Exposure of landscape pictures
Hudepohl PMJ
I've been shooting landscapes/nature (no wildlife) for a while now and
have recently switched to slides - what an improvement from those
10x15cm prints! But, I sometimes have a bit of a problem getting the
right exposure.
If I have a tree against a (dark) blue sky, things usually work
out just fine, perhaps 0.3-0.7 under gives even better colors.
If I zoom-in on details (eg leaves on the ground), no (distracting)
background, things are OK for sure.
If there's a tree against a bright sky (clouds, sun shining through),
things tend to go wrong... Either I get the tree right, but the sky is so
bright, it dominates the picture. Or I get the sky (about) right, but the
tree/ground is way too dark. Can I get both subjects right in one shot,
or should I concentrate on getting details in those situations, because
of the lack of latitude of slide film?
As for equipment: Nikon F601, AF zoom lenses, Aperture mode, Matrix
metering and Kodak Elite-200 (love that film, really great so far!)
Appreciating any advice,
Patrick.
--
Patrick MJ Hudepohl, | pmhu...@escape.pm.cs.vu.nl
Dept. of Math. & CS | pmhu...@cs.vu.nl
VU Amsterdam |
The Netherlands | http://www.cs.vu.nl/~pmhudepo/
Jeff Pritchard
> I've been shooting landscapes/nature (no wildlife) for a while now and
> have recently switched to slides - what an improvement from those
> 10x15cm prints! But, I sometimes have a bit of a problem getting the
> right exposure.
> If I have a tree against a (dark) blue sky, things usually work
> out just fine, perhaps 0.3-0.7 under gives even better colors.
> If I zoom-in on details (eg leaves on the ground), no (distracting)
> background, things are OK for sure.
> If there's a tree against a bright sky (clouds, sun shining through),
> things tend to go wrong... Either I get the tree right, but the sky is so
> bright, it dominates the picture. Or I get the sky (about) right, but the
> tree/ground is way too dark. Can I get both subjects right in one shot,
> or should I concentrate on getting details in those situations, because
> of the lack of latitude of slide film?
> As for equipment: Nikon F601, AF zoom lenses, Aperture mode, Matrix
> metering and Kodak Elite-200 (love that film, really great so far!)
The problem, as you guessed I think, is that slide film has a much narrower lattitude than
negative film. This is not as bad with the Elite you are using as it is with some of the
older "films of choice", like Kodachrome, but it is still a big problem with shots like
the one you are describing.
Unfortunately, there isn't any way to adjust the exposure to fix this problem. You will
always get one or the other right, or if you meter in between, you can sometimes get them
both "wrong", and have black trees and a white sky (yehk!).
There are a few solutions to the problem you might want to try:
1) keep a second camera body with negative film in it for these situations
2) try a graduated ND filter to darken the sky part of the image
3) try a polarizing filter to darken the sky part of the image
4) use fill flash where appropriate to bring up the brightness of the nearby stuff
relative to the sky.
5) if all else fails, try a different composition that leaves the sky out of the image.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
+ Jeff Pritchard
+ Fremont, CA USA (SF Bay Area)
+
+ Excessive moderation may lead to insufficiency.
+
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Benedict
>When I started doing slides, I noticed a slight underexposure seemed
>to give better colours. So the last roll I shot, I almost constantly
>underexposed for 0.3 to 1.3 stops. But the results varied quite
>dramatically.
>
>Could this have anything to with the matrix metering using extra data
>such as brightness, contrast, focal length etc? And would matrix metering
>(with AE-lock and/or exp. correction) give different results in
>different situations, because in sometimes the camera may already try
>to correct exposure itself?
>
>Would results be more consistent (constant) when using centre-weighted
>or spot-metering?
>
>Any comments on how *you* determine exposure of a certain shot?
Hoo hoo! You opened the bonus can of worms! ;) I'll start with an
easy one. There's a big difference between underexposing .3 stops and
underexposing 1.3 stops. Depending on who you talk to, color
transparency film has a useful dynamic range of about 5 stops. That's
2.5 stops above and 2.5 stops below center-point. Underexposing 1.3
stops (call it 1.5) leaves you with 1 stop and 4 stops. Underexposing
.3 stops (call it .5) leaves you with 2 stops and 3 stops. Varied
results is right!
For your second question, matrix metering varies from one camera to
the next. The answer is to take a roll of color slide film and find
scenes that tend to make your camera behave in ways you don't expect.
Play around with the scene and see what it's doing.
One of the best ways to do this is to start with a color print of a
scene and a camera full of color slide film. Go through the print,
and for every significant object in the scene (tree, sky, rock,
building, etc.) spot meter off of it. Pan the spot around and see if
an object really has the same value across the whole thing. Shadows
will darken a LOT. Label the print with the spot meter values.
Next, put your camera on various modes (matrix metering, center
weighted ,etc.) and see what IT thinks the "proper" metering is.
Knowing that slide film has about 5 stops of range, try to imagine
what the final image will look like. Anything 2.5-3 stops darker than
what the camera meters will be completely black. Anything 2.5-3 stops
brighter than what the camera meters will be completely white. With
your labeled color print in hand, you should be able to get a very
good idea of what will come out on film. Take pictures, take notes,
and compare the images with your mental image at the time.
As for results being more consistant when using center-weighted or
spot-metering, the answer is yes and no. Spot metering will try to
make whatever is in the exact center of your picture an 18% gray
value. It will very consistantly do this. Two pictures of the same
scene may vary quite a lot, though. If you meter on a dark tree with
a bright sky, you'll wind up with a finely-textured tree against a
white, featureless sky. If you meter on the sky rather than the tree,
you'll wind up with a finely textured sky with a silhouetted tree in
front of it. As far as the camera is concerned, it's being
consistant. As far as you're concerned, you'd probably like to
scream.
As for how I determine exposure for a certain shot, it depends a lot
on what the shot is. For some stuff the camera's metering system will
be great. For others I like to have the final word. Let's take the
tree against a bright sky example. Let's say the sky is particularly
interesting (a sunset, say), and I want to convey a sense of wonder.
I'd meter on the sky and compose the shot so the silhouetted tree
helps to bring the message across. On the other hand, if the sky
really is pretty bland, or if I'm trying to bring out the roughness of
the bark, or a squirrell sitting on a branch, I'd meter on the
foreground object and let the sky go white.
"Proper" exposure depends a lot on what's in the photographer's mind
when the shot is made.
Tom
Hudepohl PMJ
: There are a few solutions to the problem you might want to try:
: 1) keep a second camera body with negative film in it for these situations
: 2) try a graduated ND filter to darken the sky part of the image
: 3) try a polarizing filter to darken the sky part of the image
: 4) use fill flash where appropriate to bring up the brightness of the nearby stuff
: relative to the sky.
: 5) if all else fails, try a different composition that leaves the sky out of the image.
Thanks for the advice! Now I would like to ask another question, perhaps
the one I should have asked right away.
When I started doing slides, I noticed a slight underexposure seemed
to give better colours. So the last roll I shot, I almost constantly
underexposed for 0.3 to 1.3 stops. But the results varied quite
dramatically.
Could this have anything to with the matrix metering using extra data
such as brightness, contrast, focal length etc? And would matrix metering
(with AE-lock and/or exp. correction) give different results in
different situations, because in sometimes the camera may already try
to correct exposure itself?
Would results be more consistent (constant) when using centre-weighted
or spot-metering?
Any comments on how *you* determine exposure of a certain shot?
TIA,