first photo is an ambient light photo only, no flash. The camera could not record the wide dynamic range, so you will see that the sky is blown out.

The second photo is with one flash. Using this flash allowed me to purposefully underexpose the photo to maintain the blues in the background, and then I used the flash to light the subject.

I am very much an amateur photographer, and these aren't great photos, but which one of these is more pleasing to the eye? These were taken at the same time of day btw.

James L thanks that was a very helpful post, interesting about the flash, I have always for some reason been of the mindset that flash = unnatural garish images, and that it should be avoided at all costs, especially when it is sunny outside!
Clearly however when used properly it can produce great images, I will make a point of experimenting next time I am in that sort of situation; the second of those 2 shots is great.

 

[James L]

James L thanks that was a very helpful post, interesting about the flash, I have always for some reason been of the mindset that flash = unnatural garish images, and that it should be avoided at all costs, especially when it is sunny outside!
Clearly however when used properly it can produce great images, I will make a point of experimenting next time I am in that sort of situation; the second of those 2 shots is great.

You're welcome. Flash is a different animal. it is WAY more complicated than simply putting it on your camera and clicking the shutter. Doing this gets you the garish, black background and white skin photos that are so painful to look at.

When it is sunny outside you get a huge range of light. Bright sun, dark shadows, bright reflections off of water, dark clothing. There is no way a camera alone can record that whole range of light, so it either under or over exposes parts. Using flash allows you to expand the range of light your camera will record, because you can expose for the darker areas, and fill in where you want with flash.

Here's an example. You have a person outside you want to shoot in the sun. You can put the sun behind them, beside them, or in front of them.

If you put the sun in front of them they will be well lit, but will squinting from the bright sun.

If you put the sun beside them they may be well lit, but there will be harsh shadows from the sun on one side of their face. You could cross light this with a flash, or just use the natural light but use a reflector on the dark side of their face to fill in the shadows. This can work well.

Now, if you put the sun behind them you have some choices. Expose for the person and the sky is overexposed. But, what about exposing for the sky and surroundings? Now you've got the scene and sky well lit, but your subject is really dark. So, fill them in with some flash. Now you've got great ambient light, a great sky, nice rim lighting around your subject, and nice exposure on their face.

Using light gives you options. What happens though is people new to flash put a flash on their camera and shoot in the default settings. Light should really never come from on camera. It just doesn't happen unless you're a miner with one of those helmet lights. If you think about being in a room, outdoors, etc how often is the light coming from your head? Rarely, or never. It doesn't look natural.

Get that flash off camera, and use diffused, directional light. Now you are just adding another light source to your environment, no different than using the sun or a room light. Very cool!

It takes time to learn to shoot with flash. It is confusing as all hell at first, but it opens a whole new world to you as a photographer. For example, using flash changes the shutter speed / aperture relationship. Shutter speed has no effect on flash, because the duration of a flash is so short. Aperture does effect flash however, because you are still changing how much light hits your sensor. What this means is that you can now set your ambient light and your subject light separately. Set your aperture to flash your subject correctly. Now, is your ambient light too dark? Just open up that shutter speed and let more ambient light hit your sensor.

I highly recommend:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

 

[compuwar]

Shutter speed has no effect on flash, because the duration of a flash is so short.

If you're dragging the shutter to purposefully introduce more ambient light into the picture, which is usually a very good idea for indoor shots where you don't have a full lighting setup and you don't want that harsh flash-only look from a single camera mounted flash, then shutter speed is still important.