arlingtonbeech

Seeing the brighter background and light colored clothing worn by the subject (in the OP's image), I would have added some exposure to help maintain detail in the subject's face knowing that I would inevitably need to lift the shadows in post processing. With mirrorless I would have added exposure until I saw the highlight clipping indications in my EVF and then backed off the EV comp dial. Same could be done with a DSLR with a test image. In this case, I would expect that any modern FF sensor would have enough DR to manage that image without blowing out the highlights. It would been fine even using my M43 camera with its much smaller Sony sensor.

Ken Katz - thanks for your input. I agree that the subject required more light. Im also sure that the IDX M2 would have been able to handle the dynamic range required. THanks again

For backlighting normally you would have to blow out the highlight otherwise you underexpose the shadow.

Thanks for your comment BeBu Lamar

It would be helpful if you showed us the histogram.

 

The suggestions to spot meter off the face to better expose the face make sense, except: (1) if the histogram spans the entire range, increasing exposure in that matter will cause some areas to blow out, and (2) regardless of #1, the imbalance--much brigher lighting behind the face than on it--will be unchanged. that is, the entire shot will be brighter.

 

So, what I would do is one of these:

(1) if there is room on the histogram, increase exposure (spot metering on the face would just be one way to do that), and then burn the background in post to darken it.

(2) if there isn't room on the histogram to increase exposure, use the exposure you have, brighten the face by dodging, and darken the background.

 

 

 

Unless you are blowing out the highlights, no. The problem comes from underexpositing the face.

Paddle

It would be helpful if you showed us the histogram.

 

The suggestions to spot meter off the face to better expose the face make sense, except: (1) if the histogram spans the entire range, increasing exposure in that matter will cause some areas to blow out, and (2) regardless of #1, the imbalance--much brigher lighting behind the face than on it--will be unchanged. that is, the entire shot will be brighter.

 

So, what I would do is one of these:

(1) if there is room on the histogram, increase exposure (spot metering on the face would just be one way to do that), and then burn the background in post to darken it.

(2) if there isn't room on the histogram to increase exposure, use the exposure you have, brighten the face by dodging, and darken the background.

 

 

 

Unless you are blowing out the highlights, no. The problem comes from underexpositing the face.

Paddle4 thanks very much for this. From the comments made I am now clearer as to where the problem lies. I tried to be too clever by half to get a clean sponsor's logo on the projector screen when shooting wide shots by exposing for the highlights on the screen. I maintained this exposure profile when I came in for close-ups hence the under-exposed subject. I checked the histogram at the time which was fairly balanced. After your comments I can see that there was scope to push the histogram further to the right to better expose for the subject and to react to any highlights from the screen in post. I have learned a couple of valuable lessons through this post. Thanks very much.

No, not enough light

 

Your pic looks ok, but the lady is still a little under-exposed by about 3/4 to 1 stop. Back lit subjects need more exposure.

Thanks Kmac - I initially thought it was a lens problem, but your contributions with others confirmed it is an exposure problem, Thanks again

After seeing the sample shot, I'll echo John's suggestion that the bright screen is fooling the meter into underexposing the back lit subjects. Either spot meter from the people's faces, or use exposure compensation to add maybe 0.7 EV to the exposure.

 

(A slight pop of flash would help too if it's permitted)

 

Also make sure the lens is spotlessly clean. Back lighting can cause flare and degrade contrast with a misty or dirty lens/filter.

Thanks rodeo_joe1, I appreciate your input

It may be that the delegates, who probably occupy a relatively small percentage of the frame area, are underexposed because the backlighting is dominating the scene. I would spot meter on the actual delegates, or depending on the exposure mode, dial in plus 1.5 or 2 exposure compensation. I would also consider using a higher ISO than 800 in an indoor situation with poor lighting. Posting example pictures would help.

Thanks John appreciate your input. In actual fact the stage lighting wasn't bad for an indoor event. I shoot manual and in this image I made an adjustment - iso - 1000/2.8@200mm with my 70-200mm

Maybe open the aperture up another stop or stop and a half, in relation to the shutter speed.

Thanks very much Kmac, so you are thinking I am getting too much light on the sensor?

I have noticed recently that in post, my images of delegates on stage during conferences lack overall definition and are grainy despite being in focus. The images are backlit from the large conference screen.

I shoot with a full-frame Canon with a 70-200mm lens @ 142mm. My settings were iso 800/f2.8/1/200th sec with a balanced histogram showing good overall exposure

My other images, candids etc away from the stage were perfect

Could it be that there is too much light coming into the sensor from the stage lighting that has contributed to the degradation of the image. Any advice appreciated.

Arlington