Need advice on ice/snow shots

[duff24]

Over the years I've tried to capture details photos of ice (hoar frost/melting ice) and snow but can never seem

to capture the detail of the original ice crystals. Living in Manitoba Canada, I have a lot of opportunity to

practise in late fall/early spring, but I am never happy with the final results.

 

Somewhere in the shooting process the details become smeared and the end product looks nothing like the original.

I'm not sure if I lose the detail during the shot or afterwards in post-processing. When I used a D70 I just

thought that the details of the frost or ice were lost because the highlights were burned out.

 

Now shooting with D300 and only using 50mm 1.4 and 85 mm 1.4 (with extension tubes) but still losing detail.

 

Some examples at (top six are most recent, taken on the weekend Nov 15, 2008):

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=825714

 

The first in the gallery shows good example of loss of detail in a couple of areas.

 

Over the years I've tried (with mixed success for each of these):

 

- underexpose by 0.5 to 1.0 stops (noise becomes a problem, even with the D300)

 

- always expose to the left of the histogram, never beyond the three-quarters mark

 

- polarizer

 

- black reflector for background to provide contrast

 

- only using curves in PS 3 to boost exposure and contrast

 

- recently used Silver Effects Pro to bring out detail (actually worked quite well but some detail still lacking)

 

- only shoot with tripod

 

- recently tried some high dynamic range stuff by blending over- and under- exposed, but no big improvement

 

Is it possible to get fine detail with the digital setup, or is film necessary?

 

All comments/suggestion, or places to follow-up for info, greatly appreciated.

 

Colin Macdonald

[ShunCheung]

There was a long discussion in this old thread. I really like John Shaw's article I mentioned there.

http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/0073Td

[Two23]

One of your main problems is getting enough depth of field. You need to be shooting at at least f8. I would suggest you look into software such as Helicon Focus. I think that will do most of what you are after. The second thing is, what software are you using for sharpening? I think for you, the answer is going to come from software. You might also consider some off camera lighting, such as either an SB-800 with Lumiquest soft box. or a cheaper non-iTTL flash shot using a simple PC cord. You can do a LOT of things with an off camera flash.

 

 

Kent in SD

[kolaczan]

Depth of field is certainly a big issue with ice crystals. You really have to nail the focus to get it to look right. When you have clusters of flaky crystals it is extremely difficult to get everything focused even at f16. I try to focus in and just get a single plane if possible:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5491591-lg.jpg

 

For "frost on the window" work I zoooom way in and things become a bit abstract:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5443747-lg.jpg

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5539446-md.jpg

 

Even with these it is really important to make sure you exactly match the plane of the subject. DOF seems like it is 1/10 of a mm. Check the corners because even being off a bit ruins the effect.

[jc_dill]

I envy your access to hoar frost and ice! Your photos are BEAUTIFUL.

 

<p>Since you say that you are limiting your exposure to avoid blown-out highlights, I think you have more of a

lighting problem than a digital/film problem. An overcast sky acts as a huge soft-box with the light coming from

everywhere. You have an "angle of incidence" problem with all sides of an ice crystal reflecting the bright sky

to the camera. Try blocking off more of the sky and controlling how much light you let in, and from where.

 

<p>You could also try setting up a studio in an unheated building (garage or similar) where you can totally

control the light. Setup your studio lights using a placeholder object (kosher salt or salt crystals can work

well, see below). Once you have the light working well on your placeholder object, bring a piece of ice into the

studio and light with strobes while controlling reflections using black velvet and black reflector cards. Also

try color gels on the strobes. A) This can be a beautiful effect, and B) it really helps to see where each

light is falling/reflecting when each light has a different color. To see an example of this type of photo, see

my shots of salt crystals here:

 

<p><a href="http://portfolio.jcdill.com/">http://portfolio.jcdill.com/</a>

 

<p>These were shot in the studio with a single strobe placed at 2 o-clock from the camera. I made a matrix of

small colored gels and placed it in front of the strobe. Different faces of the salt crystal are at slightly

different angles and so reflect the light from a different gel in the gel matrix in front of the strobe. If you

don't want a colored effect you could get a similar increase in contrast by using a grid of ND gels or a grid or

snoot.

 

<p>Also see:

 

<p><a href="http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/mineral/halite/6halite-broken2.jpg

">http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/mineral/halite/6halite-broken2.jpg</a>

 

<p>As you can tell by the hard edge shadows, this photo was shot with a single hard (not diffuse) light at 10

o'clock. See how the light helps bring out all the details of the salt. Compare with:

 

<p><a

href="http://www.teara.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/38148492-A4B1-45DA-A16E-B717C318A65A/172742/p4321dsl.jpg">http://www.teara.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/38148492-A4B1-45DA-A16E-B717C318A65A/172742/p4321dsl.jpg</a>

 

<p>Which was shot with a softbox (diffuse light).

 

<p>jc<div></div>

[kolaczan]

For your "ice figure" images it is crucial to get the entire edge in focus otherwise the eye immediately goes to the blurred areas. If you can get that (certainly not as easy as it sounds) you will have some inside bubbles in focus as well (likely) and you are good to go. Bumping the contrast helps but mostly it is a matter of (besides focus) getting good light.

[bob_sunley]

You just don't have much dof at macro distances. CombineZ is another software package that will merge a z-stack of images to produce some amazing results with practice. The best reference for technique is this web site for more info on howto and results.

 

http://www.krebsmicro.com/

[duff24]

Thanks to everyone for the quick responses.

 

Shun - My problem isn't getting snow white but keeping the detail in the very fine structure of the ice crystals. If I went to +0.5 or higher I would lose even more detail. In fact most of the snow scenes that I've seen have a lot of areas with burned highlights - even thigh their colour balance is very good.

 

Regarding flash. I've used my DX800 a few times but usually end up with a lot of specular highlights, and loss of detail again. I've tried bouncing off a backdrop (works well with some ice structures) and through a diffuser but the hoar frost-type ice reflects too much light.There are literally thousands or millions of facets reflecting toward the camera that cause problems.

 

As suggested by a couple of people, I think that the problem is DOF. I keep trying to separate subject from background by working with large apertures (<8) but end up with a lot of OOF areas. I will have to overcome my tendency to shoot that way and make sure the planes of the subject and camera are parallel.

 

JC - many thanks for the detailed reply. I've tried some of the things that you suggest, but some of the crystals are so delicate they can't be moved, and part of the attraction for me is the natural setting. If fact I have to hold my breath during shooting because they melt/fog if I exhale deeply (and of course my glasses have fogged up at that point also). Having said that I am trying to find a way to get some of our windows into our (unheated) garage to try some studio-type setups for frosted panes while keeping the temp low (not a problem in winter when it is <-20 outside). That would help me to control the light a bit better and try some of your gel ideas. By the way - love the sublimation shots on your website - also good to see you shot the Dukhs on their US tour - a good Winnipeg-based band.

 

Bob - I'm going to follow-up on your microphotography work. I searched this forum for ice/snow shots and didn't find much but will nose around through some of the macro threads for advice (I still think part of my problem is in the post processing).

[sandysocks]

Use your histogram. Expose to the right. You won't blow anything out that is on the 'gram. You need stronger light. More contrast. It is tough to tell whether the detail is in your shots or not because they are so flat. Use sunlight or small flash set-up that approximates what you could do in a studio. A good range of light levels should reveal the details. Expect some weird reflections and out of focus affects, but that is better than what you have.

[mt4x4]

I have several John Shaw books which I picked up not that long ago. Each of them begins with exposure and spot

metering. Shaw goes over the same technique that he talks about in

the article Shun

recommended; in regards to

exposing for white and dark detail.<br><br>

One thing he mentions, that has really helped me, is that you are using your spot meter to expose for

"How you would like it to look in your photograph". So if you want to expose white snow as mid-tone gray, just

use whatever ever your meter tells you, however if you want bright white with some detail, spot meter then open

up from 1 1/2 to 2 stops (or more depending on lighting conditions). For darks, just stop down. The

thing to remember is that your spot meter always wants to meter for a mid-tone, it is up to you to decide how

much lighter or darker than a mid-tone you would like your subject to be.<br><br>

Using this technique has greatly helped me learn to use my spot-meter and shoot in full manual mode for proper

exposures. I used to either use Aperture or Shutter priority with Matrix or Center-Weighted Metering, but now I

feel completely comfortable using Full

Manual/Spot Metering, and could not be happier with the results. With confidence it this area, I feel as if I can

delve into more complex systems, such as the Zone system to properly expose an entire seen. All thanks to the

John Shaw books I picked up.<br><br>

If anyone is interested in reading any of John Shaw's work, I would suggest <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/Shaws-Nature-Photography-Field-Guide/dp/0817440593/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227641092&sr=8-1">John

Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide</a> and <a

href="http://www.amazon.com/John-Shaws-Landscape-Photography-Shaw/dp/081743710X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227641092&sr=8-3">John

Shaw's Landscape Photography</a>.<br><br>

I have found John Shaw's books very easy to understand, and very helpful. The best part is that you can pick them

up used for under $10 each! This is a great investment, because what you will learn from his books is much

more valuable than what you will pay for them.

[scott_ferris]

Colin,

 

Beautiful pictures, it seems to me to be a DOF issue, the best way round that is a tilting lens. Moving the plane of focus

is the easiest way to get dramatic DOF adjustments both narrow and broad.

 

Take care, Scott.

[paul_soohoo2]

An odd recommendation and reference since you have the environment for it:) In particular the book has a section on lighting that may

stimulate your thinking. If nothing else it is a beautiful book and wonderful mixture of art and science

 

The Snowflake (Hardcover)

by Kenneth G. Libbrecht

[duff24]

Many thanks for the helpful comments and advice. Re: John Shaw's work - I own two of his books and have studied them intensively. Somehow I miss putting his advice/ideas into practice, although I will keep trying.

 

Also - The Snowflake - I remember seeing the book when it was first published - beautiful work but it seems that he used very specialised equipment, although I could be wrong on that.

 

One note of clarification - lately I've bracketed my exposures to test whether exp. compensation will make a difference. It seems to me that the image holds a lot more detail when the histogram is in the bottom two thirds, and not as far right as possible.

 

I think the final consensus is that I have to work on my focussing and control of depth of field. At this point I have about six more months of winter to practice this year, and likely for several more years into the future (warming climate notwithstanding).

 

Thanks to all.

[sandysocks]

I don't think that is possible, Colin. There is several times more data captured on the right. You must not be accessing it properly.

[les_barstow]

Colin,

 

I love the pictures, and wish I had that much hoar-frost to play with! There is a bit of a DOF issue on some of the shots, but others still show I think what you mean by a lack of detail...

 

For the DOF, PS CS4, Helicon Focus, TuFuse, EnFuse, and other multi-exposure focus stacking filters are probably your best bet, though unfortunately I have yet to see a camera that understands "focus bracketing". (Major camera manufacturers out there: hint, hint!)

 

If you're capturing "more detail" when exposing down to the left of the histogram, perhaps it's time to play with the levels and/or curves of the image rather than the exposure. As RL Potts notes, there's a lot more data captured in the upper half of the image than in the lower half. Expose to the right, but then bring up the black point in the levels (and/or adjust the midpoint) to increase the contrast. Applying a slight S-curve to the RGB curves at just the right spot can do the same without messing up the non-ice details so much. I don't know Silver Effects Pro, but there are PS plugins that enhance local contrast that might be able to bring out some detail.

 

HDR won't do much for you here, I don't think - the dynamic range isn't too high, it's too low - something each of the above techniques addresses.

 

Otherwise, get some more directional lighting. Early morning light won't generally blow your highlights, but it will create shadows from the intricate crystal boundaries. A remote fill-flash might serve a similar purpose, set off to the side.

[duff24]

<p>Thanks for the very thoughtful comments folks. I learned a couple of years ago when working with the melting ice shots, that I had to underexpose by almost 1 stop to keep the finer details of the ice (at least with the D70). I'm no pro with Photoshop but have tried curves and levels to keep detail but seem to lose detail in the final product - too bad because that is the one thing I want to retain. I've got a lot of RAW files to work with and will try different processing techniques.</p>

<p>I like the idea of the directional lighting and am going to try a few things over the next few days. I have tried off-camera flash on the background and from the side, and it worked sometimes, but I was also fighting specular highlights.</p>

<p>We are in the middle of a cold spell here (-28 C tonight) and I've got lots of windows to start working with.</p>

[jc_dill]

Colin, I'd love to see if you have any new photos using any of the suggestions you received in this thread. :-)