Trying to expose a scene with a lot of contrast

[lisae]

<p>I'm not sure there is an answer to this, but maybe someone will have a tip. :)</p>

<p>My daughter has been volunteering at the zoo, in the children's zoo area. While she works, I walk around the zoo and take pictures. It's been a good learning experience because the animals are almost always in less than ideal lighting so I've had to think a lot about exposure. I've been using a Nikon D5000 and a Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens (with a lens hood).</p>

<p>Last week, one of the zookeepers who works with the junior volunteers (and has watched me taking pictures every week) asked if I would make a photo CD of some of my pictures in the children's zoo for them to use in reports or newsletters. She also wants to make some prints for them to put in their office. Obviously, I would provide these for free (which is fine).</p>

<p>I have good pictures of most of the animals in the children's zoo, but I'm having trouble getting properly exposed pictures of the goats. And the goats are one of the main areas of the children's zoo. With one exception, the goats are either black or white or black-and-white. We've had a lovely, cloudless autumn so the sun has been very bright every week. The goats have some smaller trees that shade their pen, but the sun comes through in patches. So the light is very patchy - very shaded or very bright. And the goats move in and out of the sunny/shady areas - it's hard to catch them in nice, consistent light. </p>

<p>I usually use spot metering and that works fairly well for the lighter colored goats, but not so well for the darker and black-and-white goats. I guess my main question is, if I take a gray card and set the exposure, will that help get better exposure on the black and the black-and-white goats? </p>

<p>And, is there any setting that will help me get better exposure on goats who move around between shade and bright sunlight? Or is that just hopeless! </p>

<p>(I usually shoot in Manual mode with auto-ISO since the exposure can change quite a bit from one picture to the next. I've found that Aperture priority doesn't always give me a high enough shutter speed. But I still usually have several pictures with something out-of-whack - ISO way too high or over- or under-exposed.)</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>A little flash fill might help, but the real solution (short of setting up with reflectors or off-camera light, or overhear scrims to soften the light) is to be there very early in the morning, or late in the day when the sun isn't hitting things quite so hard.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Welcome to the wonderful world of photography. Black and white subjects are the most annoying, especially when you have both in your shot. Sometimes the dynamic range is so different between the two, you have no choice but to blow out the white or lose the details in the black.</p>

<p>That said, are you shooting in RAW? You might have more detail in the RAW compared to the rendered JPEGs that come out of the camera.</p>

<p>Another thought is to try setting the exposure manually then using the histograms to see where in the scene you are clipping, and adjusting exposure as needed.</p>

<p>Umm...the D5k has RAW and histograms, right?</p>

[SCL]

<p>When I used to shoot pictures for a local zoo at which my wife worked, I found that inside shots either in the cages or exercise areas, and especially in the nursery, really needed a bounce flash. Outside shots were pretty well defined as standard grey card due to the contrast in sunlight. Timing is essential in catching "special moments" even if your lighting is slightly off.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

Step 1 - turn off auto ISO or anything you do will give you unpredictable results. Select 200 will work for a sunny day, 400

or maybe 800 should be good for a cloudy day.

 

Step 2 - put your camera in P mode and shoot some goats.

 

Step 3 - review the image in the SHADE. Is it too light, too dark, or just right. If just right, note the aperture (f number)

and shutter speed. Now go to M mode and enter those same values. Now every photo that you take in this light will be

correctly exposed.

 

If the photos were too dark, make set the aperture to a smaller f number. This will let more light in the lens. Shoot some

more goats to fine tune the exposure.

 

If the photos are too light, set the shutter speed to a higher speed or lower the ISO a bit. Shoot some more goats to fine

tune the exposure.

 

Other considerations.

 

Minimum shutter speed should be 1 / the focal length of the lens or camera shake will ruin your images. If you are

shooting at 200 mm, that's 1/200. If you are using vibration reduction, you can lower the shutter speed by by a stop or

two unless the animals are moving. For running animals you need 1/500 or higher. Goose ISO if such a high shutter

speed creates dark images.

 

The camera's histogram display can help you avoid exposure errors. Any of the colored histograms reach the right side of

the graph, you are overexposing the shot. Increase the shutter speed or decrease the ISO until the histogram is close to

the right edge but not touching it.

 

If the histogram is to the left, your image is too dark and will be noisy.

 

Use High ISO noise reduction for ISO 800 and above on your D5000.

[simon_hickie1]

<p>I think this is one of those situations where matrix metering might work better. Aperture priority mode or programme mode should allow you to concentrate on composition. I'm not a manual shooting fan - I grew up with manual everything film cameras and am happy to get all the help from technology I need in any situation!</p>

[lisae]

<p>Thanks for all the tips. I've tried some of these things, but not all of them. Just to answer a couple of things:</p>

<p>Yes, I do shoot raw. I take pictures of my son's gymnastics team and raw is my friend! I then use the noise reduction in Lightroom 3, but there isn't too much noise even at 3200 if the picture is properly exposed Thanks for the reminder about checking the histogram. I'm starting to remember to do that more often but it's a step I often forget.</p>

<p>Matt (and others who mentioned this), I think you are right about the lighting. There is deep shade and bright sunlight and nothing between the two. I haven't really studied the metadata but it seems like there is so much contrast that I need ISO 800 in one spot and just a few inches away I need ISO 200. The biggest problem I have is that I forget to change the ISO from one place to another. But then the goats move around so much that maybe I just need to try some intermediate number in their pen. I think my best solution is one of those days with a good covering of high cirrus clouds.</p>

<p>Also, Dan, thanks for the tip about shooting in P first. If I understand what you are saying, P mode should help me set an exposure without a gray card? If so, that would make things easier.</p>

<p>Simon, I'll try matrix metering next week and see if it's better. I can't remember if I've tried that.</p>

<p>And, Stephen, I agree about the special moments. One of my daughter's responsibilities is walking the sheep around the barnyard. She and her 3 fellow volunteers have to walk the sheep for about 45 minutes every week because the sheep are, um, a little rotund. It's hilarious to watch and I have some wonderful pictures even though I have a lot of blown-out highlights (because they move back and forth from shade to sunlight as they walk). I've decided to include those when the subjects are in focus and correctly exposed.</p>

<p>I'm going to try to attach a picture so you can see what they look like. The composition is bad but it shows the dynamic range. This was at ISO 200, f/6.3, 1/80 sec. (I know the shutter speed is too slow - I usually need a minimum of 1/200.)</p>

<p>Thanks again. I'm going to write these things down so for next week.</p><div></div>

[paddler4]

<p>The bright and uneven light, coupled with the white and black coloring of the goats, makes this challenging. An overcast day would be your best friend.</p>

<p>With respect to metering: there is no "right" way to meter this. It seems to me that what you need to do is get the white in the goats as light as you can get it without clipping. Whatever technique makes it easier for you to get there is what is best. For what it is worth, in these sorts of situations, I always use a spot meter, because that way I find it easiest to figure out what the meter is reading and what I might want to change. One way you could start (an imitation of the zone system) would be to set the camera in M and meter on the lightest area in which you want detail. The meter will assume that you want this area neutral gray, which you don't in this shot, so open up about 2 stops. Try a shot, and check the histogram. You can adjust from there. Another way to start is to to put a neutral gray card in the same light as the subject, or put your palm in the same light and open up one stop from what it gives you.</p>

<p>I would shoot this in manual mode, because otherwise, the camera is going to change the exposure constantly as you move around.</p>

[danielfultonphoto]

<p>spot metering or reflective metering in general will be inconsistent with black and white subjects, you are really better off with incidental light readings if you are going to use a meter. Or you can use the Ultimate Exposure Computer and verify with the histogram, I wrote a blog post about it here: http://danielfulton.com/?p=297<br>

Until you get the hang of the UEC, your camera's histogram will be your best friend. I will tell you all you need to know about your exposure at a glance once you understand what it is showing you.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Dan gave you some good pointers, but personally I walk away from High Contrast situations, only to come back when the light has settled down down a bit(if possible). If it's not possible to come back to a scene, I throw an ND filter on the lens. I always carry 2 in my bag a 2X and a 4X. Flash is another option, but if you are shooting animals from a distance a flash wont help that much. You can also try using the "Averaging method" that is take a reading of the brightest area, then take a reading of the darkest area in the scene and average both readings. This works fine with film which has a greater latitude but with digital, if the range between both readings is to great then you are bound to lose detail either in the shadows or the highlights. One last thing if you are shooting JPEG tone down the Contrast dial. </p>

[dan_south]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dan, thanks for the tip about shooting in P first. If I understand what you are saying, P mode should help me set an exposure without a gray card? If so, that would make things easier?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>P, A, and S modes will take information from the camera's internal light meter and make a GUESS at what a correct exposure might be. That guess could be very close to correct or it could be way off, but it's a good starting point. You can evaluate the camera's guess and decide whether the photo needs more or less light. When you get the right combination of ISO, f-stop, and shutter speed and you dial all of that information into M mode, your photos will be consistently exposed.</p>

<p>It's not a matter of using a gray card or not. The camera will make a guess with or without it. The gray card guess might be more accurate, but even that's not certain. Hence, the fine tuning procedure.</p>

<p>I think you might get much better results if you shoot in low contrast light. Go to the zoo on an overcast day. You won't have the deep shadows and bright hot spots that I see in your sample photo. Photos dappled with patches of light and patches of shade suffer from the lack of a smooth, even tone. All of the exposure tips that I have mentioned will also work on an overcast day.</p>

[lisae]

<p>Thank you, Dan, Dan, Dan and Harry. I actually understand the things you've posted. So I've learned a lot over the past year! Good for me! </p>

<p>I'm going to try out some of these things over the weekend with my border collie. It's going to continue to be sunny and he's black and white, so I just need to recreate the setting. But I'm really hoping for a cloudy day in the next couple of weeks. (We're in Texas - that may or may not happen.) I've been by the goat pen at different times over the course of the afternoon, hoping for better lighting, but it doesn't change much, even later in the afternoon. </p>

<p>Even if I don't succeed at getting the pictures I want, I've learned a lot and that was my original goal. </p>

<p>Thanks, again! Your advice is much appreciated.</p>

<p> </p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hiya!<br>

I spend a fair bit of time shooting in zoos and wildlife park as well; good practice before going on a real trip out with wild critters. Here's my thoughts:<br>

<strong>but the sun comes through in patches. </strong><br>

This really depends on the intensity of the light; by what you are describing I'd imagine spots of highlights on the goats and the rest of the areas more towards the shadow regions. I usually just take shots like these for reference, else it is very difficult to grade. Also, I hope you are shooting raw, and have a good converter. There is a lot of shadow detail.</p>

<p>If the goats are moving, then the challenge is to get them whilst they are fully in shadow or light. Just wait, the moment will come!</p>

<p>Re: Spot metering. Hmm should not be a problem with white critters; meter the brightest highlights, then add 1.7, maybe 2.0 exposure comp. May work easier in manual mode. Black critters pose a difficult problem for me as well :( Usually what I do is again meter for the brightest highlight I do not want to blow out, and let the black falls where it does. This assumes the amount of light is not so overwhelming that the black critters become a black splotch when metering for the highlights; else to get the detail of the black goats, spot meter the the goats, forcing them to midtones - at the expense of the background/highlights.</p>

<p>That will pull out alot of detail, and I have read one of my favourite graphite artist similarly overexposes on black dogs to get detail for his drawings.</p>

<p>I've not tried a grey card for this, but usually the Matrix meter works quite well in such circumstances, however it also depends on which camera body you use. My D300's matrix tends to run a little "hot" out of the box, but with exposure compensation (check the histograms!) It is quite good! Again, I shoot raw and I get a lot of shadow detail, and minor overexposure can be recovered.</p>

<p>Re: AutoISO - it's nice for walking around the streets for snapshoot, however I usually stick with aperture priority. That way, I can control my dof, but manually increase my ISO to get the shutter speed I need. Exposure comp of course to get the proper exposure. You might also want to use your flash with some negative flash exposure comp. If you check my gallery nearly all the zoo shots have been taken with flash. It lifts the shadows, puts a catch light in the eye. Downside, if it's over done there is a slight flattening effect.</p>

<p>Experiment! Its fun!</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[lisae]

<p>Alvin: Thank you for taking the time to share your experiences. I'm eager to get out and try some of these things. Also, I glanced at your gallery. I loved viewing your wildlife pictures and so will my daughter. Thanks!</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>If you're able to co in the pen, or work with a staff member who can, consider a light screen of some sort, that will allow the light to pass through, but will soften it. Your "assistant" can hold the screen up and out of the frame, giving you even lighting for your shot.</p>

[jon_robert]

<p>First and most importantly stop shooting in manual. The camera engineers have spent a bazillion hours and a bazillion dollars perfecting auto mode and you are not going to trump that. Put everything in auto or in shutter speed priority.<br /> "(I usually shoot in Manual mode with auto-ISO since the exposure can change quite a bit from one picture to the next. I've found that Aperture priority doesn't always give me a high enough shutter speed. But I still usually have several pictures with something out-of-whack - ISO way too high or over- or under-exposed.)"</p>

<p>Secondly install a polarizer. It will tone down the entire image and get rid of bright wash outs. Bonus is if the light is polarized you will get brilliant colors. So spin it to find out if you can also take advantage of that.</p>

<p>Finally do a color cast removal with software to restore the shade imputed colored white goats back to white.</p>

[lisae]

<p>Jay, are you referring to something like the Photoflex LitePanels? I saw one of those the other day and thought it might be useful for taking pictures of my children outdoors. I can already access the goat pen and the zookeeper told me to let her know if I needed access to anything. So I think I could take my son as an assistant. I'm going to consider that because I think I could use the Litepanel for other things.</p>

<p>Jon, I'm confused about something you said, "do a color cast removal with software to restore the shade imputed colored white goats back to white". Are you referring to the picture I posted above? If so, I didn't do anything with that picture but convert it to jpg so that I could post it here as an example of the lighting. </p>

[jon_robert]

<p>Jon, I'm confused about something you said, "do a color cast removal with software to restore the shade imputed colored white goats back to white". Are you referring to the picture I posted above? If so, I didn't do anything with that picture but convert it to jpg so that I could post it here as an example of the lighting.<br /> and<br /> very shaded or very bright. And the goats move in and out of the sunny/shady areas - it's hard to catch them in nice, consistent light.</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>No not the posted photo<br /> To help get a more consistent batch of goat photos do the color cast correction. Also a a shadow lightening can help with consistency if the same goat has patches of shade and sun at the same time.<br /> It is like when I do weddings. The bride is in the sun and then in the shade and then under florescent lights, incandescent lights etc The photos viewed side by side shows a white dress, a bluish dress, a orangeish dress etc. I do a color cast correction to regain consistency concerning the white dress. Then when viewed side by side they all look white.</p>

[jon_robert]

<p>ps<br>

Perhaps in view of your posted goat photo the lightening of shadows using software would give the best consistency of the batch of photos. I am assuming that is what you are after. If what you are after is perfect lighting before taking the photo - it ain't gonna happen. These are the best options given the fact that you have what lighting there is.</p>

[lisae]

<p>Ah, now I understand. That makes sense. I had about 10 minutes to work with my border collie today and was able to get a slightly better exposure but I don't think there is a good solution. As I said in my first post, maybe there isn't an answer! I appreciate all the suggestions. Even though they may not provide a complete solution, I've learned a lot and that will improve the pictures.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>The camera engineers have spent a bazillion hours and a bazillion dollars perfecting auto mode and you are not going to trump that. Put everything in auto or in shutter speed priority.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Auto-exposure modes are far from perfect as anyone who has taken a photograph of snow can attest. Usually they get you in the right ballpark, but the ratio of perfect exposures is rather low, definitely well under fifty percent. If auto exposure were that perfect we wouldn't need histograms, blinking highlights displays, or multiple metering patterns.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Secondly install a polarizer. It will tone down the entire image and get rid of bright wash outs. Bonus is if the light is polarized you will get brilliant colors. So spin it to find out if you can also take advantage of that.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A polarizer would have had no effect at all on the goat photo except to slow the shutter speed by two stops. Slow shutter speeds are undesirable for animal photos, even when those animals are kept in a pen.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Finally do a color cast removal with <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00XZZZ?start=10" target="_blank">software</a> to restore the shade imputed colored white goats back to white.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My monitor is calibrated and I don't see any color cast on her original photo. It might be ever so slightly blue but not to an undesirable degree.</p>

<p>Lisa, the goat photo is not a bad composition. Not at all. Plus, I would consider it to be properly exposed. The whites are white and there's still detail in the dark areas.</p>

 

[lisae]

<p>Thank you, Dan. My monitor isn't calibrated but I see a very slight blue cast. But most people wouldn't notice it. I have pictures with stronger compositions - this one doesn't say what I wanted it to. I think I need to get a little lower and include more of their bodies. But I think I originally took it because I wanted to look more closely at the light when I got home. Anyway, I'm eager to get back to the zoo on Wednesday and try again! </p>

[jon_robert]

<p>"A polarizer would have had no effect at all on the goat <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00XZZZ?start=20" target="_blank">photo</a> except to slow the shutter speed by two stops. Slow shutter speeds are undesirable for animal photos, even when those animals are kept in a pen."</p>

<p>=====</p>

<p>Polarizers have the same effect as a neutral density filter and therefore has a definate effect on the highlights of a goat photo.</p>

<p>In fact 2 polarizers CAN produce a -- variable -- neutral density filter.</p>

<p>"Take two polarizing filters — one, a really nice, really expensive filter that also happens to be a “Circular Polarizing Filter” ... and stick that on your camera. Next, find a really cheap “Linear Polarizing Filter” at some camera store (you should be able to find dozens of these at any shop that sells used gear), and place this second filter ... on top of the first.</p>

<p>Now look through your camera…<br /> Now spin that top filter around…<br /> Amazing! You’ve just created a nuetral density filter which can vary the amount of light that it lets through..."</p>

 

 

<br />Read more: <a href="http://www.digital-photography-school.com/create-your-own-variable-neutral-density-filter#ixzz13xnHRPV6">http://www.digital-photography-school.com/create-your-own-variable-neutral-density-filter#ixzz13xnHRPV6</a>

 

<p><br />http://www.digital-photography-school.com/create-your-own-variable-neutral-density-filter</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>

 

<p>Jon, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the efficacy of a polarizer/neutral density filter in this type of lit scene here. One thing you don't want to do shooting digital is choke/squelch the supply of light with a filter.</p>

<p>Digital sensors record light differently than film. For instance you can have a ton of light on a mid gray overall scene (some blacks but no spectrals), set exposure to retain that tonality, move the camera toward anything brighter (the light on top of the white goat's head) adjust exposure again to prevent blow outs and all of a sudden that mid gray and every tonal region below it almost goes to black with a bunch of noise to go with it.</p>

<p>This is the nature of electronics. There's only so much dynamic range/levels of light a sensor can contend with until you overload it with too much extremes in light and dark to where the predictability of gradualness of the image becoming lighter with each exposure adjustment becomes erratic much like maxing out an amp on a stereo or rheostat switch on a 25 watt tiny light bulb. It just becomes hard to gauge exposure without loosing image data. The LCD and histogram represents incamera rendering and that's all anyone can go by shooting Raw.</p>

<p>Lisa just needs to under expose a bit or expose for the highlights while adjusting the fill flash so the histogram shows the blacks with a reasonable triangle shaped peak (maybe quite narrow) that doesn't bunch up too much to the right. I've shot this way and can pull so much noiseless detail out of the black regions while retaining what would've been blown out highlights without the fill flash.</p>

<p>Scroll to the bottom of this thread to see a shot lit similarly (only worse) to Lisa's goat scene:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00XY0f</p>

 

</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Below is an unedited Raw capture shot with a ton of light but having a black object and a white object both having plenty of detail in a natural setting shot without fill flash. I exposed for the white of the dove since that was the main subject. It was shot using a 1984 manual focus 28-135 Vivitar lens at 135mm.</p>

<p>The bottom image is an ACR preview at 400% zoom showing the light portion of the dove, supposedly mid gray shadow cast by the dove and the black feathered duck to the left. I lightened it in Photoshop to reveal the amount of noise and lack of detail in the shaded grass and the black feathers. Given the amount of light available you'ld think there'ld be a lot more detail in the darker regions. There's no way I'ld want to place a filter on the lens forcing a slower shutter speed shooting skittish birds.</p><div></div>