Photo troubles with my D7200 (see attached photo, please)

[johninneb]

Hi all,

I'm an avid photographer...who sadly doesn't know very much at all about photography.  I take pretty good shots, and friends love the Shutterfly books I compile after a trip.

I have a Nikon D7200 body with a nice 18-300 (or so) lens.  I love both the camera and lens, but I know almost nothing about how to manage a lighting situation I encounter every July in Colorado, where friends and I travel to.  We go to a river setting, and the glare off the water and the fact that my subjects are nearly always in the shadows causes the photos turn out way too dark, and I just don't know what setting to put it on. 

For shots in other settings, I set it to "Sports" under Scene for athletic scenarios.  For some shots, I just leave it on fully automatic mode, without a flash.

Two questions:

(1) What setting(s) would you recommend I utilize for this particular setting (that every summer has really awful photos) though photos in nearly any other setting turn out pretty darn good (though they often are somewhat too dark and individually require correction)?

(2) Is there a way to correct photos like the one attached?  I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop because they require more knowledge than I have the capacity to build (given my job, etc.).  I currently use the editor in the Microsoft Photos program.

As mentioned, I don't know much about photography vocabulary (such as F-stops, apertures, etc.), so the more simple you keep an explanation, the more likely I will be to understand.

Thank you VERY much for taking the time to read this, and I would appreciate any insights.

Sincerely,

John

[Sandy Vongries]

Simplest option is to spend a little time with the camera in hand, use the manual and apply the available auto functions.  I have a D7200 and use it mostly for wildlife with long lenses, I would certainly miss it if it failed as it is a solid, reliable performer.

[Ken Katz]

For the attached image, you are shooting a very high contrast scene, and I believe you have 2 choices; (a) add light to your subject, perhaps by  flipping the built in flash up so that the subject gets some additional light, or (b) add light to the entire image, by using exposure compensation.  Option 2 requires some knowledge of how cameras works and the willingness to process the images in some type of photo editor.  I would be happy to elaborate if you wish, but someone will need to translate what I say into Nikon 7200 specific instructions.

For the above image, any late model smartphone would be able to render a reasonably pleasing result without having to know anything about photography.

 

[William Michael]

1 hour ago, johninneb said:

the more simple you keep an explanation, the more likely I will be to understand.

The main issue is the scene has very bright areas and very dark areas and the subject doesn't have a strong light illuminating the front of the face and body.

When the camera is in an Automatic Mode, the camera's Light Meter sets the Exposure and most of the time the outcome is successful, but often when there is a bright area behind the subject and the subject does not have a bright light on their front the camera's automatic light meter gets confused and wanders into an 'averaging' algorithm - exposing so the background which is biright still will have some detail - but alas, that means the front of the subject is very dark.

1 hour ago, johninneb said:

(1) What setting(s) would you recommend I utilize for this particular setting (that every summer has really awful photos) though photos in nearly any other setting turn out pretty darn good (though they often are somewhat too dark and individually require correction)?

In your manual, which Sandy suggests reading, you should find a topic "Exposure Compensation". In simple terms this allows you to increase or decrease the exposure which the camera's light meter automatically decides. Exposure Compensation will work in specific Camera Modes (probably not 'sport') so you will have to do some reading. My best guess for this type of scene would be to have the Exposure Compensation set to +2. (That will increase the exposure by two stops).   

I suggest you try using "Program Mode"  - I think Nikon term this Mode "Programmed Auto" - anyway it will most likely have a "P" as the symbol. The automatic function in this mode for most cameras sets a reasonably fast shutter speed to arrest most subject motion blur and Exposure Compensation will be available to use in P Mode.

1 hour ago, johninneb said:

(2) Is there a way to correct photos like the one attached?  I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop because they require more knowledge than I have the capacity to build (given my job, etc.).  I currently use the editor in the Microsoft Photos program.

Using Microsoft Picture Program you could try increasing the "Midtones" - sample 1:

 

Using "Picasa3' you could try adding "Fill Light" - sample 2:

 

   

[BeBu Lamar]

The image is just fine if you shoot raw. You can in post lighten up the shadow area. The highlight area is good and you have good details there. 

[Sandy Vongries]

RAW, WAR, personally I don't care for either.

[johninneb]

I am so, so grateful for everyone's ideas and input so far.  I'm at work now, but I'm going to take time these next few evenings to follow-up on all your ideas.  What an amazing community for support. Thank you!

(Any further input is sure welcome too!)

[mike_halliwell]

It's 'Best Practice' to get it right in camera, if you can, rather than fix it in post.

Minor tweeks are fine, but big corrections will lower the overall quality. Because it can be done doesn't mean it should be 😉

The other factor to consider is that the camera decides on the exposure parameters by 'looking' at the scene you present it with.

You can help it get it right by specifying where in that scene is important to you.

The 3 main metering settings are Spot, Centre Weighted and Evaluative.

Spot is, as it sounds, a small area, maybe 2% of the whole area; you can move it around the view with the little joystick. Something like a face within a complex background maybe? Pop the spot over it and the camera will becide on that area alone and ignore the rest.

Centre Weighted is like Spot, but bigger, maybe 20% of the view. Again you can move it around. Maybe a shady area under a tree so ignoring the bright background.

(The actual size of the Spot and the Centre Area can be adjusted to taste)

Evaluative is allowing the camera to check the scene against a library of stored images. How it works is a well kept secret. It may recognise a bright top half of the frame and a darker lower half as a typcal landscape and try and balance the exposure midway. Maybe it detects a face and biases it towards that.

It is far easier to understand, and learn from, the consequences of what you change with digital cameras. With film you had to finish the roll and get it processed until you can see if and how, you got it right or messed up!

NB. These notes are something of a simplification, so reading the manual and seeing what works for you is very important. 🙂

[BeBu Lamar]

3 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

It's 'Best Practice' to get it right in camera, if you can, rather than fix it in post.

Minor tweeks are fine, but big corrections will lower the overall quality. Because it can be done doesn't mean it should be 😉

The other factor to consider is that the camera decides on the exposure parameters by 'looking' at the scene you present it with.

You can help it get it right by specifying where in that scene is important to you.

The 3 main metering settings are Spot, Centre Weighted and Evaluative.

Spot is, as it sounds, a small area, maybe 2% of the whole area; you can move it around the view with the little joystick. Something like a face within a complex background maybe? Pop the spot over it and the camera will becide on that area alone and ignore the rest.

Centre Weighted is like Spot, but bigger, maybe 20% of the view. Again you can move it around. Maybe a shady area under a tree so ignoring the bright background.

(The actual size of the Spot and the Centre Area can be adjusted to taste)

Evaluative is allowing the camera to check the scene against a library of stored images. How it works is a well kept secret. It may recognise a bright top half of the frame and a darker lower half as a typcal landscape and try and balance the exposure midway. Maybe it detects a face and biases it towards that.

It is far easier to understand, and learn from, the consequences of what you change with digital cameras. With film you had to finish the roll and get it processed until you can see if and how, you got it right or messed up!

NB. These notes are something of a simplification, so reading the manual and seeing what works for you is very important. 🙂

In the OP example I would not want to increase the exposure to get the shadow right in the camera. Doing so I will lose all the texture in the water which I think quite interesting. 

[mike_halliwell]

33 minutes ago, BeBu Lamar said:

In the OP example I would not want to increase the exposure to get the shadow right in the camera. 

.. and that's the point, it's a picture of a body boarder, the main subject, against a contrasty moving water scene, the secondary subject.

Fill-in flash, aka the Pop-Up would save the shot here!

38 minutes ago, BeBu Lamar said:

Doing so I will lose all the texture in the water which I think quite interesting. 

.. and that's why taking a picture in RAW can save your highlights AND shadows.

[William Michael]

22 hours ago, johninneb said:

I'm an avid photographer...who sadly doesn't know very much at all about photography. 

I have been thinking about this comment overnight . . . seems obvious to me that deep down you desire to know more about Photography, as indicated by you joining Photo.net and publishing your question. 

Although you have asked for simplistic solutions to this one situation, I encourage you to keep that fire in your belly and extend your journey and your learning - Photography is a very rewarding pursuit.

WW   

[William Michael]

No doubt that getting the exposure right in the camera is an high priority and an admirable pursuit; for a Novice there are usually several steps to attaining the skills to achieve exactly that.      

Therefore I think it is important to mention some underlying technical considerations. The OP may choose to follow up, seeking broader understanding of these technical points, if he so desires:

1. that the Camera's Metering Modes are only able to be selected by the user when the Camera is in a few specific Camera Modes - my guess is those Camera Mode will be Manual, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority and Programme. Stated another way, my guess is, that the OP will need to stop using any of the Fully Automatic Camera Modes, to allow the manual selection of the Metering Mode.

2. that the Pop-up-Flash on most DSLR Cameras is relatively a low power Flash Unit: typically having a GN of around 40ft at ISO100. Assuming GN = 40ft/ISO100 and then extrapolating to use the PuF as Flash Fill for a Front Lit Subject in a scene to balance the bright background and assumed the background at EV≈ 15, thus applying F/16 Rule for correct background exposure, and assuming a Shutter Speed of 1/400s we will have F/8 @ 1/400 @ ISO 100 for the ‘correct’ exposure of the background, hence the PuF will have a maximum working distance of about 5 feet.  

3. that the PuF may not be user selective in the Automatic Camera Modes.

The above are some of the reasons why it was suggested that the OP try using Programme Mode, as his first step.

WW

[mike_halliwell]

10 hours ago, William Michael said:

hence the PuF will have a maximum working distance of about 5 feet.  

So, about right for our 'shady' body boarder? 😉

[William Michael]

 

15 hours ago, William Michael said:

hence the PuF will have a maximum working distance of about 5 feet.  

5 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

So, about right for our 'shady' body boarder? 😉

Before I posted those technical details, I interrogated the image: the EXIF was stripped from it, so there was no reasonably accurate method of determining the Shooting Distance.

There is not enough information to answer your question accurately/definitively.

However -

The OP states that he uses a "18-300 (or so) lens".

The photograph appears to neither be too compressed, (as if it were made with a telephoto lens) nor suffering from foreshortening or barrelling (as if it were made with an ultra wide lens).

I understand that the D7200 is DX format (APS-C), so we could guess that the FL used might be between 28mm and 70mm.

Applying that guess, and also assuming that the OP did not crop the image vertically and we could further guess the Subject is about 5'10" and that's about a 3/4 Shot, so the vertical FoV would be about 4', maybe 4'6". (lots of guesses and assumptions not much scientific method, but let's run with it).

A 28mm lens on a DX Camera will give Vertical FoV of 4' ~ 4'6" at a Subject Distance about 7'3" . . . 

An 18mm lens on a DX Camera will give a Vertical FoV of 4' ~ 4'6" at a Subject Distance about 4'9" . . .

So, my best guess is: the PuF would be next to useless as Flash Fill in this situation.

WW

 

[Ken Katz]

Just for fun, lets say the Puf has an effective range of up to 5 feet in an outdoors, fill flash environment.  At 7.5 feet, I would guess that the maximum fill available would be about 1 stop less than full exposure, and at 10 feet, about 2 stops less than full exposure.  Given the amount of underexposure latitude the Nikon (Sony) sensor has, I would expect that using the Puf would provide a material benefit to the file, and the results after lifting the shadows in post processing would result in a more pleasing image than not using the Puf.  After about 10 feet, it would not be worth using.

[William Michael]

24 minutes ago, Ken Katz said:

Just for fun, lets say the Puf has an effective range of up to 5 feet in an outdoors, fill flash environment.  At 7.5 feet, I would guess that the maximum fill available would be about 1 stop less than full exposure, and at 10 feet, about 2 stops less than full exposure.  Given the amount of underexposure latitude the Nikon (Sony) sensor has, I would expect that using the Puf would provide a material benefit to the file, and the results after lifting the shadows in post processing would result in a more pleasing image than not using the Puf.  After about 10 feet, it would not be worth using.

I would reckon the same. (Reference Inverse Square Law for the technical stuff).

I think that "material benefit" would be a bit slim at ten feet, however, the point made about post production overrides material benefit [to the file per se]  

I think the determining factor of whether or not the PuF would have any benefit for the shot the OP posted, is the Focal Length he used.   

I think one take-away for the OP when shooting this type of scene is - try using the flash and keep the Subject reasonably close.

OP Please Note - that the comment "So, my best guess is: the PuF would be next to useless as Flash Fill in this situation." was answering the question posed by mike and referring to the photo that you posted.

WW

 

 

 

 

[mike_halliwell]

Hopefully the OP can provide exposure details.

I still maintain that a Full power fill-flash from the pop up would benefit this shot enough to make it worthwhile.

Even +1EV brightening for the subject would lift him from the shady and contrasty background.

[mike_halliwell]

5 hours ago, William Michael said:

I think the determining factor of whether or not the PuF would have any benefit for the shot the OP posted, is the Focal Length he used. 

Regarding the PuF, it's the actual physical distance to target that will determine efficacy rather than Focal Length per se.

Close range = good,

but long range = pointless.

 

[William Michael]

2 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Regarding the PuF, it's the actual physical distance to target that will determine efficacy rather than Focal Length per se.

Close range = good,

but long range = pointless.

Yes, of course. Good that you clarified that in one concise sentence, for the benefit of the OP.

WW

(The original statement, as quoted, was of course referring to the steps of interrogation of the photograph provided, that would be required to determine the usefulness of the PuF: if the EXIF were attached to the uploaded image, then the FL of the lens would be available, and thus a more accurate analysis could be made).

 

 

[William Michael]

5 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Hopefully the OP can provide exposure details.

Indeed.

Just letting us know how far away he was from the Subject, would be really helpful.

WW

(BTW - good thread - I think this conversation should be really helpful to the New Member)