New K100d: pics question - exposure or metering?

[DonB_]

Having just started using my new k100d, it's time to learn. If I could get a few quick words from someone for this situation, that would be helpful.

I took these samples on a bright day using the 18-55, f16 (if I recall) w/ dial on Av just to get a long dof. The first is a shot of a street, the 2nd from the stop sign seen in pic 1 back across the street to the street sign area under the shade of the trees.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/donb_/1254993310/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/donb_/1254994174/
(btw, how do you embed photos here that are posted in flickr?)

In pic 1, of course the shaded areas under the trees are pretty dark, while you see details of sky, all other scenery and the road is pretty much like it looks. In pic 2, the shaded area under the trees is detailed, while the rest is kind of over exposed, including the road.

I don't know whether this is an exposure thing or metering thing. The red auto focus blinked in the middle of both shots. My question is about the area under the trees in the center of the first pic, which is seen in the 2nd pic as taken from the stop sign in pic 1. What could be done to better balance the exposure so there would be a better balance of exposure?

New on the dslr block,
Don

 

[Roland Mabo]

Hi and welcome.
Both images are actually correctly exposed.

In the first image, the shadows under the trees takes up a minor part of the image - that is why the surrounding (the the road, grass and the sky) has a balanced and normal exposure.

In the second image, the trees and shadows takes up most part of the image, especially the upper part, and since they are clearly darker than the light grey road, the exposure meter decided to expose them good which means that the road gets too bright (overexposed).

In the second image, if you get the road right, then the trees wil be darker and having a dark shadow underneath. In the first image, if you got the trees right with a brighter shadow, then the sky, grass and the road would be too bright.

There is no way that you in the camera can select different exposures for different parts of the image, which would have been welcomed in this case.

The exposure range, also called exposure latitude, in digital photography is more limited than with print film. It is more like slidefilm.

If you post process the images, you can lift the shadow under the trees in a photo editing software for the first image. For the second, you can tune down the overexposed road. So yes, you need to work on them in post processing to even out the exposure.

You say that the autofocus was set to the middle point, but autofocus and exposure meterring is not linked by default. If you have exposure and AF linked, then the camera will bias the exposure to the AF segment, but it will read everything around it too, it is not a spot metering that skips the rest of the image, it uses information from the whole image when it calculates exposure, but gives more weight to the area at the AF point.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[theshadowes]

Roland has really hit the nail on the head with his post.

How ever at a guess that was at about 18- 20 mm so all you should really need was iso 200 at about F 8-10.

The problem is time of day. Middle of the day with short shadows will never be Compliantly to your photography.

Have a look at page 136 in your manual about AE metering. In this case if you went spot or centre biased, the road would have blown out and you would not be able to make out the clouds at all.

You have four options

1st takes the photo from a new direction with a shorter exposure.
2nd Wait for a better time of day
3rd use a Nd filter

4th Take a raw file the convert it twice for highlights and contrasts then combine the bugger.

My preferred option would be the 2nd and 3rd option combined

--
shadow

 

[Roland Mabo]

I forgot about ND, that is true - one can use a graduated ND filter for the 2nd shot, with the density part at the bottom to darken the road in the foreground and still getting a good exposure for the trees.

I fix those things in LightZone, it has excellent masks tools for this kind of work.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[richardplondon]

(btw, how do you embed photos here that are posted in flickr?)

View the single photo, click "all sizes" immediately above it, select the size you want to embed, [copy] "static" link from box shown below (there are two boxes, you want the one that ends in .jpg), [paste] this into your dpreview post.

The originally uploaded image has EXIF data intact, allowing people (with the right utility) to directly see the exposure etc used when you post it. Flickr resized versions do not, but if you also provide a link to your Flickr photo page (or to the set) then anyone who wants can go and get that info within the Flickr environment. In that case one uses a normal web address link as you have just done, but - as you have found - the image does not embed.

...and welcome!

RP

 

[oliveoil]

I have been trying to embed some photos from flickr so thankyou for this imfo.I will try posting a picture here even tho its just wording that comes up here,rather than the image.Lets see if it works,Cheers ,Lucy

 

[oliveoil]

Hooray,it worked (even if Milo has had his head chopped off)
Thankyou.

 

[justin23]

click on the photo to open it up to full size
or click on the zoom controls above the photo.

Hooray,it worked (even if Milo has had his head chopped off)
Thankyou.

--
Justin
--------------------------------------------------------
The Blind Pig
http://www.jeber.com/Members/Justin/Gallery/
Photobucket
http://s107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/justin-23/

 

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't know whether this is an exposure thing or metering thing.

These are one and the same: the only function of a meter is to set exposure. If a picture is overexposed, it is because the meter overestimated the necessary exposure, and ditto for underexposure. But as others have implied, that isn't necessarily the meter's fault - no meter can know exactly what we want. Which is another way of saying the overexposure and underexposure are largely subjective terms. That's why a DSLR camera provides various exposure overrides (so you can increase or decrease exposure beyond what the meter suggests) as well as different methods of metering (so you can hint to the meter how you want it exposed).

--
Marc Sabatella

 

[DonB_]

RP - thanks! I'll have to try that if I need to post again.
Don

(btw, how do you embed photos here that are posted in flickr?)

View the single photo, click "all sizes" immediately above it, select
the size you want to embed, [copy] "static" link from box shown below
(there are two boxes, you want the one that ends in .jpg), [paste]
this into your dpreview post.

The originally uploaded image has EXIF data intact, allowing people
(with the right utility) to directly see the exposure etc used when
you post it. Flickr resized versions do not, but if you also provide
a link to your Flickr photo page (or to the set) then anyone who
wants can go and get that info within the Flickr environment. In that
case one uses a normal web address link as you have just done, but -
as you have found - the image does not embed.

...and welcome!

RP

 

[DonB_]

Roland, shadow: thanks for taking the time to answer with details. After looking up ND filters, it looks like there are any number of them. Is there one that you would have if you were to have just one of the bunch? And is it something you generally only use specifically for situations such as my pic 2?

Post processing: I have Photoshop Elements 4. I'm positive it's been discussed around and about or explained in some online tutorials (maybe even in the elements help, I haven't checked yet), so no need to repeat, but can you direct me to where I can learn a little more about how to do the techniques you were describing to better balance shots by modifying as you suggested, then combining?

Thanks so much for helping,
Don

I forgot about ND, that is true - one can use a graduated ND filter
for the 2nd shot, with the density part at the bottom to darken the
road in the foreground and still getting a good exposure for the
trees.
I fix those things in LightZone, it has excellent masks tools for
this kind of work.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[DonB_]

Marc - thanks. I understand. In thinking about this with doing post processing, in my amateur mind, my best way of thinking about this is like taking an audio recording and 'normalizing' the dynamic range of the recording so you don't have to keep adjusting the volume. You want, like Roland mentioned, to adjust the picture in different ways and combine them for a more balanced look, if you want to see more even contrast throughout the shot. Am I on the right track? I asked in a response to Roland for tips on where to find help on how to do pp combining of pics)

Is there some function in any of the software that would do like the nikon d40 with its D-Lighting mode (I have Photoshop Elements 4, but haven't used it, yet)? On the samples I saw in the review at dcresource, it brightens the dark areas. I think the Sony alpha has something like this and, of course, you'd want to do it in a way that doesn't do something like blow out the sky if the original had nice exposure of sky.

Don

I don't know whether this is an exposure thing or metering thing.

These are one and the same: the only function of a meter is to set
exposure. If a picture is overexposed, it is because the meter
overestimated the necessary exposure, and ditto for underexposure.
But as others have implied, that isn't necessarily the meter's fault

• no meter can know exactly what we want. Which is another way of

saying the overexposure and underexposure are largely subjective
terms. That's why a DSLR camera provides various exposure overrides
(so you can increase or decrease exposure beyond what the meter
suggests) as well as different methods of metering (so you can hint
to the meter how you want it exposed).

--
Marc Sabatella

 

[Steve_]

The big thing is a standard ND filter is of limited usefulness with a digital camera. Making the ND filter selections at most vendors pretty ill-suited. They don't have many graduated ND filters, and generally somehwere between zero and 1 split filters for a given size.

You need a graduated or split ND filter. Both will have part of the glass dark and part light, with the difference being the transition. Split ND filters have a hard border that can be aligned with a horizon to tame bright skies. The graduated style was recommended above. There are also ratings such as 2x, 4x, or 8x. This describe the darkness of the dark part.

There's an article in this month's Popular Photography discussing the proper types and their uses. I'm definitely going to get some and try the techniques discussed, but buying the filters so far has entailed purchasing a hodge-podge of manufacturers with severly limited choices and poor prices. Surely there is a good vendor of ND filters out there somewhere.

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4451/filters-vs-photoshop.html
--
Pentax K100D w/FA50-1.4, DA18-55 & 50-200, Panny LZ3
http://s90223656.onlinehome.us/

 

[cipletta]

K 100 perform the best DR at 400 iso as Phil Askey review wrote.

 

[Roland Mabo]

Roland, shadow: thanks for taking the time to answer with details.

You're welcome.

After looking up ND filters, it looks like there are any number of
them. Is there one that you would have if you were to have just one
of the bunch? And is it something you generally only use
specifically for situations such as my pic 2?

A graduated grey is the way to go, The half part of it is transparent then the filter darkens gradually, it very useful when you have a big contrast in the scene - very bright and very dark areas, and wants to "even out" the exposure. If you put the dark areas of the filter on the lighter part of the image, the camera can record details in both dark and bright areas. This is useful for images with a bright sky and darker ground, or as in your picture no 2 - a dark top (the trees) and a brighter foreground (the road).

There are many makers of filters.
Tiffen, Lee, Hoya, Cokin... and many more.
Myself, I have personal experience with Cokin filters and their filter holder.
http://www.cokin.fr

Post processing: I have Photoshop Elements 4. I'm positive it's been
discussed around and about or explained in some online tutorials
(maybe even in the elements help, I haven't checked yet), so no need
to repeat, but can you direct me to where I can learn a little more
about how to do the techniques you were describing to better balance
shots by modifying as you suggested, then combining?

I have Photoshop Elements 4, but I don't use it for that kind of work simply because I feel it is too complicated to do in PSE 4. I use LightZone, which is much easier for this kind of work.
http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/index.html

Here is a video explaining the technique:
http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/videos/files/page22-1003-pop.html

I'm not good enough to describe how it is done in PSE4, it can be done with the mask tool and applying curves and adding brightness to the masks, but I have never felt that it was as easy as LightZone so because of this I haven't bothered with learing it in PSE4.

Take care
R

 

[Marc Sabatella]

In thinking about this with doing post
processing, in my amateur mind, my best way of thinking about this is
like taking an audio recording and 'normalizing' the dynamic range of
the recording so you don't have to keep adjusting the volume. You
want, like Roland mentioned, to adjust the picture in different ways
and combine them for a more balanced look, if you want to see more
even contrast throughout the shot. Am I on the right track?

Right track, sure. Different applications will provide different facilities.

The equivalent of "normalizing" a photo would be increasing exposure compensation (either in camera or in pp) to push the histogram all the way to the right - so the brightest pixels are just short of clipping. Just as normalizing an audio file pushes the volume up so the peak is just short of clipping. On the other hand, whether or not you'd like the results of an image normalized in this fashion is another matter - maybe the brightest spot in the photo isn't supposed to be practically white.

Is there some function in any of the software that would do like the
nikon d40 with its D-Lighting mode (I have Photoshop Elements 4, but
haven't used it, yet)? On the samples I saw in the review at
dcresource, it brightens the dark areas.

I am not familiar with "D-Lighting", but sure, there are lots of options for brightening dark areas. Assuming you want to keep the highlights as they are, the usual way to brighten darks is via "Curves", which are not provided in Elements, but are found in most PP applications. There may also be something called "Local Contrast Enhancement" that can have a similar effect, except instead of just brightening a dark area, it actually increases contrast in that area. The software I use - ACDSee Pro 2 (currently about to wrap up its public beta) - provides a facility called "Light EQ" that looks just like an audio equalizer, and it has the effect of increasing contrast around each of the bands. Other applications may have something similar, but the feedback on ACDSee's forums is that the Light EQ in ACDSee is pretty spiffy.

--
Marc Sabatella

 

[Brad99]

The easiest way to get a full dynamic range shot to appear 'normal', i.e. as seen, is to shoot in RAW and expose for mild sky clipping on the K100D LCD highlight flasher. Then make 2 jpgs at different RAW converter exposure settings, say +1EV and -1EV or whatever 2 settings bring out the shadows/avoid sky blow-out. Then combine the 2 jpgs in PhotoMatix Basic (free) which will sort it all out for you automatically using the 'Combine' function.

 

[DonB_]

thanks...hmmm, guess it takes a little work to create a picture that can really stand out.

Ok, so combining several pictures to give better exposure in certain areas of the pic is one way, probably the desired way for most control. Now, what if you only have a single shot and you just want a quick fix to better balance things? Isn't there a function in the various software programs that can do such balancing on a single file, and I'm specifically refering to the capabilities built into the sony alpha dslr with its dynamic range optimizer (DRO) modes and the nikon d40 D-Lighting feature? Examples of what I'm refering to are in the reviews at the dcresource.com site for each of these cameras. In the sony example, one of the modes doesn't blow out the sky while brightening shaded areas.

This would appear to be a desirable way for those of us with limited time (and only a single original picture file, as opposed to multiple of the same shot with different exposures) to go. Maybe the results aren't as good as the multiple picture merge, but it would be a quick start, anyway. Any thoughts on this?

Don

The easiest way to get a full dynamic range shot to appear 'normal',
i.e. as seen, is to shoot in RAW and expose for mild sky clipping on
the K100D LCD highlight flasher. Then make 2 jpgs at different RAW
converter exposure settings, say +1EV and -1EV or whatever 2 settings
bring out the shadows/avoid sky blow-out. Then combine the 2 jpgs in
PhotoMatix Basic (free) which will sort it all out for you
automatically using the 'Combine' function.

 

[Brad99]

The PhotoMatix procedure I outlined was with one RAW picture. It's quick enough at shoot time, just make sure there's only small areas of blow-out using the highlight flasher. The time is spent later in PP, mainly making 2 jpgs with 2 settings in the RAW converter's exposure control, but really it is still fairly quick and the results will beat that Sony in-camera effort by miles. The RAW converter should be able to give excellent results with the blown highlight areas if there was only mild clipping. I've used Silkypix free version and PhotoMatix Basic (free) to good effect.

 

[DonB_]

Thanks, Brad. I'll have to give it a try.

I don't know what you mean by 'highlight flasher'. Can you explain?

Don

The PhotoMatix procedure I outlined was with one RAW picture. It's
quick enough at shoot time, just make sure there's only small areas
of blow-out using the highlight flasher. The time is spent later in
PP, mainly making 2 jpgs with 2 settings in the RAW converter's
exposure control, but really it is still fairly quick and the results
will beat that Sony in-camera effort by miles. The RAW converter
should be able to give excellent results with the blown highlight
areas if there was only mild clipping. I've used Silkypix free
version and PhotoMatix Basic (free) to good effect.