how would you have metered this scene?

[cary smith]

.



.

If you can't PP an image to get the best from it, you are throwing away over half of the capabilities of digital photography. A learning opportunity for you.

cary

 

[VittoDigital]

was out with the d7k and 16-85 yesterday. the sky kept going from a nice blue to a thin cloudy white. how would you have metered this scene as the sky is overwhelming the pic. all comments welcome



--
Tony

If the light was a challenge and you couldn't shoot a bracketed sequence the only option is PP the .JPG selecting the white from the sky and tranforming it in a light blue. Hope you don't mind if I played a little with your pic.



Take care
Vitto

--
Lol, I need an upgrade, my Nikon D6x is a too limited gear!

 

[MajorNikon]

The reason you got darker skies in that photo is because the scene is mostly sky. Configured correctly, a D7000 would give you the same thing.

Can you explain the "Configured Correctly" part of your comment? I just bought a D7000 and I'm really curious why it blows out highlights when the D5100 doesn't. Features and body wise, the D7000 is exactly what I want from a camera, but I don't understand why the lesser D5100 seems to do a better job of exposure.

By that I mean selecting the metering mode that's appropriate for what you're trying to meter and/or selecting Active D-Lighting(if shooting jpeg). The differences between whatever the D5100 does and what the D7000 are not going to be so much in exposure rather than post processing. If you shoot raw and post process the image yourself, you can tone map it the way you want rather than the way the camera thinks you want it anyway.

 

[pwrtran]

...
This lesson is to show that ONE exposure is enough to capture all dynamic range.
...

Thanks rondhamalam!

I like the idea that one shot for HDR pp as it convenient and sometime you don't have the second chance. However, will it give you same level of multiple exposures for HDR shooting? If not would mind give some comparison?

 

[Brev00]

I am late to this particular party and have not read all the replies, but I think there were probably a great number of possibilities not only closer to the castle but from other perspectives. In general, it is a good rule to fill the frame. So, I give you only indirect metering advice. It is tough to fix this later in pp. The last post with the blue sky seemed too artificial. Treat the castle like a flower: get closer, fill the frame, change angles until you see something nice.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[cary smith]

by VD is that the sky is the exact same shade of blue top to horizon.

You will never see a sky like that. Look at it. Typically a blue sky becomes very much lighter near the horizon.

cary

 

[photo perzon]

Take into account that Nikon had 6 months to work on the D7000 in order to set the D5100 parameters.

I've taken 5000 pictures with the D7000 and it always gave me pretty white skies.

The D5100 yields a much darker jpeg in order to prevent clipping the sunny highlights.

The reason you got darker skies in that photo is because the scene is mostly sky. Configured correctly, a D7000 would give you the same thing.

Can you explain the "Configured Correctly" part of your comment? I just bought a D7000 and I'm really curious why it blows out highlights when the D5100 doesn't. Features and body wise, the D7000 is exactly what I want from a camera, but I don't understand why the lesser D5100 seems to do a better job of exposure.
--
This is the world, the way I see it: http://twenty200.com

 

[tc333]

do you still want it?

Send me the RAW, maybe I can help

--
Tony

 

[tc333]

i like this best so far. are you familiar with any decent online tutorial on how to do that with cs4?

.



.

If you can't PP an image to get the best from it, you are throwing away over half of the capabilities of digital photography. A learning opportunity for you.

cary

--
Tony

 

[antoineb]

the foreground shows a quality of light suggesting strong fairly vertical lighting - and then you show a serene blue sky at the back? Looks like it was MADE. I am bothered by the burned out sky on your initial sample shot - but at least it looks natural ;-)

I personally rarely PP - but I think if or when, then it should be there to render a scene when the camera couldn't quite do it, not to make it look like it was made.

below a sample from a tiny sensor camera (FZ-18 superzoom) which with careful exposure, still did fine despite the limited DR (I metered off a white snow patch). At best a much bigger and more expensive camera like my D7000, would have rendered the foreground shadows better.

mountain landscape shot with sky, snow, and dark shadows
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/3826337330/

 

[rondhamalam]

do you still want it?

Yes please

At the moment I don't know if there is highlights clipping on the sky in the RAW

One of free large file sharing websites is:
http://www.rapidshare.com

thank's in advance

Send me the RAW, maybe I can help

--
Tony

 

[GoldRingNikkor]

If you stuff up , fill the sky in later

Now that sure looks cooked...

 

[rondhamalam]

...
This lesson is to show that ONE exposure is enough to capture all dynamic range.
...

Thanks rondhamalam!

I like the idea that one shot for HDR pp as it convenient and sometime you don't have the second chance. However, will it give you same level of multiple exposures for HDR shooting?

If the dynamic range is low it will have no difference between multiple exposure and one-shot HDR, but if the dynamic range is very high the camera can not capture all the tone on the high dynamic range scene.

Example where the dynamic range was too high, even after I metered at lower exposure (everything became dark) the details on the highlights were still blown off and could not be recovered.





Of course this was just a test shot, why would normal people make a picture of a scene from inside a restaurant in Legoland with the camera on the table?

If not would mind give some comparison?

I don't have comparison ready. I leave this privilege to you

Look for an extreme dynamic range scene (like from inside restaurant), then create multiple exposure, then process HDR from 3 files. And then use the first file only, do process it as single shot hdr, and compare the results. You will find extreme condition when the single shot can not recover all the details and color. On cheaper camera (e.g. 40D) you can easily find that the color of the sky will be broken, and with other camera you will find banding in shadows area.

 

[cary smith]

Using Photoshop CS2 so CS4 should be same.
Two changes made to orig. jpg. Total time about 2 min.

In CS2 (and 4?)
1) go Image/Adjustments/Shadow-Highlight . To lighten the very dark areas.

Bring up the shadows so tree trunk not so dark. This also lightened the stone walls which I liked.

2)add blue sky. Look at a real blue sky, it is darkest blue high up and fades out at horizon.
The CS2 Gradient Tool is the secret to doing this.

Select the sky. I used the Magic Wand Tool. Other ways/tools will work. Pay attention to how you have Select/Feather set, I used 10 pixels.

Select the sky blue color you like, select the Gradient Tool. Put mouse at top of image, click and drag down to grass. Release mouse - bingo a gradient blue sky, darker at top, evenly fades.

Play with Gradient end point to vary amount of blue at horizon. Change image window size or canvass size to include the very tip-top of the image. Set Gradient Mode to Darken, whatever works best for that image.

cary

i like this best so far. are you familiar with any decent online tutorial on how to do that with cs4?

.



.

If you can't PP an image to get the best from it, you are throwing away over half of the capabilities of digital photography. A learning opportunity for you.

cary

--
Tony

 

[tc333]

thanks so much....will give this a try when i can find the time

In CS2 (and 4?)
1) go Image/Adjustments/Shadow-Highlight . To lighten the very dark areas.

Bring up the shadows so tree trunk not so dark. This also lightened the stone walls which I liked.

2)add blue sky. Look at a real blue sky, it is darkest blue high up and fades out at horizon.
The CS2 Gradient Tool is the secret to doing this.

Select the sky. I used the Magic Wand Tool. Other ways/tools will work. Pay attention to how you have Select/Feather set, I used 10 pixels.

Select the sky blue color you like, select the Gradient Tool. Put mouse at top of image, click and drag down to grass. Release mouse - bingo a gradient blue sky, darker at top, evenly fades.

Play with Gradient end point to vary amount of blue at horizon. Change image window size or canvass size to include the very tip-top of the image. Set Gradient Mode to Darken, whatever works best for that image.

cary

i like this best so far. are you familiar with any decent online tutorial on how to do that with cs4?

.

If you can't PP an image to get the best from it, you are throwing away over half of the capabilities of digital photography. A learning opportunity for you.

cary

--
Tony

--
Tony

 

[tc333]

message sent with link to nef file. i wont be back on pc for a while so will deal with it later if the link is not valid or just does not work etc

do you still want it?

Yes please

At the moment I don't know if there is highlights clipping on the sky in the RAW

One of free large file sharing websites is:
http://www.rapidshare.com

thank's in advance

Send me the RAW, maybe I can help

--
Tony

--
Tony

 

[Jon Rty]

More importantly the D5100 uses the same 420-pixel exposure meter Nikon has used since the D50, so they've had more than enough time to perfect the parameters. The D7000 on the other hand uses a brand new, state of the art 2016 pixel meter.

Take into account that Nikon had 6 months to work on the D7000 in order to set the D5100 parameters.

I've taken 5000 pictures with the D7000 and it always gave me pretty white skies.

The D5100 yields a much darker jpeg in order to prevent clipping the sunny highlights.

 

[cary smith]

thanks so much....will give this a try when i can find the time

You're welcome. Photoshop is wonderful, thank you God for giving it to us

It is interesting picking out a blue sky color. Just don't over do the effect, a little less is better than more. You can really turn a distracting white blank sky into like what you saw. With more practice you can add clouds. Build a photo library of skies and clouds for reference and use.

cary

 

[eNo]

If the scene is to be shot as you show here, probably I wouldn't have done it much differently than you show here. But it all depends on a foundational question one must answer before one asks how to meter: "what's important in this scene?"

To answer this, one would determine what is the subject (the ruins, the wood pile, the tree, the grass, ...), and give it priority in the exposure choice. Incidentally, notice how many choices for subject I listed, a hint that perhaps this composition is too complicated and could benefit from simplification.

While you are simplifying and/or otherwise improving the composition, ask yourself if there's a better lighting choice that would better show off your subject. For instance, if the subject is the ruins in the background, I'd see whether side-lighting wouldn't be a better choice and move around to the left or the right until I had the lighting I wanted. Often we don't think about this and end up metering for scenes with such poor lighting, we will have to make too many compromises.

Once you have all that sorted out, you meter for your subject, letting the rest be where it falls -- but not before you've worked out the composition and lighting to produce the most pleasing outcome for your subject! And certainly not before you know what/who is your subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seeking the heart and spirit in each image



Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03

 

[rondhamalam]

message sent with link to nef file. i wont be back on pc for a while so will deal with it later if the link is not valid or just does not work etc

Thank's for the RAW

I removed highlights overexposure with Recovery slider and shadows underexposure with Fill-Light.





The sky was blue but it was blank, no clouds, and slightly overcast.

No details on the sky.

But there are a lot of other conditions in the world where so much details in the highlights that you will want to recover.









cheers