Posted by Larry Corbett on November 6, 2006 at 5:02 AM
Remembering back to film days, highlights were blown and nobody complained.
However these days any digital shot that gets put up here (usually mine :O( ) with white on them which are taken in bright sunlight where inevitably the whites will look hot and everybody shouts "blown highlights", IMHO white plumage in bright sunlight will always look hot.
Looking through a few books and mags for white plumaged birds in flight many taken by top pro's reveals that nearly all of them have hot whites...or blown highlights...and they're in print, they were successfull..they made money..despite having blown highlights.
Everyone always shouts blown highlights, but nobody ever offers advice on bringing out the detail in the whites, which in the case of many of my shots is usually there in the whites.
I have to admit to being a bit of a duffer when it comes to photoshop and image processing....
I'm more of a naturalist with a camera than a computer whizz with a camera..
So come on guys..how do we bring out the detail in the whites without under / over exposing and ruining the rest of image??
Just about to rush out on a job.... see my reply on your shelduck... there are other ways, will try to reply in more depth later, depaneds on what time I get back...
I wouldn't discount the under exposure route. It is often the easiest way you can correct of blown whites, and the correction is applied to all of the image rather than a selection ( which comps don't appear to like)
I expose for the whites and use the shadows and highlights to bring back the blacks. People don't really mind block black black's for we accept this as natural - whereas blown whites are hard to find in the natural world.
On high white subjects (especialy on bright days) I normally shoot at -1/3 or -2/3 ev to help acheive this without having to think about it.
Some form of post processing is always required... otherwise chose a dull/overcast day
T
Posted by John Gardner on November 6, 2006 at 6:07 AM
Hi Larry,
Seeing as you are a naturist with a camera, I do hope we don't bump into each other in the field unless you have a long lens hood to cover your modesty
John
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 6, 2006 at 6:10 AM
oops...
I type way too fast...
Posted by Tim Munsey on November 6, 2006 at 6:50 AM
Hi Larry,
My method, for what its worth, is to have the camera set in low contrast mode and chimp the histogram so its not off the righthand side, if it is I use exposure compensation to bring it back. It is however often possible to recover some blown areas with raw convertors so recently I have been allowing a small amount of the blinkies.
Cheers
Tim Munsey
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 6, 2006 at 6:53 AM
My method of obtaining an exposure for birds in flight (which I only do on a sunny day..when the sky is blue) is to take a spot meter reading off the blue sky by pointing the camera vertical right up high to where the sky is mid-toned, then I set my camera for 1/3rd -2/3rd's of a stop under exposure, or to spot meter the grass if there is any and again underexpose this mid-toned reading
Next time I do flight photography, I'm going to try using the flash with a fresnal screen to light up the undersides of the birds, and hope I don't blind them and make them crash..last time I used the fresnal screen on a bird (mallard) I nearly gave it a heart attack!!!.
It would be difficult to photograph birds in flight on an overcast day, even with fill flash
One thing I have noticed especially when setting ISO 320..might be the same for other settings too is if you grossly underexpose say by more than 1 stop then when you try to add light to the exposure in the raw convertor the image becomes really noisy, and looks awful
Posted by Phil Shaw on November 6, 2006 at 12:08 PM
My method of obtaining an exposure for birds in flight (which I only do on a sunny day..when the sky is blue) is to take a spot meter reading off the blue sky by pointing the camera vertical right up high to where the sky is mid-toned, then I set my camera for 1/3rd -2/3rd's of a stop under exposure, or to spot meter the grass if there is any and again underexpose this mid-toned reading
If you are locking-in the resulting exposure value in Manual mode then, assuming you have picked a mid-tone value to meter from, -2/3 should give you acceptable results most of the time when shooting with Canon equipment. If you are shooting with Nikon gear, then you will usually not have to compensate as there is a 2/3 stop difference in the ISO calibration between Canon and Nikon equipment.
Having said that, however, and using "Sunny-f16" exposure rules as a reference value, I have to dial in -1and 1/3 when shooting Jays in order to preserve detail in the white patches in the wing.
I agree with you Larry in that whites on birds in sunlight look blown out to the naked eye, and that photos of blown whites were, and may I say still are, commonplace. My advice is don't worry about it! If you underexpose a Shelduck by the way, the eye gets lost in the black head. Your image is just about perfect and needs no manipulation IMO.
Dave
Forest of Dean.
Posted by Sean Bolton on November 6, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Hi Larry
Firstly I agree with your comments that we are far more picky these days about image quality, and sometimes blowing the highlights a bit doesn't matter too much by the time you get to the printing stage.
Generally with my 20D and 5D I use evaluative metering with 1/3rd compensation. In very contrasty conditions and with subjects with strong blacks and whites (puffins, shelducks, etc) I will use -2/3rd or -1 compensation. I too would rather have the blacks a bit blacker and retain the detail in the whites. Some post processing (e.g. noise reduction and shadow adjustment) can bring the blacks and shadows up a bit, but once the whites are blown you have no chance to recover detail.
well I use one of three custom curves that I have loaded to my d2x curve 2 is especially for white birds on sunny days all I have to do then is apply a bit of exposure compensation to make sure the histogram doesn't fall off the right-hand edge.
Phillip.
Ps I also have the four shooting banks set slightly different with different curves saves me a lot of post processing.
Posted by Larry Corbett on November 6, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Luckily for me I bought the last 2 months Practical Photography Mags (which I still hadn't read), one has an aritcle on blending exposures and the other has an article on shadow/highlights
Anyhow I revisited the raw file and processed it underexposed by 2 stops, it seemed very dark but the detail was in the whites, I then used shadows, highlights, midtone contrast and colour correction to bring the detail back in the rest of the image, but the head was still very dark, I then saved the Tiff, made a copy of it and then opened both tiffs, then lightened one of the images to reveal as much eye detail as I dare.
Then used select all and copied the lighter image to the clip board, selected the darker image whith the detail in the whites and pasted the lighter image on to the top of it which created a new layer in the darker image.
I then selected the darker image and used the eraser to rub out the dark head to reveal the ligher head below. then flattened the layers and here you have it.
Looks much better I must say, but it took me a good hour, In future I will only carry out this procedure if I think it's a really good image. I came back from Slimbridge with over 400 images..I could be sat at this computer a looooong time....
Thanks everyone for your advice.
Posted by Sean Bolton on November 6, 2006 at 6:14 PM
Hi Larry
Your post processing has dramatically improved the shot. The exposure now looks accurate and the whites are fine, at least not greatly overexposed as before.
I think if you have a technically good shot, i.e. sharp, composed well, etc, then often some good post processing can really enhance and make the most of the image. I agree you wouldn't want to do it for 100's of shots and it is still best to get the original capture as good as possible.
Good work though, this RAW conversion stuff is a skill in itself.
Discussion
12 repliesHowever these days any digital shot that gets put up here (usually mine :O( ) with white on them which are taken in bright sunlight where inevitably the whites will look hot and everybody shouts "blown highlights", IMHO white plumage in bright sunlight will always look hot.
Looking through a few books and mags for white plumaged birds in flight many taken by top pro's reveals that nearly all of them have hot whites...or blown highlights...and they're in print, they were successfull..they made money..despite having blown highlights.
Everyone always shouts blown highlights, but nobody ever offers advice on bringing out the detail in the whites, which in the case of many of my shots is usually there in the whites.
I have to admit to being a bit of a duffer when it comes to photoshop and image processing....
I'm more of a naturalist with a camera than a computer whizz with a camera..
So come on guys..how do we bring out the detail in the whites without under / over exposing and ruining the rest of image??
Just about to rush out on a job.... see my reply on your shelduck... there are other ways, will try to reply in more depth later, depaneds on what time I get back...
All the best
Phil
I wouldn't discount the under exposure route. It is often the easiest way you can correct of blown whites, and the correction is applied to all of the image rather than a selection ( which comps don't appear to like)
I expose for the whites and use the shadows and highlights to bring back the blacks. People don't really mind block black black's for we accept this as natural - whereas blown whites are hard to find in the natural world.
On high white subjects (especialy on bright days) I normally shoot at -1/3 or -2/3 ev to help acheive this without having to think about it.
Some form of post processing is always required... otherwise chose a dull/overcast day
T
Seeing as you are a naturist with a camera, I do hope we don't bump into each other in the field unless you have a long lens hood to cover your modesty
John
I type way too fast...
My method, for what its worth, is to have the camera set in low contrast mode and chimp the histogram so its not off the righthand side, if it is I use exposure compensation to bring it back. It is however often possible to recover some blown areas with raw convertors so recently I have been allowing a small amount of the blinkies.
Cheers
Tim Munsey
Next time I do flight photography, I'm going to try using the flash with a fresnal screen to light up the undersides of the birds, and hope I don't blind them and make them crash..last time I used the fresnal screen on a bird (mallard) I nearly gave it a heart attack!!!.
It would be difficult to photograph birds in flight on an overcast day, even with fill flash
One thing I have noticed especially when setting ISO 320..might be the same for other settings too is if you grossly underexpose say by more than 1 stop then when you try to add light to the exposure in the raw convertor the image becomes really noisy, and looks awful
If you are locking-in the resulting exposure value in Manual mode then, assuming you have picked a mid-tone value to meter from, -2/3 should give you acceptable results most of the time when shooting with Canon equipment. If you are shooting with Nikon gear, then you will usually not have to compensate as there is a 2/3 stop difference in the ISO calibration between Canon and Nikon equipment.
Having said that, however, and using "Sunny-f16" exposure rules as a reference value, I have to dial in -1and 1/3 when shooting Jays in order to preserve detail in the white patches in the wing.
Dave
Forest of Dean.
Firstly I agree with your comments that we are far more picky these days about image quality, and sometimes blowing the highlights a bit doesn't matter too much by the time you get to the printing stage.
Generally with my 20D and 5D I use evaluative metering with 1/3rd compensation. In very contrasty conditions and with subjects with strong blacks and whites (puffins, shelducks, etc) I will use -2/3rd or -1 compensation. I too would rather have the blacks a bit blacker and retain the detail in the whites. Some post processing (e.g. noise reduction and shadow adjustment) can bring the blacks and shadows up a bit, but once the whites are blown you have no chance to recover detail.
cheers
Sean
Phillip.
Ps I also have the four shooting banks set slightly different with different curves saves me a lot of post processing.
Anyhow I revisited the raw file and processed it underexposed by 2 stops, it seemed very dark but the detail was in the whites, I then used shadows, highlights, midtone contrast and colour correction to bring the detail back in the rest of the image, but the head was still very dark, I then saved the Tiff, made a copy of it and then opened both tiffs, then lightened one of the images to reveal as much eye detail as I dare.
Then used select all and copied the lighter image to the clip board, selected the darker image whith the detail in the whites and pasted the lighter image on to the top of it which created a new layer in the darker image.
I then selected the darker image and used the eraser to rub out the dark head to reveal the ligher head below. then flattened the layers and here you have it.
Looks much better I must say, but it took me a good hour, In future I will only carry out this procedure if I think it's a really good image. I came back from Slimbridge with over 400 images..I could be sat at this computer a looooong time....
Thanks everyone for your advice.
Your post processing has dramatically improved the shot. The exposure now looks accurate and the whites are fine, at least not greatly overexposed as before.
I think if you have a technically good shot, i.e. sharp, composed well, etc, then often some good post processing can really enhance and make the most of the image. I agree you wouldn't want to do it for 100's of shots and it is still best to get the original capture as good as possible.
Good work though, this RAW conversion stuff is a skill in itself.
cheers
Sean