Reading mode: Light Dark

My buddies don't pop in the snow

Go to last post
G

geo logic

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody,

I really love skiing. I also really love taking pictures of my friends skiing. Unfortunately, they don't pop like I want them to. I shoot in raw, but when my camera says the exposure is proper, the people usually come out super dark against the white snow. I've tried over-exposing a bit, but I'm not happy with the results. I've also tried lowering the ISO as low as it'll go (100) but again, I'm not happy with the results. Here's an example. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

P.S. ( I realize the composition leaves a lot to be desired, but this is the best I came up with yesterday). Thanks again!



61c133f425ab42f198b96853935f868e.jpg
 
Any camera will have sufficient dynamic range to capture any scene. The point is that the photographer may need to drop the contrast and drag details out of noisy shadows in order to accomplish that. So yes, the dynamic range is technically there, but obviously the end result is not what the OP had in mind.
 
Bob said:
Any camera will have sufficient dynamic range to capture any scene.
Click to expand...
That is also not the case. Some scenes exceed the dynamic range of any camera.
Bob said:
The point is that the photographer may need to drop the contrast and drag details out of noisy shadows in order to accomplish that.
Click to expand...
Which you can only do so long as the details haven't been subsumed by the noisy shadows.
Bob said:
So yes, the dynamic range is technically there, but obviously the end result is not what the OP had in mind.
Click to expand...
And the OP needs to know how to expose in order to capture the information that he needs to get the result that he had in mind.
 
Bob said:
Any camera will have sufficient dynamic range to capture any scene. The point is that the photographer may need to drop the contrast and drag details out of noisy shadows in order to accomplish that. So yes, the dynamic range is technically there, but obviously the end result is not what the OP had in mind.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the first part: there are plenty of cameras that do not have sufficient dynamic range to capture scenes that have very wide dynamic range.

And just to help explain to the OP, yes, the photographer can drop the image's overall contrast, but to drag details, they may need to increase the local contrast of the shadows--one of the benefits of having a great dynamic range. :)

The good thing for JPEG shooters is that many cameras offer help with this today (to an extent): for example, Nikon has "Active D-Lighting", while Canon has "Auto Lighting Optimizer".
 
Bob said:
"Correct" exposure means the pixels average out to 50% grey.
Click to expand...
That's the first time I've ever heard that definition, I think it's all your own.
Bob said:
It's a technical definition, not a subjective one.
Click to expand...
I would have used the word 'arbitrary' rather than technical, but some kudos to you, at least you came up with a definition, even if not a very useful one.
Bob said:
This scene has a "correct exposure" in terms of the light meter, but not in terms of producing the desired result for you because there are two subjects: white snow and dark people. If you get the snow right, people will be too dark. If you get the people right, the snow will blow out.
Click to expand...
That depends on how you develop the image.
Bob said:
The only way to save this photo is to expose it as hot as possible without clipping, then try to pull up the darks using software. Or, use a reflector outside to get more light on the fellas.
Click to expand...
Well, you could do as others have suggested, shoot raw and process to a tone curve that gets both the snow and faces at the desired lightness. This isn't the same as 'pulling up the darks using software', it's controlling the development process, rather than just leaving it to the camera defaults.
Bob said:
Note that 50% grey is just the starting point. Based on the particular scene, the photographer may need to compensate. That's why cameras have an exposure compensation button (i.e. -3, -2, -1, 0 , +1, +2, +3). Many cameras have automatic scene recognition, so that it knows not to turn snow into 50% grey.

Having said all that, I thought your original photo was not to bad as is. If you want your guys to pop, have them wear red outfits next time. That sounds flippant, but I'm being serious. That's what pro photographers do :) This is why pro photographers tell everyone to wear the same color tones for a group family reunion photo, for example.
Click to expand...
I'm not the OP.
 
OP got the exposure right, I commend his dialing in everything correctly, even with a gentle approach to the white point so all the details in the clouds and snow would show, nicely done. The issue is one of composition, where some dark subjects in a cluttered pocket corner of the image aren't bright enough relative to everything else to stand out (I didn't even see the guy in the corner until I started editing.) A brief A/B review of my edit to the original shows all that's required is some dodging of the subjects and subtle burning of their immediate surroundings to provide some pop, so the eye more easily differentiates them from the environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob
I like what you're trying to do.

I think shooting (or cropping) in portrait orientation might help.

I think the snow/log on the left negatively affects the metering and IMO doesn't add to the scene.
 
Bob said:
There is no correct exposure possible for that particular scene. You can have correct exposure of the snow or the guys, but not both. No camera has that kind of dynamic range.
Click to expand...
Not really. You can decrease the dynamic range of the scene by adding a puff of fill flash to the people's faces. You wouldn't need much.
Bob said:
You can improve it with Photoshop or Lightroom.
Click to expand...
Tedolph
 
Using auto exposure, take a picture of a pure white wall. Then take a picture of a pure black wall. They will both end up as 50% grey images.
 
geo logic said:
Hello everybody,

I really love skiing. I also really love taking pictures of my friends skiing. Unfortunately, they don't pop like I want them to. I shoot in raw, but when my camera says the exposure is proper, the people usually come out super dark against the white snow. I've tried over-exposing a bit, but I'm not happy with the results. I've also tried lowering the ISO as low as it'll go (100) but again, I'm not happy with the results. Here's an example. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

P.S. ( I realize the composition leaves a lot to be desired, but this is the best I came up with yesterday). Thanks again!

61c133f425ab42f198b96853935f868e.jpg
Click to expand...
1. Bring them all closer to the camera and/or use fill-in flash I believe you have on your camera.

2. Overexpose and in PP darken highlights. Whatever is over exposed will become darker, but faces will stay lit. I use this trick shooting soccer in midday sun when players all have shadows on their faces.

--
M.
Nice camera...now show me the pictures.
 
Hey, thank you so much! I must admit, (embarrassingly so) that my post processor is iPhoto, which is to say, I don't really do any post processing. Is Lightroom really worth it? If so, I'll cry once and drop the cash. This is also the first time I've heard of sensor dust. I'm off to google now to figure out what that's all about. And after I'm done here, I'll head to link you shared about defraction (another first).

Again, I can't thank you enough! What I've learned is that I have much much more to learn - which is the fun part, right?!
 
Hey, Thanks so much! Here was my thought behind the high f-stop. I'll admit it's pretty naive, but I had trudged through the trees for most the morning and when we emerged out on to the plateau, we all literally yelled with joy from the sheer beauty of the scene before us. We felt like we could see to Canada and back. I wanted everyone else to see what I saw, so I decided to make the whole thing sharp. That was the idea, but as you pointed out, I paid for it with blur. Ugh.

Now I'm off to learn about a crop sensor is and how it's effected by a high f-stop. Again, thank you so much!
 
Wow! It's crazy how much a little post-processing can do. If it's not already painfully obvious, I'm uncomfortable calling myself anything other than a complete newbie, although I'm trying to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. It'm blown away by how effective a bit of cropping is. You're right that it makes the subjects stand out much much more. This thread is the first I've ever heard of the term diffraction, so I'm off to figure out what that's all about. I will also clean the sensor. As for an upgrade, I feel like that's a bottomless pit. One of my favorite movies is Meru, which was shot completely with a Canon 5D Mark III, so I've been drooling over that series, but I just can't justify 3k right now.

Again, thank you so much for your edits and your thoughts. I really appreciate it!
 
Thanks Tom! I've learned from this thread that Lightroom is a worthy purchase. I think I'm headed over to the Adobe site now.

Thanks again!
 
Hey, thanks Bob! I appreciate your thoughts and your edits. I shot the original photo in RAW, but downloaded it on to iPhoto - which, apparently, converts these to jpegs. What I've learned is that Lightroom is a worthy purchase. You've all convinced me. Thanks again!
 
That's a good thought. Thank you! You're right that I can't have it both ways. I remember thinking that I needed to make a choice as I was framing the shot but then I thought, hell with it, I'm just going to try to show it all. And as you pointed out, I just made a mess. Thanks again! I really appreciate your thoughts.
 
I'm off to look for polarizers and hoods. Thank you for the suggestions! I really appreciate it!
 
Thank you Ellis! Previous posters cropped the shot for me and I was blown away by how much more personal it was with some of the crud cut out of it. My original thought was that the problem was improper exposure but as I'm reading comments, I'm realizing that perhaps the fix is a better composition. I knew it was bad when I took it, but unfortunately, this was the best shot I got this weekend. Next weekend, I'll try again. Thanks again! I really appreciate it.
 
Wow, the difference is striking! I'll pay closer attention to the light next time I'm out. (Obviously I should have been doing that all along, but sometimes you get lost in the moment, ya know?) Thanks again lehill. I really appreciate it!
 
geo logic said:
Hello everybody,

I really love skiing. I also really love taking pictures of my friends skiing. Unfortunately, they don't pop like I want them to. I shoot in raw, but when my camera says the exposure is proper, the people usually come out super dark against the white snow. I've tried over-exposing a bit, but I'm not happy with the results. I've also tried lowering the ISO as low as it'll go (100) but again, I'm not happy with the results. Here's an example. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

P.S. ( I realize the composition leaves a lot to be desired, but this is the best I came up with yesterday). Thanks again!

61c133f425ab42f198b96853935f868e.jpg
Click to expand...
First of all your composition is fairly good but could have been better with just a little LESS space above the mountains, (which would have captured a little more of the feet on your closest person).

But second is you need to LEARN the proper use of Exposure-Compensation EC.

It is intended for just this specific situation. When you have a lot of white (snow), you NEED at least +1, but sometimes +2, (or even +3 if the snow is really bright and "reflective" if your sensor can handle +3).

It does take some "experience" to get to what is the best EC setting and then you can verify it with after-exposure HISTOGRAM, (shift EC "+" to more graph to the "right").

IF you had a MirrorLess camera, they often have "zebras", (and before exposure histogram), so you can more quickly and accurately ETTR, (Expose To The Right), before exposure, (albeit that is a JPEG derivative and RAW can provide more headroom but some "experience" can prove how much you camera/sensor has). Thus MirrorLess can help get "first" shot more correct.

And they are correct about f/11 would be "sharper" than f/22 and while 1/100 is "ok" for a WA lens, faster (1/250 or even 1/500 would be OK and then get to f/11 or f/8).
 
Last edited:
geo logic said:
I'm off to look for polarizers and hoods. Thank you for the suggestions! I really appreciate it!
Click to expand...
No problem! BTW, I saw you thinking about Lightroom. Great tool, but may be overkill. I'd recommend looking into free alternatives like darktable, raw therapee, google Nik collection, and ufraw...you may get what you need from them for free! As a note, my edits were made in all free software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top