digital's DR limitations. What to do...

Hey everybody, long time no post for me! I have a question for you all, which

of course has been discussed a million times all over the place, but I thought

I would start my own discussion.

 

I am a serious ameture photographer. I shoot my own creative work,

portraiture, and shoot roughly 5-6 weddings a year for side money. Two weeks

ago I attended a friends wedding as a guest, and of course brought my camera,

flash, and a couple of lenses to shoot from the side just for fun. When I got

home and processed the images, I ran into a dilema.

 

Anyway, my question is about your normal DR limitations with digital. If I set

my D2X to any auto mode (s, a, or p) the camera does a great job, but when

shooting a picture that has a bride's white wedding dress in it, the camera

will always underexpose to do its best to save highlights, which I understand,

because nobody likes blown highlights. But, what happens as a result, is that

the rest of the shot is underexposed (of cousre). Natually I can play with

RAW exposure and brightness/shadows in ACR later and do a pretty good job

getting it back to normal, but here is where I face the dilema. I will

typically have to push the image a good 1.5 stops to get faces looking

correct. The problem is that when I do this push, the image quality of the

pushed areas suffer a bit. They don't look as good as had I exposed/metered

for those areas specifically. The pushed areas look a little more noisy, image

quality is a tad lower in those areas.

 

Now, if i expose for the face/surrounding area properly (ignoring the dress),

there are areas of the white dress that completely blow off the right end of

the histogram.

 

So my question to you all, is which is better?

 

A) save the highlights, and live with the slighly lower quality pushed areas,

with a tad more noise... or

 

B) expose faces and the like properly to maximize image quality, but let the

whites blow out a little bit.

 

Obviously bracketing by 2 stops and combining two images to increase DR

doesn't work when shooting a wedding, so what do you all recommend? What do

YOU do in this situation? Is somewhere in between "A" and "B" the best way to

go, or is there a "C"?

 

Here is an example... as you can see, the majority of the scene is properly

exposed, but the dress suffers a little. To me, after looking at my latest

set of images, I find this is nicer to look at than the underexposed/pushed

images.<div></div>

.

 

Sony Alpha A100 with in-camera DRO+ Dynamic Range Optimization Plus from http://www.apical-imaging.com/

 

Let us know how it goes.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - why can't you use the twin/tripple "developments" -2/+2 or -2/0/+2 and combine? Time?

.

 

More for those hesitant to check out the links:

 

http://www.apical-imaging.com/news_8_jun_06.html

 

New Sony Alpha D-SLR uses Apical technology

 

ﾻ Apical is pleased to announce that Sony's latest Digital SLR camera, the Alpha, takes advantage of Apical's technology.

 

The Alpha includes an innovative feature known as "D-Range Optimizer" which uses Apical's image processing technology in its Advanced mode.

 

"In Advanced Mode, the D-Range Optimizer analyzes the image section by section and adjusts the brightness of each area individually to ensure your photo is as beautiful and balanced as the scene that inspired you."

 

The camera is Sony's first entry into the D-SLR market and is expected to go on sale this summer.

 

ﾻ Sony Alpha webpage

 

http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/features_2.html

In your image, the blown whites can't be helped unless you exposed for the sunlit part of the white dress and used fill flash to bring everything else up. So you could have done that at the time of taking the shot, but it is a matter of taste whether to let the white dress go a little in exchange for a more natural looking, less "flashed" rendition of their faces. I would opt for the latter and exposed for the faces for this image, letting the white unlit dress go, since the focal point of the image is the couple's faces. In another situation--a full length perhaps--where it would be more objectionable for a large part of the dress to blow, I might use more fill flash and change the exposure to protect the whites. If you are bringing the faces up 1.5 stops, I'd say you are underexposing too much. I'd go with B, and say that C is better use of fill flash.

The D2X shouldn't have any problem with DR in the shot you posted. The first part to get this right is to know when the exposure is right. The best in camera tool you have is the LCD with flashing highlights turned on. Then you can see if, or how much of the dress, is blown out. To come up with an exposure starting point, I would suggest setting the meter to center weighted rather than matrix. With matrix metering any bright area in the frame will tend to drive the exposure to under expose. With center weighted, if part of the dress and the groom's dark suit is in the metering area the exposure should be about right. Keep in mind that the metering will change as your framing changes, so it's a good idea to put the camera in manual mode, set your exposure, check the exposure with the LCD and then vary settings if the lighting conditions change.

I'm sorry but I do have to ask why you don't shoot C41 film if you have a dynamic range problem with digital? Seems like you're using unnecessarily expensive equipment while a $500 F100 would do a better job?!

I know exactly what you're going through. Google Gary Fong and buy his illumination globe

- it's designed precisely for the digital realm. It provides an even light covering the entire

area you're looking at without regard to whites or blacks - just like a studio strobe. The

camera is not reacting to the reflections that come off of light subjects nor is it dumping

more flash to compensate for dark subjects like a group shot of the groom and groomsmen.

An additional benefit of this amazing accessory is the time reduction in Photoshop. I'm not

taking my studio flash to weddings anymore except on rare occasions, and then I wonder

why I'm doing it. Perhaps you should invest in an aux battery tho because your flash has to

work a little harder with the attachment - but it's trade off is well worth it.

That new Sony is an interesting first camera since they took over Minolta. Not quite ready

for prime time yet, but promising. The next camera is suppose to be a more pro level tool

... we'll see. Of special interest are the coming Zeiss AF lenses in their line up ... including

a 135/1.8 as well as a highly corrected 85/1.4, and a couple of very interesting zooms.

The Ziess N24-85 for the now discontinued Contax N was the best zoom I ever used.

 

Were I a newbie just starting out, I'd seriously look at this Sony for the money. While it

remains to be seen how the actual images look, it is trading off of some well established

features of the Minolta line-up, adds new features like the Dynamic Range technology, and

now includes Carl Zeiss glass ... which is very tempting.

 

Brandon ... it seems your image lacks just a touch of snap ... while the skin tones are nice

the darks seem a tad flat. When exposing for a scene like this, the histogram is your best

friend. If you expose to get the histogram as far right as possible without clipping (or just

a small amount of clipping if there are spectrial highlights present in the shot) ... then you

have done the best you can with the tools at hand.

 

The processing of RAW files need not introduce as much noise as you may think when

lifting a slightly underexposed shot. The array of adjustments in ACR for example, will

allow slight lessening of contrast to hold the lights while the shadow slider can restore the

shadow areas that may become a touch to light. In addition, you can use the Luminance

Smoother under the Detail tab in ACR to adjust out what noise gain you may have incurred

while adjusting the shot.

 

Obviously, using fill flash is also a good answer ... but there are times when even that can

not achieve light balance completely when shooting digital.

This is definitely a common problem in digital. I usually prefer to let the dress go a little bit. One thing that can help is installing a custom curve on your camera. To combat the clipped highlights/chronic underexposure of my D70, I use the "point-and-shoot" (used to be called "white wedding") from

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/guide-to-links-on-photonet.html" >fotogenetic</a> . The curve bumps exposure up approx. 1 stop in the midtones, while preventing highlights from getting clipped. Doesn't completely solve the problem, but it helps, and has cut down on my time in photoshop. P.S. I am not sure if the D2X has the underexposure problem that D70 has. I am sure you can find a curve that will suit your needs.

Hope it helps.

Eric

<a href="http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/downloads.html">fotogenetic</a>

 

sorry

I think the reason I encountered this, which seemingly was the first time, was because I wasn't the primary shooter, I was just a guest with a camera and was shooting from 10-12 yards away with my 70-200, so the fill was minimal. I imagine up close with a lens of choice, with better fill, I wouldn't encounter quite such a pesky problem.

 

I still have yet to shoot a wedding as the primary photographer with my D2X.

You should be able to recover some highlight detail when you process your RAW files. You will have to test to see just how much you can recover but once you know how much over exposure you can recover then you are all set. The biggest problem is that cameras histograms don't show you how much you are over. I find the spot meter in my D70 is useful some times. I can meter for the face and see how much the dress would be over. This works best for posed shots of course.

.

 

As mentioned, here's a link to the interesting flash head diffuser alternative by Garry Fong at

 

http://store.garyfonginc.com/licl.html

 

... and from Garry Fong's FAQ/Support

 

http://garyfong.helpserve.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=60

 

Q: What are the differences between the Lightsphere CLEAR and CLOUD? Which one is better for my situation? -- keywords: lightsphere, pj, photojournalist, cloud, clear, opaque, dome, diffuser, lighting

 

A: Which Lightsphere is best for any given setting is as much a matter of photographer preference and loyalty as anything. Many pros carry both styles in their gear bag for varying lighting situations.

 

Both Lightspheres provide excellent diffusion and studio quality light from your on-camera flash. Both are made of flexible, premium grade vinyl and include the inverted dome made of hard, translucent plastic.

 

The Lightsphere-Photojournalist (PJ) is made of soft, transparent vinyl, and currently comes in two colors - CLEAR and CLOUD. The light quality transmitted through the CLEAR is somewhat cooler and a little more contrasty when compared to the CLOUD. The Lightsphere-CLEAR maximizes diffusion while minimizing light loss, allowing it to be used at greater distances. The CLEAR is highly recommended for photojournalistic assignments and general purpose photography.

 

The Lightsphere-CLOUD creates a more diffuse, softer, and somewhat warmer light. For this reason, it is well suited for "portrait style" lighting situations, where skin tones and flattering light are the primary focus.

 

Gary recommends, "Choose the CLEAR version for fast action, large groups and dimly lit scenes. Switch to the new CLOUD for the softest, warmest light yet. Great for close-ups, portraits, couples and intimate group shots."

 

Hint... Gary is IN LOVE with the light he achieves from the CLOUD, it really suits his current lighting style.

 

When ordering, please note that "CLEAR" sizes begin with "P", and "CLOUD" sizes begin with "C".

 

==========

 

Interesting - yet another way to get the flash big.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/<div></div>

I need to revisit this problem for you. I suggested Gary Fong's flash accessory earlier for

the future pics you will take - but how about the ones you already took and are trying to

retouch? Here is something that works for me in Photoshop: Using the burn tool

(highlights - 12% or less) burn the dress a little. Now go to image>apply image or

adjustments>levels and start bringing up the skin tones; don't go beyond the threshold on

the dress - repeat if necessary. As I said - this works for me. Sometimes I will actually

lasso the dress and use image>apply image, image>adjustments>selective color and

anything else available while using select>inverse etc., to go back and forth from the

dress to the bride and the background; working inside and outside to get the balance I like

between the subject and the background. This technique is really for portraits, tho. For

candids carefully burning the dress before you do anything else is the ticket. Keep

working on it until it works right for you.

Ok, I suppose this is getting pretty long winded. I forgot to suggest going to (Photoshop)

image>adjustments>selective color - choose relative (at the bottom, choose white then

choose black (add black) slide the bar to the right until it gets right for you. It really tones

down the bright white very nicely - more efficiently than burning in the white area. Sorry for

all the afterthoughts.