Newbie Exposure Frustrations

NuclearWinter · 9 May 2007 at 11:17

Hello all, I'm a complete newbie to photography but am eager to make it a serious hobby (though my father taught me to use a film SLR as a kid, so I already knew the basics of aperture, shutter speed and ISO). I got myself a Canon 400D and the nifty fifty lens to start out with, plus a couple of good books.

At the moment I'm a bit frustrated with the results though. Every sunny day has resulted in the majority of my photos coming out both under and overexposed at the same time. Meaning the shadows are too dark, while the highlights get blown out. The histogram usually shows clipping at both ends of the scale. This is a typical example:

Any suggestions on what I could do differently? That shot really isn't a good representation of how the scene looked in real life. Different settings just resulted in either the sky getting more blown out, or the shadows darker (I use aperture priority or manual modes). Is it possible that there's a technical problem with the camera? Or am I just expecting too much from side lit shots on such a bright day? As I said, nearly all of my shots have had this problem so far.

I'd especially welcome input from other 400d users.

robertgilbert86 · 9 May 2007 at 11:28

Welcome to digital! Use film is you don't want that problem...digital sensors have a pretty low dynamic range, unlike film.
For situations like in that photo I'd expose for the sky, then edit the image later to bring out the foreground. Shooting RAW is a must btw.

Another solution is to use HDR to combine several exposures, so everything looks correct. You can do this using 'Photomatix' and putting 3 photos in it; either take 3 photos from a tripod (bracketed) or make 3 versions from 1 photo in photoshop. You want +/-1.5>2.0 exposure.

Get a polariser too if you haven't already, skies will look awesome and it will help control the light in bright situations.

SteveOBHave · 9 May 2007 at 11:30

I would take the time to learn the ins and outs of your cameras exposure bracketing capability. Essentially taking 3 images one under exposed, one normal and one over. Conversely get used to the idea of taking two photos one of the sky and one of the foreground and combine the two in PS.

EDIT: Like this

1.

2.

result:

mrgubby · 9 May 2007 at 11:51

As said above you can use HDR or combing multiple exposures. If you're lazy (like me

) you can just adjust the levels in your photo package to get this :-

Just a quick fiddle as I didn't know what the day actualy looked like

Helium_Junkie · 9 May 2007 at 11:55

What would a polarising filter do to that scene?

NuclearWinter · 9 May 2007 at 12:06

Thanks for the tips guys. I'll try experimenting with multiple exposures in future. Steve, I actually saw that shot in the other thread and thought "man, if I'd taken that the sky would have come out burning white"

I guess I need to get more used to the idea of digitally manipulating my images. I know I can play with the levels in Photoshop, I think I just wanted to make sure that this is normal and not a problem with the camera (or some obvious user error!).

SteveOBHave · 9 May 2007 at 12:33

Nah, it's just the nature of the beast. Nearly all really stunning photos have had some sort of post processing.

wez130 · 9 May 2007 at 13:15

i'd recommend a polariser in your kit, taken at the right time of day/right angle the sky would be darker and colours deeper in that shot, also good for reducing reflections on shiny surfaces (water / cars etc)

A.N.Other · 9 May 2007 at 13:26

wez130 said:
i'd recommend a polariser in your kit, taken at the right time of day/right angle the sky would be darker and colours deeper in that shot, also good for reducing reflections on shiny surfaces (water / cars etc)

Agree. A circular polariser is definitely a worthwhile investment. It doesn't have to be expensive, but you do get what youy pay for.

Messiah Khan · 9 May 2007 at 13:55

I havent used them, but wouldn't a ND grad be usefull in this situation as well, to darken the top half of the picture, ie the sky.

Irish_Tom · 9 May 2007 at 14:29

Yeah a Graduated ND filter would help you get the correct exposure.

I've been looking into it myself recently but I've decided to wait a while.

The Conkin P system seems to add a hue to peoples pictures so that's out. LEE do a similar (better) system but I checked them and I really cant justify the price.

I'm not a huge fan of attaching a big filter holder to the front of my lens. I realise the benefits of this type of system e.g you can adjust how high the gradient reaches in the frame to get the perfect exposure.

I would just rather have a screw in filter like a Circular Polariser but I can't find anything that fits the bill.

Panzer

v0n · 9 May 2007 at 14:42

A.N.Other said:
Agree. A circular polariser is definitely a worthwhile investment. It doesn't have to be expensive, but you do get what youy pay for.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that front part of all kit lenses and cheaper zooms move with autofocus which makes using circular polarizer very difficult and extremely discouraging.

robertgilbert86 · 9 May 2007 at 14:59

v0n said:
One thing to keep in mind though, is that front part of all kit lenses and cheaper zooms move with autofocus which makes using circular polarizer very difficult and extremely discouraging.

I strongly disagree. I've been using a CPL on my D50 kit for a year now, and yes the lens rotates a little to focus (10-20 degrees MAX) but you just adjust the CPL rotation after focusing. I mean, you're going to be rotating it every time you frame a shot so just doing it after the AF is no problem.

NuclearWinter · 9 May 2007 at 15:14

Any suggestions for a decent circular polariser and how much I should be looking to spend?

I was planning to make my next purchase either the 17-40 f4 LUSM or 70-200mm f4 LUSM (am leaning towards the wider angle lens, but I'll eventually get both). Looks like I need to add a polariser to the list too.

SteveOBHave · 9 May 2007 at 15:35

I use a Hoya Pro1 Digital on my camera - got it from Hong Kong for around £25. Is a nice filter and really does the trick. Make sure you read up on how to use one tho - they have some specifics when it comes to sun angles and filter orientation.

Irish_Tom · 9 May 2007 at 15:36

Hoya or Kood do very good filters. The amount you pay depends on the lens thread diameter, the bigger the more expensive. Hoya do three ranges of filter as well; Standard, HMC and PRO 1D.

I've just bought a Pro 1D UV filter for my new 18-200 lens. It's 72mm diameter and cost £25. I couldn't really afford the Pro 1D CP filter so I went with the HMC for £35.

It really depends on the lens your attaching it to. There's little point using a £35 filter on a lens that only cost twice that. However, if you have expensive glass, it makes sense to use only the best filters on it.

For my 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 70-300 I bought Hama CP filters. They were cheap, about £8 and £12 respectively and they have done the job very well. However, with the lens upgrade I decided that I needed just that little bit more on the filter side of things.

Panzer

v0n · 9 May 2007 at 15:40

robertgilbert86 said:
I strongly disagree. I've been using a CPL on my D50 kit for a year now, and yes the lens rotates a little to focus (10-20 degrees MAX) but you just adjust the CPL rotation after focusing. I mean, you're going to be rotating it every time you frame a shot so just doing it after the AF is no problem.

Well, it's not like there is any other solution to the problem, you have to adjust it before shot, I'm not saying it's impossible but it's really time consuming and annoying, especially if you shoot from hand and with time constraint. For a beginner this part of the process will require more patience than anything else in that shot.
Rotating front is the biggest downside of the cheap lense (right after picture quality) and it's also one of the least discussed ones in reviews. I never quite understood why.

robertgilbert86 · 9 May 2007 at 15:59

Sorry! I still disagree, 'time consuming'=2seconds max. 'frustrating'=a quick rotation. Most kit lenses rotate 10-20 degrees, the most you'll ever have to turn a polariser is 90 degrees, so even if you don't adjust after focusing you're only 11-22% out from maximum effect. Also as people will mostly use it for landscape or wide angle shots, the focus doesn't have to be so tight so the lens rotation will probably be even smaller.
Also just looking at where the sun is means you can start adjusting the filter before you go for the shot if you've got a mark on it.

I don't mean to be aggressive, but it's really isn't as difficult you imply.

------------

My first CPL for the kit was a HAMA 52mm one (£12) and was totally fine. My new HOYA 77mm was £25 from HK. The only difference I've noticed is the HOYA blocks a lot more light; indoor use is a no-no (although there aren't many times you'd need to use it indoors).

SteveOBHave · 9 May 2007 at 16:02

robertgilbert86 said:
Sorry! I still disagree, 'time consuming'=2seconds max. 'frustrating'=a quick rotation. Most kit lenses rotate 10-20 degrees, the most you'll ever have to turn a polariser is 90 degrees, so even if you don't adjust after focusing you're only 11-22% out from maximum effect. Also as people will mostly use it for landscape or wide angle shots, the focus doesn't have to be so tight so the lens rotation will probably be even smaller.
Also just looking at where the sun is means you can start adjusting the filter before you go for the shot if you've got a mark on it.

I don't mean to be aggressive, but it's really isn't as difficult you imply.

I agree and the gains you can obtain from a properly used CPL far outweigh twisting the filter every now and then.

sepulchre · 9 May 2007 at 19:03

Good advice there, I've been put off using a CPL due to the rotation of my lenses during focusing, but I now think I'll give one a try!