How did I blow the highlights?

[brian_bahn]

<p>Second time out with the D300 so I obviously have a way to go with learning it. Here is a shot from a wrestling tourney in a gym with old fluorescent lighting plus some "skylights" that were more liek white plastic.<br>

Anyhow, I left WB on Auto because I didn't have much time to mess with learnign to set a custom WB..I do now after the fact. Was in Aperture mode set to f1.8 at first but then f2.0 after the first few shots because I was afraid DOF would just be too thin...and it was. Even at 2.0 a lot of shots were soft(some may be due to me learning D300's AF). ISO 1600 and I was gettign shutter usually 320 or 400.<br>

My question is on a fair amount of shots it seems the highlights are blown...now I still have a lot to learn photography wise but it seems to me indoors and with a shutter of 320 or 400 I really shouldn't have blown the highlights. Does that seem right?<br>

Thoughts?</p><div></div>

[veeee]

<p>I think your ISO was too high (1600??), or reduce your Aperture or increase your shutter, other than that, your shot was ok, If your shooting in RAW, there should be no problem bringing back some of your highlights.</p>

[bms]

<p>First: nice shot!</p>

<p>Second: not sure that there are a ton of really blown hightlights in this shot. The skin obviously is very bright and probably blown out, but here at work here I have no way of checking. However, it does not have to do so much with the ISO, but with the metering - how did you set it? Spot, center weighted, Matrix? If you used Matrix metering, the darker background and dark floor may throw the meter off. I assume your light did not change - you can spot meter off the skin or clothing of the wrestlers (taking into account that the skin should be above middle gray) and then set your camera to manual with these settings. Or, if you consistently overexpose in a certain setting, you may want to dial in some exposure compensation. Also, check your histogram, it will show you if your highlights are blown (your probably knew that). The beauty of digital - instant feedback! I would shoot in RAW vs JPG, often you can salvage some of these highlights in post processing.</p>

<p>Just some thougts. Hope that helps.</p>

 

[brian_bahn]

<p>Veej,<br>

I had to be at ISO 1600 to get a shutter speed to freeze the action.</p>

<p>Benjamin,<br>

Thanks. I had it set on matrix metering so you could be right, maybe the black mat and darker background could have done it. Good point. Another technique I need to get proficient at is the metering for specific situations. This was my firend's son and as I was settign the camera up his match came up early becasue the one before him forfeited and BAM he was on the mat so I didn't have time to check the histogram once he started. Then his second match I took a few sample shots and it seemed ok, maybe because the metering wasn't as "fooled"<br>

I was shooting RAW and JPEG so once I get them into PP I can probably save them.</p>

<p>Here is one that was good. As you can see the door in the back is bringing in light so you're probably right I should have metered more specifically.</p><div></div>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Both shots seem pretty good to me. I agree that any blown highlights I see are minute and don't take away from the image. When using Aperture Priority, to affect the exposure you will need to either dial in some sort of exposure compensation or use a different metering method, sometimes both. Simply having a fast shutter and a wide aperture isn't a recipe for not blowing out the highlights. And while in Aperture Priority, dialing in a smaller aperture will just give you a slower shutter. One affects the other based on the camera metering. </p>

[beac]

<p>They look pretty darn good to me. I agree, however, that the black floor mat could influance the meter to over expose slightly so next time set Exposure Compensation to under expose by -.7 or maybe even -1.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>All the darks in the picture cause a reflected meter to think there is not much light. Set up your exposure befor the match and then turn the camera to manual. All the exposures will be correct unless they dim the lights.</p>

<p>Auto anything rarely works perfectly under all conditions.</p>

<p>I would have put a spot meter on the grey matt and made a test exposure. Then gone to manual or would more likely have started on manual. Use the histogram and IMAGE REVIEW.</p>

<p>Nice pics by the way. </p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<ol>

<li>Use Matrix metering. In some situations and you have to use your judgement here, work with the exposure bias settings on the camera. Make mistakes and learn from them.</li>

<li>Shoot raw and if you are processing with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw 4.x or 5.x work with the recovery slider to bring back the highlights. Hold down the alt/control key as you do this so you can see exactly what areas you are affecting. </li>

<li>Experiment with the D300's Active D-lighting settings. It is designed for situations like this. </li>

</ol> <ol> </ol>

[john tonai]

<p>In the first shot, the red channel that is around 7 pts hot, and the green is just a point or two. In ACR (CS3 or 4) you can use the recovery/exposure sliders to bring these channels back. (Remember, this is an approximation, the best thing to do is expose correctly (in this case 1/3rd stop less light).</p>

<p>On the second shot, the highlights on the skin are right on.<br>

You might want to lighten the shadow areas a little so that the ratio between the shadow areas and the highlight areas on the wrestlers isn't so strong. This lower ratio will make the highlight look less bright.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[dbcooper]

<p>What Ellis said, plus you could also try what some others have suggested and use exposure compansation. After reviewing a couple of shots by checking the image on the rear LCD and zooming in to get a better look at the wrestlers, adjust the exposure compensation accordingly, and check again until it's good. Looks like either -1/3, -1/2, or -2/3 EV will probably do it.</p>

[brian_bahn]

<p>Thanks for all the tips. I should have used the Ev compensation...Like I said the first match I was just about ready and then he was on and I started shooting. Then between his matches I was reviewing the pics and didn't realize they had the bright areas on the skin so much...not that they're bad, but some were good and some weren't that was what was bothering me.<br>

Some of the first shots I took I could tell right away they were blown so I dropped from 1.8 to 2.0 and they looked good on the LCD and even the histogram didn't look clipped but I was looking fairly quickly. On the second match I didn't even think of droppng the Ev by 1/3 or so.....was just excited to be shooting with my new toy....and wrestling at that!! LOL<br>

Thanks.</p>

[SCL]

<p>As others indicated, your metering technique needs a little refinement. I believe you can check your photos to have blown highlights blink at you on your lcd...so you take a prelim shot, check it out, make adjustments, then shoot away.</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>Brian, I also shoot a lot of youth wrestling and have been grapping (bad pun intended) with a lot of the same issues. I dont know about the venues where you photograph, but at the meets I go to they often stich several mats together as there are usually 10 mats going simultaneously. I dont know if it's an issue in your case, but often many of the mats are different colors, and there can often be variations in the light intensity on different mats. I tend to shoot in manual mode to get the shutter speed that I want (I'm almost alway shooting f/2.8 or wider), using auto ISO to help handle the exposure. For the most part, I'm pretty happy with the way my shots turn out, but leave little doubt that this centers on shooting RAW where I have the most room for PP adjustments that are often needed (I'm running around from mat to mat trying to get pictures of as many of our club's wrestlers as I can). Keep up the good work!</p>

<p> </p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Brian, I think that you are doing great. Nice work for your second time out. Also, great advice from everyone above. Get used to checking the luminance histogram in your display. Also the D300 has some features in the playback menu that can be helpful. You might want to try them out just to see what suits your taste and how much information you want to see in playback. In the playback menu scroll down to display mode, scroll over to the right and you'll get 4 choices. The first two are under basic photo info and are labeled "highlights" and "focus point". If you turn on the highlights box, your LCD will light up the blown highlights in the review screen as black and the underexposed areas as red. You can also set it to show your focus point. Next you will see..."Detailed photo info". You can turn on the box to show a RGB histogram which will compliment your luminance histogram. And you can also turn on the data box to give you more detailed EXIF data. Remember that you need to return to the "done" line at the top of the menu and press OK to turn on these settings. Personally, I only use the luminance histogram as a guide to exposure. But, everyone finds what they like the best. If you shoot in RAW you'll have a much better chance to correct any blown highlights in post processing. But, there is a limit to what the photosites in the sensor can do, and if they are "full" of high end photons, you may not be able to recover your highlights.</p>

[peter]

<p>This happens a <em>lot</em> with digital. It happens to me all the time. I am frequently getting clipped skin tones. Or was.... Were you shooting RAW or JPG? You may find that you have better luck with the former.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of ideas though.</p>

<p>Just now I was reading an article at Ken Rockwell's site. He points out that JPGs are 8 bit files and have only 256 shades of tone from pure black (0) to pure white (255.) When you get a lot of white pixels (indicated on the histogram by a peak bunched up at the right hand side of the histogram) a lot of pixels have been given a value of 255 but "should" have had a higher tonal value (if that makes sense) but could not as the system only allows 256 shades. Hence they are "clipped" to a value of 255.</p>

<p>(This is my rough laypersons interpretation of what was said but I think its basically right.)</p>

<p>The common prescription is to " shoot to the right" of the hostogram or in other words to under expose your image by a jot (which might be half or one stop or even more depending on shooting conditions) to reduce clipping at this end of the scale. (This is the opposite to shooting film where you shoot to try to try not to under expose shadows and hence to retain image information at the dark end.) This digital technique then you allows you to correct (brighten) the overly dark image using the curves tool in post processing. However, this does mean that your image on the LCD on the camera will look under exposed - but the main thing is that you get a good end result!</p>

<p>Alternatively you may find relief by shooting RAW. A RAW file potentially has, as I understand it, something like 4000 (or is it 6000?) shades as opposed to a JPGs measly 256. That means there is a lot of information "hidden" in the image that a JPG just does not capture. If after downloading, you use a RAW editor before converting to a JPG you should be able to recover some or all of the clipped image. Same in principle for under exposed images but at the other end of the histogram. Most RAW editors allow you to undertake basic image manipulation like contrast adjustment before undertaking the conversion. Your converted JPG image should then be devoid of this clipping and you will be free to use whatever JPG editor you shoose to perform final manipulations.</p>

<p>So your problem is not with the camera or with the ISO value you used. Its inherent with digital imaging. Any image that has high contrast runs this risk.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Peter, forget JPEG. Use it for web posting or e-mail, and, Brian, unless you require a fast frame rate for your photos, set your camera to 14-bit RAW, uncompressed. This will give you the maximum amount of data that your D300 sensor can deliver to your computer for processing your images. This gives you the most options for adjustment in post processing, but it is not a substitute for getting the exposure "right" in the camera. Your goal, as Brian is trying to accomplish, is to get a perfect or close to perfect exposure in the camera. The really cool thing about digital is that you can be slightly off and correct it in post processing. This stuff is fascinating to learn and even gets better the more you do it:-)<br>

Dick</p>

[galileo42]

<p>Maybe what we have here is more a matter on insufficient dymanic range. Compensate -0.7 or -1 would have saved the highlighs but would also have underexposed the lows, which look perfect. Also, next time, don't forget that Exp. Comp. and Matrix metering are not recommended together. Use CW.</p>

<p>My $0.02. YMMV.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Peter and Brian, concerning JPEG vs. NEF(RAW) for the D300. A large fine JPEG file contains 5.8 MB of data. A 14-bit uncompressed NEF(RAW) file contains 25.3 MB of data. So, you can see from this very basic comparison, that the RAW file has about 5 times more data. However, if you are serious about learning how this works, I strongly recommend that you begin by purchasing and reading Thom Hogan's Complete Guide to the Nikon D300 which you can get directly from here...<br>

<a href="http://bythom.com/nikond300guide.htm">http://bythom.com/nikond300guide.htm</a><br>

Thom has a very lucid and comprehensive explanation of this and all of the features of the D300. It is well worth it!<br>

Dick</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Michel..."Maybe what we have here is more a matter on insufficient dynamic range." Well, we have a wide scene dynamic range here(a broad difference between light and dark). But, the dynamic range of the camera is fixed and cannot be altered by adjusting the exposure compensation. The D300 has about 8 stops of dynamic range...dark to light. If you blow the highlights(over-saturate the photosites), that's it...you can't get them back. So, the situation as presented is a broad scene dynamic range. Brian's goal should be to not blow out the highlights. This can be accomplished in several ways. Using exposure compensation is one option.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Sometimes it just takes practice getting it right. Taking lots of photos. If your still new to your camera and your afraid you are blowing shots, don't forget these cameras have come a long way and the auto modes usually can get the settings right. (I know no skill, but you can practice on those shots that are not as important) You can still tweak those shots in post production.</p><div></div>

[max cooper]

<p><em>"Also, next time, don't forget that Exp. Comp. and Matrix metering are not recommended together. Use CW."</em></p>

<p>Really? I use them together all the time on a D200. Why is this bad?</p>

 

[bernardwest]

<blockquote>Just now I was reading an article at Ken Rockwell's site. He points out that JPGs are 8 bit files and have only 256 shades of tone from pure black (0) to pure white (255.) When you get a lot of white pixels (indicated on the histogram by a peak bunched up at the right hand side of the histogram) a lot of pixels have been given a value of 255 but "should" have had a higher tonal value (if that makes sense) but could not as the system only allows 256 shades. Hence they are "clipped" to a value of 255.</blockquote><p>

 

Peter, this isn't correct. The file type has nothing to do with the dynamic range of the captured data. Think of two ladders. Both start at the ground and go to the same height. The 'jpg' ladder has only 255 rungs, and the 'raw' ladder has 16384 rungs. Both cover the same height (dynamic range) but the 'raw' ladder has a finer stepping scale (tonality).

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The point surely is that any digital camera's metering should favour the highlights, and let the shadows go hang. Blown highlights cannot be recovered, but shadows can be lifted in PS or some other post-processing.<br>

 

<p>Now from the amount of complaints that are building up with regard to D300 and D700 overexposure problems, Nikon just don't seem to have got this basic fundamental thing right.

<p>

<p>If we were back in the bad old days of average or centre-weighted metering, then this might be understandable and excusable, but we're supposed to have the benefit of 1005 element matrix metering these days. So this sort of poor exposure performance, in what appear to be pretty average lighting conditions, just isn't really acceptable.

<p>

<p>Take a cheap compact or bridge camera to the same subject and you'll probably get better exposures. Take a Canon DSLR for comparison and you'll definitely get better exposures.

<p>

<p>Come on Nikon, if Canon could get it right in their old Eos 5D, then your metering ought to be a darn sight better than it is today.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Mark, you are very correct, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting the D300 on "P" and auto white balance and let the camera do it's thing. I just have a feeling from Brian's posting that he bought a D300 for more than setting it on "P". In fact, you might as well buy a nice high end P&S if that is your goal. I think Brian's goal is to use and understand everything that his D300 has to offer. And, that is the challenge and the fun! It's a real pleasure to get it right!<br>

Dick</p>

[bms]

<p>Bernie,</p>

<p>nice example with the ladder - but it is true while dynamic range is the same on JPEG and RAW, you lose a lot of shadow detail, e.g in between rung 1 and 2 on the JPEG ladder there are 64 RAW rungs you can stetch..... I rarely have true black in my RAW files, while I have blowsn highights quite often, and shadow recovery usually works pretty nicely... to a point, of course. So the "effective"/"usable" dyanmic range, if there is such a thing, is better with RAW.</p>