User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/28/2017 11:19:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Hrm.
When looking at the histogram, some of the pictures I am editing have the colored lines touching the top of the graph. What does that represent? Is that... bad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2017 11:33:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hrm. When looking at the histogram, some of the pictures I am editing have the colored lines touching the top of the graph. What does that represent? Is that... bad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2017 12:57:57 AM EDT
[#3]
What you want to be concerned with is anything touching the right side of the histogram. If it's a little, you're probably ok. If there's a lot, or the whole histogram is squished over there, you'll likely have a hard time recovering the highlights in that situation. But all is not lost. It's a learning thing. Once you get an eye for what ETTR should look like and for what the method can do for you, and you're practiced in it, it just plain becomes the new normal.
I don't even think about it anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2017 8:14:40 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
doesn't mean anything bad... histograms measure the volume of pixels at a particular point of brightness. If you spike to the top in a particular area, that just means you have a lot of that color at that brightness. Makes sense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hrm. When looking at the histogram, some of the pictures I am editing have the colored lines touching the top of the graph. What does that represent? Is that... bad? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2017 8:15:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you want to be concerned with is anything touching the right side of the histogram. If it's a little, you're probably ok. If there's a lot, or the whole histogram is squished over there, you'll likely have a hard time recovering the highlights in that situation. But all is not lost. It's a learning thing. Once you get an eye for what ETTR should look like and for what the method can do for you, and you're practiced in it, it just plain becomes the new normal. I don't even think about it anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2017 8:25:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you referring to when taking the picture? You gotta get a feel for it, but experimentation and practice is really the only way to get it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2017 8:52:12 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep! You gotta get a feel for it, but experimentation and practice is really the only way to get it down. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are you referring to when taking the picture? You gotta get a feel for it, but experimentation and practice is really the only way to get it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:15:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Been playing with EasyHDR, it is a nice program, but it still produces photos that look like something out of a fairy tale book. ... 
This is a good introductory video. He has a product for sale that is highlighted in his video, but he also covers how to do it without his (inexpensive) tool:  Forget HDR Software - 5 Ways To Blend Any Exposures in Photoshop |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:17:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you want to be concerned with is anything touching the right side of the histogram. If it's a little, you're probably ok. If there's a lot, or the whole histogram is squished over there, you'll likely have a hard time recovering the highlights in that situation. But all is not lost. It's a learning thing. Once you get an eye for what ETTR should look like and for what the method can do for you, and you're practiced in it, it just plain becomes the new normal. 
In a nutshell, the histogram is a visualization of color values in the exposure - and nothing else. There is no single "correct" histogram pattern (typically described as a sideways view of a wave with the peak in the middle - unless you're an ETTR acolyte in which case the peak will be to the right of the middle). To use the histogram effectively, we need to understand how to interpret the histogram and also know what it should look like for the exposure we want. As Zack mentioned earlier, I use the histogram in the field to determine whether I've blown out the highlights or darks. Here's a short video by Julieann Kost describing interpretation of the histogram in Lightroom:  Julieanne Kost on The Right Way to Histogram in Adobe Lightroom |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2017 5:25:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There has been some good discussion on HDR techniques in Lightroom. PhotoMerge HDR can provide decent results, but I prefer the use of exposure blending in Photoshop. It can seem daunting at first, but the general technique is not terribly difficult. As with any processing technique, the trick isn't learning the basic technique, but rather in how far to take the adjustments.
This is a good introductory video. He has a product for sale that is highlighted in his video, but he also covers how to do it without his (inexpensive) tool:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dioqQ-NA8vEQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Been playing with EasyHDR, it is a nice program, but it still produces photos that look like something out of a fairy tale book. ...
This is a good introductory video. He has a product for sale that is highlighted in his video, but he also covers how to do it without his (inexpensive) tool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dioqQ-NA8vE |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 1:11:14 PM EDT
[#11]
@zack3g
Do you find that sometimes you have to under exposure your picture when the histogram is too far to the right? (What's the term, blowing up?) Taking a few shots yesterday, and I ended up under exposing by a 1/3rd of a stop to prevent too much of a highlight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 1:28:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@zack3g Do you find that sometimes you have to under exposure your picture when the histogram is too far to the right? (What's the term, blowing up?) Taking a few shots yesterday, and I ended up under exposing by a 1/3rd of a stop to prevent too much of a highlight. If you're doing spot or highlight weighted (your camera may not even have that one) the ETTR methods change a bit but not entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 1:38:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't say I've ever had to dial in an underexposure. I nearly always keep my meter +1, and sometimes need to adjust it further up or down if the histogram doesn't look right. What was the situation you were shooting in, and what metering mode? If you're doing spot or highlight weighted (your camera may not even have that one) the ETTR methods change a bit but not entirely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
@zack3g Do you find that sometimes you have to under exposure your picture when the histogram is too far to the right? (What's the term, blowing up?) Taking a few shots yesterday, and I ended up under exposing by a 1/3rd of a stop to prevent too much of a highlight. If you're doing spot or highlight weighted (your camera may not even have that one) the ETTR methods change a bit but not entirely. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 4:06:51 PM EDT
[#14]
VooDoo do you have "highlight alert" enabled on your camera?
that is, when reviewing an image is your screen showing you the blown out areas as blinking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 6:14:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you find that sometimes you have to under exposure your picture when the histogram is too far to the right? (What's the term, blowing up?) Taking a few shots yesterday, and I ended up under exposing by a 1/3rd of a stop to prevent too much of a highlight. Depending on the scene, needing to under-expose can be a common fix. A great example is photographing red flowers. The red channel can get blown out fairly quickly compared to the green channel. When photographing the local tulip gardens, I often need a -1.0 EC to protect the reds then fix it in post production. Sometimes the highlights just don't matter to the image and can be blown out with no cares. Turning on the "blinkies" is a great way to review the images on the camera. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2017 8:54:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
VooDoo do you have "highlight alert" enabled on your camera? that is, when reviewing an image is your screen showing you the blown out areas as blinking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:27:22 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:33:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4190/34311605511_ace7fb53cf_b.jpg-3EVHist by Robert Mc, on Flickr https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4160/33600070794_0520b7d1aa_b.jpg+3EVHist by Robert Mc, on Flickr I was using Canon's 'Evaluative Metering" method. Knock the overall exposure down a bit, drop the highlights to the floor and see what happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:37:30 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't be scared to process that second one. Knock the overall exposure down a bit, drop the highlights to the floor and see what happens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4190/34311605511_ace7fb53cf_b.jpg-3EVHist by Robert Mc, on Flickr https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4160/33600070794_0520b7d1aa_b.jpg+3EVHist by Robert Mc, on Flickr I was using Canon's 'Evaluative Metering" method. Knock the overall exposure down a bit, drop the highlights to the floor and see what happens. 
At what point, is the exposure too much then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:40:06 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll do it right now.
At what point, is the exposure too much then? I don't worry about speculars, but any other highlights I try to keep within range. This of course depends on the image. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:45:31 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too much is when you clip highlights that you don't want to clip. I don't worry about speculars, but any other highlights I try to keep within range. This of course depends on the image. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll do it right now.
At what point, is the exposure too much then? I don't worry about speculars, but any other highlights I try to keep within range. This of course depends on the image. I know the one poster mentioned about the highlight indicator, would that possibly help in that case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:47:03 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:53:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understood, but when you are taking pictures and then look at the histogram, how can you tell if it is being clipped too much? I would think looking at the + exposure picture above after taking the picture would tell me its a bit over exposed. I know the one poster mentioned about the highlight indicator, would that possibly help in that case? If you're zoomed in on a bright spot and you're still getting blinkies, I'd start to get suspicious. But my method is..I just run with it. I know what sort of overexposure I can get away with in most situations. It's more than you think. Just keep practicing, get a feel for it. Or go back to doing it the old way. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:55:52 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blinkies help, but you need to view them zoomed in. The small preview will lie to you and tell you that it's blown out, but zooming in, it isn't. If you're zoomed in on a bright spot and you're still getting blinkies, I'd start to get suspicious. But my method is..I just run with it. I know what sort of overexposure I can get away with in most situations. It's more than you think. Just keep practicing, get a feel for it. Or go back to doing it the old way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Understood, but when you are taking pictures and then look at the histogram, how can you tell if it is being clipped too much? I would think looking at the + exposure picture above after taking the picture would tell me its a bit over exposed. I know the one poster mentioned about the highlight indicator, would that possibly help in that case? If you're zoomed in on a bright spot and you're still getting blinkies, I'd start to get suspicious. But my method is..I just run with it. I know what sort of overexposure I can get away with in most situations. It's more than you think. Just keep practicing, get a feel for it. Or go back to doing it the old way.
I am leaving for Alaska for a week in August. I am just nervous that I'll start getting anxiety when I am taking pictures thinking that I can correct any issues (post processing) that come up, when I really can't.
I just deleted a few hundred pictures from Florida because they were way too under exposed, and there was no post processing that I could have done (I tried on a lot of the pictures) to correct the problem. I obviously know a shit more now than then, but it still makes me nervous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:56:00 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4185/34442353975_e1eaacd1fb_b.jpg+3wHIST by Robert Mc, on Flickr Little post editing on the + picture above. I also tweaked clarity, vibrance and a smudge of saturation. Dehaze was also used as well. Looks like you're getting in the neighborhood of the result you were originally going for, but now with a single image and a tiny amount of PP that you can honestly set up an import preset to manage the majority of it, once you've got your method worked out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:57:48 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No way am I going back to the old way.
I am leaving for Alaska for a week in August. I am just nervous that I'll start getting anxiety when I am taking pictures thinking that I can correct any issues that come up, when I can't. But, if you carry the histogram as far to the right as you can without losing anything, you'll be able to pull em back in post and not have to push up your shadows too high (which is where most noise shows up in an image anyway) and thus add even *more* noise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 2:59:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Be careful with dehaze, it has the potential to do more harm than good, kinda like the clarity slider. A little can help, if used on an image that needs it, but used improperly it can destroy an image. Looks like you're getting in the neighborhood of the result you were originally going for, but now with a single image and a tiny amount of PP that you can honestly set up an import preset to manage the majority of it, once you've got your method worked out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4185/34442353975_e1eaacd1fb_b.jpg+3wHIST by Robert Mc, on Flickr Little post editing on the + picture above. I also tweaked clarity, vibrance and a smudge of saturation. Dehaze was also used as well. Looks like you're getting in the neighborhood of the result you were originally going for, but now with a single image and a tiny amount of PP that you can honestly set up an import preset to manage the majority of it, once you've got your method worked out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 3:00:52 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bright white snow is a shot I've never done, and I can expect it would break my brain a bit trying to figure out how to get the exposure for that. But, if you carry the histogram as far to the right as you can without losing anything, you'll be able to pull em back in post and not have to push up your shadows too high (which is where most noise shows up in an image anyway) and thus add even *more* noise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No way am I going back to the old way.
I am leaving for Alaska for a week in August. I am just nervous that I'll start getting anxiety when I am taking pictures thinking that I can correct any issues that come up, when I can't. But, if you carry the histogram as far to the right as you can without losing anything, you'll be able to pull em back in post and not have to push up your shadows too high (which is where most noise shows up in an image anyway) and thus add even *more* noise. That is the key part "without losing anything", that is my concern. Guess its trial and error.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2017 3:07:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I edited the post above to add more info. That is the key part "without losing anything", that is my concern. Guess its trial and error. This is for a few reasons. We are reducing noise by doing this (even if we have to raise ISO a bit to keep shutter speed up) we're also increasing dynamic range (after the post processing, anyway), and in my opinion (worth what you paid for it) we can get a lot closer to what the human eye can actually see. The trick is finding the point where the sensor can't register light anymore in the areas of the image that are important to you..and back it off just a little from that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2017 3:41:44 PM EDT
[#30]
My first try at an HDR Image using three shots on a Canon 80D. Merged and adjusted in Lightroom.
I agree that HDR if done right can better represent what the eye is seeing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2017 4:42:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My first try at an HDR Image using three shots on a Canon 80D. Merged and adjusted in Lightroom. I agree that HDR if done right can better represent what the eye is seeing. https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/17097532_10208395459906652_2669519537041898272_o.jpg?oh=327643b555977a4f1897d2729c7af49e&oe=597FAA83 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2017 10:32:32 AM EDT
[#32]
I didn't use auto bracketing, I just rolled the exposure one way till it looked over exposed a little, and went the opposite way till it looked under so the sky popped. Then took another that was correctly exposed.
Merged it all and adjusted! I will find the images and post them later! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2017 12:56:10 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2017 1:26:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I may have slightly overcooked this one: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/56693/ETTR-204214.png Naaaaah it's fine. https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4180/34494604856_5766caeb8f_b.jpg_DSC1104 by Zack, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2017 1:36:32 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 4:14:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 4:43:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you reduce the noise in Lightroom, is it possible? The issue is the masking support isn't really what I'd like it to be. Noise reduction = detail reduction, so it's best to apply it to out of focus background areas and shadows only. For this reason, I prefer to do my noise reduction in photoshop, but following ETTR principles reduces a lot of the noise you'd otherwise encounter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 4:52:52 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lightroom's noise reduction tools are OK. The issue is the masking support isn't really what I'd like it to be. Noise reduction = detail reduction, so it's best to apply it to out of focus background areas and shadows only. For this reason, I prefer to do my noise reduction in photoshop, but following ETTR principles reduces a lot of the noise you'd otherwise encounter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How do you reduce the noise in Lightroom, is it possible? The issue is the masking support isn't really what I'd like it to be. Noise reduction = detail reduction, so it's best to apply it to out of focus background areas and shadows only. For this reason, I prefer to do my noise reduction in photoshop, but following ETTR principles reduces a lot of the noise you'd otherwise encounter. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 4:59:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 5:04:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm either in single point or group AF depending on if I'm shooting a static or moving subject. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. Wouldn't you have to take a picture to see how much of an adjustment you need to make for ETTR ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 5:16:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I use AV (Aperture Priority) or one of the Custom Dials for AEB (3 and 5, respectively) . Wouldn't you have to take a picture to see how much of an adjustment you need to make for ETTR ? But, what I tend to do is trust my sensor. I can't speak to Canon cameras, perhaps they're not as well suited for this as Nikon cameras are, but with the Nikon sensor, you have a lot of latitude in exposure. More than one might initially suspect. For the majority of shooting that I do, a +1 EC value gets me where I want to be. I try my best to avoid looking at pictures while I'm shooting. Chimping leads to missed shots. That said, if I'm in questionable light, I will take a test shot and review the histogram and apply any needed changes, or just throw the camera into highlight weighted and fix it later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 5:22:14 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can. But, what I tend to do is trust my sensor. I can't speak to Canon cameras, perhaps they're not as well suited for this as Nikon cameras are, but with the Nikon sensor, you have a lot of latitude in exposure. More than one might initially suspect. For the majority of shooting that I do, a +1 EC value gets me where I want to be. I try my best to avoid looking at pictures while I'm shooting. Chimping leads to missed shots. That said, if I'm in questionable light, I will take a test shot and review the histogram and apply any needed changes, or just throw the camera into highlight weighted and fix it later. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I use AV (Aperture Priority) or one of the Custom Dials for AEB (3 and 5, respectively) . Wouldn't you have to take a picture to see how much of an adjustment you need to make for ETTR ? But, what I tend to do is trust my sensor. I can't speak to Canon cameras, perhaps they're not as well suited for this as Nikon cameras are, but with the Nikon sensor, you have a lot of latitude in exposure. More than one might initially suspect. For the majority of shooting that I do, a +1 EC value gets me where I want to be. I try my best to avoid looking at pictures while I'm shooting. Chimping leads to missed shots. That said, if I'm in questionable light, I will take a test shot and review the histogram and apply any needed changes, or just throw the camera into highlight weighted and fix it later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 8:49:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lightroom's noise reduction tools are OK. The issue is the masking support isn't really what I'd like it to be. Noise reduction = detail reduction, so it's best to apply it to out of focus background areas and shadows only. For this reason, I prefer to do my noise reduction in photoshop, but following ETTR principles reduces a lot of the noise you'd otherwise encounter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How do you reduce the noise in Lightroom, is it possible? The issue is the masking support isn't really what I'd like it to be. Noise reduction = detail reduction, so it's best to apply it to out of focus background areas and shadows only. For this reason, I prefer to do my noise reduction in photoshop, but following ETTR principles reduces a lot of the noise you'd otherwise encounter. That said, specialized plug-ins can do a better job in some circumstances. Visually reducing the size of the photo during printing or physically reducing the size by resizing the photo naturally eats lots of noise so that the needed strength of the noise reduction settings is much lower than most folks think. If you have the option of going ETTR, this is a great way to reduce any noise before you get into the noise reduction software. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 8:52:52 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm either in single point or group AF depending on if I'm shooting a static or moving subject. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. When shooting sunsets/sunrises with the sun in the frame, you cannot let the camera pick the exposure settings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2017 9:00:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Zack has you pointed in the right direction. When shooting Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. When shooting |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2017 10:06:32 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Zack has you pointed in the right direction. When shooting sunsets/sunrises with the sun in the frame, you cannot let the camera pick the exposure settings. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. Using your camera, do you use a single focus point? I have been using it more frequently, but I am also finding that the meter is messing up my exposure. I am finding having to adjust the exposure meter by almost -2 to avoid blowing out the skies. (Sunset pics) If I dont, even post processing doesn't quite help enough. I don't use any of the dynamic modes or 3d whatevers. Even on the D500 (most advanced AF system in a DSLR - ever) it still isn't what I'd call reliable. I prefer to handle the tracking myself. Sounds to me like you're shooting in one of the auto modes if you're having that big of an issue. Try this - throw it into manual, and spot meter on the brightest part of your image. Dial in an appropriate ETTR there, then compose the shot however you'd like it to be. The other option (a bit more fiddly) would be to use one of the auto modes, spot meter as above, and then use the Auto Exposure lock button, and recompose that way. Edit: Forgot to mention for my Nikon brethren...there's a better way to accomplish the above task if your camera supports it. Highlight weighted metering. When shooting sunsets/sunrises with the sun in the frame, you cannot let the camera pick the exposure settings. The question is how. If my metering is focused on a darker area of the setting, the sky doesn't come in well. If I focus on the sky, there might be blow outs. I have been shooting in brackets, but even then the sky sometimes comes out blown (not as bad as before though). So, I would adjust so it would be darker to avoid the blowouts from the sky? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2017 11:39:01 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup, I understand it. The question is how. If my metering is focused on a darker area of the setting, the sky doesn't come in well. If I focus on the sky, there might be blow outs. I have been shooting in brackets, but even then the sky sometimes comes out blown (not as bad as before though). So, I would adjust so it would be darker to avoid the blowouts from the sky? Point the camera at the brightest part of the image, dial in the settings to give you the meter value you think will work, then focus the camera wherever you like and take the picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2017 12:16:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're shooting in manual mode, where you meter and where you focus have no relationship anymore. Point the camera at the brightest part of the image, dial in the settings to give you the meter value you think will work, then focus the camera wherever you like and take the picture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yup, I understand it. The question is how. If my metering is focused on a darker area of the setting, the sky doesn't come in well. If I focus on the sky, there might be blow outs. I have been shooting in brackets, but even then the sky sometimes comes out blown (not as bad as before though). So, I would adjust so it would be darker to avoid the blowouts from the sky? Point the camera at the brightest part of the image, dial in the settings to give you the meter value you think will work, then focus the camera wherever you like and take the picture. Maybe I should figure out a way to change that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2017 12:28:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok. On my Canon, focusing and the meter are the same. The only way I can get my 'settings' in my viewfinder to appear is to press the shutter button, which does both the focusing and metering. Maybe I should figure out a way to change that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2017 1:30:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok. On my Canon, focusing and the meter are the same. The only way I can get my 'settings' in my viewfinder to appear is to press the shutter button, which does both the focusing and metering. Maybe I should figure out a way to change that? https://youtu.be/zAFigFMdi58 Normally you would set it in manual mode, look through the viewfinder, partial depress shutter and then dial in the exposure. The camera will tell you under/over in the viewfinder as you adjust the shutter, aperture and ISO. The recompose and take the shot. Then normally you would use the shutter speed to get the over/under that you are looking for so you can blend the shots to get the entire scene properly exposed. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
