Blown highlights or underexpose?

How do I keep from blowing out the highlights on a waterfall without underexposing the rest of the image? From my understanding a proper exposure will show the pixels leaning toward the right side of the histogram, but when I do that the highlights are always way overexposed, and I can't adjust them enough on PSE to compensate. Should I underexpose the shadows and then lighten them to keep the water from getting blown out? That would contradict what I've been reading. Any suggestions on how to properly set up this shot of Chenuis Falls?

Nikon D5000
Nikkor 18-55 @48mm w/CP
f/13 @1.00 sec
ISO 50

Thanks, Bruce

I can't give you a detailed explanation because I have never done a shot like this before, but my understanding is this:

You should bracket the images and then blend them (though I don't know if the moving water makes this more difficult). You also might have to use grad filters to allow for a longer exposure

- Luke

Thanks Luke. I've played around with Photomatix a very little bit, so far tone mapping eludes me. Did you mean ND filter rather than grad? It's my understanding a ND would reduce exposure throughout the entire image, not just the water.
BTW I checked out your gallery. Many of your wildlife and macro shots are superb.

Bruce,

If you want good detail in the high values (the water) you should expose for those values. If the dynamic range of the scene is greater than four or five stops, either the water will be blown and you'll have good low value detail, or the water will look fine and the low values will approach black. So, it's a trade off.

In a situation like this, I would expose for the water to get nice detail there. In PhotoShop I would use selections of the dark areas and then use a curves layer to bring them up. If the low values are too low, or you try to bring them too much, all that may happen is you'll see lots of noise.

You could try blending exposures, but it would be tricky. This is the type of scene that requires an overcast day so that the contrast is fairly flat. The tones and color could then be adjusted in post processing.

--P

What I have learned is to meter the bright white water and then adjust your exposure plus two stops. You adjust because your camera will try to expose the white water as a med grey. Use spot metering to get only the hottest part of the water. Since the water is the subject of the photo you should get that right and work on the rest in post.

John

Yes, I did mean ND not Grad - sorry!

The problem here is not metering or filters. It's simply that the scene has more dynamic range than the camera can capture in the way that you want. There's no way around it. That's what Preston was getting at. He also gave you what I think is by far the best option - that is to expose making sure the highlights aren't blown, and bring up the dark areas in PS. If you expose so that the histogram just barely hits the right side, you should capture the max amount of detail, although that will then require some highlight recovery in RAW conversion.

An ND filter won't help you because it will just lengthen your exposure for the same results.

So here's what I'd do....
-- Shoot RAW
-- Make several exposure at various shutter speeds to have the histogram barely miss or barely hit the right side. This will capture all of the highlight data, and get the best exposure in the shadows you can while not losing the highlights
-- Recover highlights in PS to be what you want
-- Use curves or selections with levels/exposure/brightness to bring up the darker areas

Good luck!

Bruce,

This looks like it was shot on a sunny day with bright skies and there's almost no way to expose a waterfall scene with direct sunlight. Your only option is too expose for the water and hope you can work the rest of the scene in post processing. A scene like this needs overcast skies or open shade, etc. Better to wait for better lighting when the dynamic range is narrower.

Barry

Thanks everyone for your comments and advice. I'll try the suggested techniques, but David's method will require a more advanced understanding of photo editing that I have right now, but I'll be there soon. I actually have a photo of Christine Falls in my gallery and the water is looking pretty good IMO, but as Barry said it was a very overcast day. However in the photo above, the sky was lightly overcast and there was a lot of tree cover so I thought it would be fine. But the sun was low and behind me allowing the light to come through. I think the reason the image looks so flat is because the light source was directly behind me.

Well if you don't want to work too much in post processing, Barry's advice is probably best Bruce. Early morning or late evening will drastically shrink the dynamic range in a waterfall scene, and you'll get the streaky water without having to worry too much about blowing out highlights.

Even following what I said, depending on the light, there's only so much you can do - the camera can only capture a certain range from bright to dark, and it's significantly less than a sunny waterfall scene.

David, I'm learning photo editing along with all the other stuff associated with nature photography, or at least trying to. To produce the kind of images that I like I will eventually need to post process fairly extensively I think. It's a steep learning curve since prior to 08/2009 I knew zero about photography. But I've really been enjoying getting out there and I'm at the point now where I can ocassionally take a shot worth sharing IMO. Thanks,

No problem Bruce - feel free to post whatever questions you have - there's a lot of helpful folks on here. I've only been at this for about 4 years myself...

Bruce,
Most cameras can see about 6 "stops" of exposure range in one photo. Your eyes can see 12+ stops. The conversations above are very good talking about the best times to get one shot, one print, but in some circumstances, it's still impossible with the gear available today. The trick is to bracket the photo, taking several shots at different shutter speeds as David describes. Most modern cameras will auto-bracket for you, taking one shot below the metered setting, and one above - you get to pick how many stops above & below it shoots. Some cameras allow for two shots on each side of the metered middle value. You can manually shoot as many variations as you wish. Vary the shutter speed, not the aperature setting. Then blending is the trick. Photomatix is amazing if you are taking a subject that does not move at all. Outdoors, with creeks & blowing leaves, it creates a lot of ghosting that's tough to get around. It's best to use layers in Photoshop with multiple images, and masking out the areas that are blown out or under-exposed. There's an art to it to make it look natural, and some purists will go nuts with my suggestion, as they consider it to be cheating somehow. Good luck with the efforts!

Bruce,

John's suggestion to use spot metering is excellent. When you meter various areas of the water be sure to not base your exposure on specular highlights, since these will be many stops brighter than surrounding parts of the scene.

Also, compensating your exposure by two full stops may cause some areas to be over-exposed. I find that compensating by +1.5 or +1.6 works nicely. You'll have to experiment to see how much compensation will give the best results.

If the high values are lacking in detail, no amount of postprocessing will put detail there. This is true whether one uses digital capture or film. The same applies to low values: if there is no detail in significant shadow areas, you can't retrieve it.

I should add that I shoot 4x5, and use a spotmeter. I don't have a histogram on my ground glass , so I have to rely on my testing and experience to obtain proper exposure. My point is that having an understanding of how the medium responds, and being able to evaluate with our eyes the quality of the light in a given scene, one's results will be consistent.

--P

Thanks for all the great advice. Awhile back I dowloaded the trial version of Photomatix and took some shots using AE bracketing as Wick suggested. After a few unsuccessful attempts at tone mapping I decided blending and HDR would have to come later, after all I'm still learning the basics of digital photography. I certainly want to move forward, but I learn best when I implement a step-by-step process instead of trying to comprehend everything all at once. I think the best approach for me at this point is to meter for the bright water and bring the shadows up in post processing as several have suggested. Thanks again, NPN is a gold mine of info!

Hi Bruce,

Your on the right tract for sure. Your question is basically my first tutorial on my new website. It hasn't gone live yet, but it should in another 30 days or so. I've included 12 tips to shooting better water and stream photos. Hopefully you'll get a chance to check it out.

If this happens to be a place that you can return to (ie: close to home or so area you visit often) sometimes it's better to wait for better light. I find bracketing and layering and all these tricks for perfect exposure across a broad dynamic range in an image beyond the scope of my abilities as well. Lowering the Iso to 100 and making the aperture higher will slow shutter speed but not enough in direct sunlight to blur the water. I'm no expert in shooting cacades or waterfalls though.

Paul

I would not consider myself an expert on any this or type of photography BUT moving water IS my favorite type of photography. Most of this has already been covered but, early morning late evening is the best times. I will even be out in the rain because the flater light will help even out the scene and you can work streams all day long. Watch not only the intensity of the light but the direction not in relation to your camera but to the stream. Even softer light If it is coming parallel to the stream will make the whitewater brighter than if coming from the side because from the side the trees will still cast a shadow on the whitewater helping to bring down the brightness even more, you just dont notice it as much as a shadow on a sunny day. (which is a good thing in your photograph) One thing I noticed while photographing one of my favorite sections of stream on my fall trip to North Carolina last year that I had not noticed before. Even with soft light (very low light) almost dusk the water levels were higher than any other time I had been there creating a more turbulent cascade than before, thus creating a greater and seemingly brighter area of whitewater to deal with. Even that late in the day I could not get detail in that section of water with any decent amount of light on the fall leaves. An exposure that gave detail in the water left the rest of the shot looking like a night photo. An exposure that gave good detail in the rocks, trees etc. blew out one section of water. The only way I know around those situations is to blend two or more exposures. I haven't done it on the shot that I just described because once I got it on the computer I did not like me composition, but I have done blended other scenes and I'm not that hot with photoshop so if I can learn it anyone can.

Bruce

Michael, took a peek at your website. Gorgeous work, not excessively edtited, very natural. A 10+. Like you, I find the connection between nature and spirituality is undeniable. Can't wait to check out the new site. Keep up the good work, photographic and otherwise.

Paul, yes it's a 1/2 hr drive and 4 mile hike and I'll be returning soon. Actually I don't think the intensity of the light was as much a problen as its direction as Bruce stated is an important consideration. A lightly overcast sky was filtering through the canopy, but most of the light was coming from directly behind me, hence blown highlights and no depth.

Bruce, your comment is loaded with great info. Thanks.