Detail lost when photographing brightly-colored subjects.

[gen_b.]

<p>I've found that whenever I photograph an extremely brightly-colored subject (neon red/orange/magenta/periwinkle/etc.) that it never comes out as vividly as my eyes can see. Upon zooming in on the photos, either on the LCD or on the computer, I realize that the subject never retains its detail. It's almost like the color is blown-out, much as a white highlight would be.<br /> <br /> I've tried photographing the same plant with every white balance option available, at different times of the day, using different metering options, and shooting at different distances, etc., but the same thing continues to happen.<br /> <br /> What could be the issue, and how can I remedy this? If it helps, I shoot with a Nikon D50 and Nikkor 50mm/f1.8 lens.</p>

[tonysvision]

<p>I know the effect you mean, Gen. It sounds like overexposure - the brighter tones are overwhelming the sensor and "blowing out" the highlights. You can use the Exposure Compensation button to reduce the exposure. It is located directly behind and right of the shutter button on the top of the camera. Pressing the button while turning th command dial will adjust the exposure either + or - in 1/3 stop increments. On my Nikon I usually keep it set at at -0.7 - that's minus 2/3 of a stop. I know you said you have tried different metering options, but you didn't mention decreasing the exposure like this - hope this helps.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Even if your luminance histogram looks OK, you may have blown the red channel. Some newer models have separate R/G/B histograms as well as the luminance histogram. Best is to be a little conservative with metering and shoot RAW--this way you may be able to recover some of the blown highlights and carefully adjust saturation to taste. If shooting in-camera JPEGs, err on the side of caution for saturation. It's easier & more effective to add saturation during post-processing than it is to remove it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>It's almost like the color is blown-out, much as a white highlight would be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and for a good reason, they almost certainly are. Same problem with any subject with very long tonal range. If you expose for the highlights, then everything else is black, expose for the shadow and the highlights are blown.</p>

<p>Try a little underexposure in compensation, first off. In extreme cases, the only answer may be some form of HDR (which search for). Also try shooting RAW and peeling off different exposures and combining. It's not true HDR, but it sometime works.</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >The problem is, photography, be it film or digital, has never risen to high fidelity levels. Our films and our digital sensors respond differently than the human eye. I know you are skeptical, this old man knows nothing! However consider that if we could reproduce nature with fidelity you would reach for sunglasses when gazing at a well done image of a sunlit vista. Maybe the black tire in shadow reads 1 standard candle and the gleaming chrome reads 2000. The best we can do on slide or negative or digital is capture a range of maybe 8 f/stops. Since each f/stop range is a 2x change in light level the 8 stop range = 2⁸ = 256 or stated another way 256:1. Now that range is compressed to 7 stops when we display on a monitor and 6 stops when we print on glossy paper. On the monitor that’s 128:1 and on paper that’s 64:1. A far cry from the original 2000:1. Stick around another 15 years and maybe you will see high fidelity. Meanwhile it’s pretty good!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Florescent colors get that way by the addition of brighteners that shine bright under UV light. Sunlight contains lots of UV. It is sad that our films and chips respond and record differently than the human eye/brain combination. Then there are the conditions of presentation. How viewed, CRT, LCD, micro mirror, print using dye, print using pigment, each method has limitations. The most difficult task facing the photographer is to photograph an artist’s work for recording purposes. Your reproduction will never match the original; we are not yet able to reproduce with fidelity.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Tony's advice is what works for me. Perhaps Alan is right about certain colors reflecting more UV. In any case, bright magenta burns out before other colors do for my Nikon. If you use your LCD screen to review a picture before shooting, you will see this happening. Look for bright washed out areas that should be magenta. Washed out detail cannot be restored later. WYSIWYG - it's just gone!</p>

<p>Pull back (step down) exposure using the EV control. You may have to go a full stop. Experiment with this. Every shot might be a little different. Restore brightness and make other adjustments as needed in post-processing.</p>

<p>The picture below shows you what magenta burn out looks like. It seems to be simply overexposure, but everything else looks fine.</p><div></div>

[charlesheckel]

<p>The advice about chroma blowout above is correct. Look at your image in PS and you'll note the Info window shows values of R, G, <strong>or</strong> B at 255. When it's R, G, <strong>and</strong> B at 255, that's the regular blown white highlight. Likewise, the Channels palette will show loss of detail in one channel or another, if not in all of them.<br>

Remedies? First, shoot RAW. Second, chimp the sensitometric curve and make sure your color values aren't clipped to the right--shoot again with less exposure, even at the risk of blocked shadows, if they are. Third, shoot under even lighting, in shade or on an overcast day, to keep the dynamic range within the limits of your sensor. Fourth, bracket and put your exposures together with HDR (may I not be creating a monster . . .).<br>

You should have exposures that can be post-processed to yield all the saturation and vibrancy afforded by your monitor or your color printer, while still retaining full color detail. They won't come close to the real thing, which is possibly a reason to throw away our cameras and cultivate our gardens. Painters who do flowers have the same problem, and they solve it with tricks of the eye, such as contrasts using complimentary colors.</p>

[tonysvision]

<p>It turns out that the July 3, 2009, newsletter over at the Imaging Resource site has an article on the problem of blown-out colors in flowers: www.imaging-resource.com/IRNEWS/</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>This may sound like a commercial for a Sigma DP-2 with a Foveon sensor. If you take a picture of a "perfectly red" rose, your 24 MP D3X just became a 6 MP D40. This is because for every 4 pixels there is only one red pixel (fact of life for a Bayer pattern sensor). The more you over expose it, the less perfect that roses has to be for that to happen. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Gen B,</p>

<p>Could you please post a photo that exhibits this problem? I might be able to offer a solution if I can see an example.</p>

<p>Yes, you can bracket exposures using the exposure compensation controls or by putting your camera in manual mode, but this is essentially guesswork. Your camera's meter "guesses" the correct exposure. It doesn't do it correctly. And then you bracket around this "guess" hoping to hit upon the right combination. Instead of guessing it helps to know what's happening and how to compensate for it.</p>

<p>I'll use the example of the magenta flower posted above, since we can all see it. I'm assuming that this image was metered with Nikon's Matrix metering pattern. Here's why.</p>

<p>Notice the dark shadows in between the leaves. For this images, those shadows are not important. All we really want to see is detail in the flower. However, the camera's matrix meter doesn't know to ignore these shadows. It assumes that there's some detail in there that you want to see. So it exposes the photo bright enough to capture at least a little bit of detail in the shadows. In order to do this, it has to overexpose the flower. The meter makes a trade off, it just makes the wrong choice as to what to keep and what to discard.</p>

<p>In cases like this, it's best to meter the light that's falling on the scene. There are two effective ways to do this, but one is a lot less expensive than the other.</p>

<p>(1 - inexpensive) Take a gray card reading. A gray card is exactly what it sounds like, a stiff card with a neutral gray color on one side. The shade of gray matches the intensity of light that your camera's meter is looking for. Hold the gray card just above the flower and meter it with your camera's SPOT meter (not the matrix meter). This will give you the correct exposure for the image. Now put your camera into Manual Exposure Mode, dial in the exposure values indicated when metering the gray card, and shoot. The image should be properly exposed, but you can still bracket to be sure.</p>

<p>(2 - expensive) Meter the scene with a handheld incident meter. This is the kind of meter with the little white plastic half-globe that points toward the camera.</p>

<p>Gray cards and incident meters work very well for floral photos, because they don't let the meter get confused by the light and dark patterns that lurk between the leaves and flower petals.</p>